FROM: NGA Reston / OMSF (Mr. Mike Riley)

TO: FLIP Coordinating Committee (FCC) Membership

SUBJECT: FCC 04-2 Meeting Minutes

DATE: 19-20 October 2004

PLACE: Arsenal Credit Union Conference Room, Arnold, MO

1. PARTICIPANTS:Chairman (Navy Member) Mr. Joe Messina / CNO / d 288-3473 / mailto:joseph.messina@navy.milAir Force MemberLt Col Dan Pixley / HQ AFFSA XOIA / d857-2118 / daniel.pixley@andrews.af.milArmy MemberMr. Walt Perron / USAASA/ATAS-AI / d 656-4410 / perronw@belvoir.army.milExecutive Secretary/NGA Reston DFF RepresentativeMr. Mike Riley / NGA OMSF / d 570-7293 / rileym@NGA.milParticipants (Random Order)Mr. Bob Jensen / NGA PVA / d 693-4646 / jensenb@nga.mil Mr. Kevin Bettis / DLA / d 695-1548 / Kevin.bettis@dla.milMr. Rick Funkhouser / AFFSA / d 857-6721 / rick.funkhouser@andrews.af.milMr. Larry Glick / NGA PVA / d 693-4984 / glickld@NGA.mil Mr. John Ingram / NGA PVA / d 693-4646 / ingramjr@NGA.milMr. Jerry Leicht / NGA PVA / d 693-4636 / leichtjj@NGA.milSsgt James Tadlock / DLA / d 695-6500 / james.tadllock@dla.milMr. Larry Wiseman / AFFSA XOIP / d 857-2208 / larry.wiseman@andrews.af.milLt Col Greg Clark / AMC STANEVAL / 618-229-3631 / gregory.clark1@scott.af.milMr. Matt Rush / AMC A36A / 618-229-3677 / matthew.rush@scott.AF.milMr. Craig Booth / NGA EDMGA / 314-260-5025 / boothc@nga.milMr. Craig Johnson / NGA PVAH / 314-263-4636 / johnsoncf@nga.milMs. Kelly Waymire / NGA PVAH/ 314-263-4636 / waymirek@nga.milLTC Dave Long / USAASA ATAS-AI / d 314-373-8709 / dave.long@hq.hqusareur.army.milMr. Jeff Struyk / NGA PVAI / 314-263-4272 / jeffrey.c.struyk@nga.milMr. John Thomas / NGA EDGMA / 314-260-5025 / thmasje2@nga.mil

2. ADMINISTRATIVE DETAILS: For Security convenience, the meeting was held at the Arsenal Credit Union facility at Arnold, MO. The FCC Chairman (Mr. Joe Messina) opened the meeting at 0900; AFFSA Representative explained the installation’s layout and the facilities available.

3. DISCUSSIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS: Briefing: 01-1Subject: Airfield Survey and Stereo Airfield Collection Update Initiated by: Mr. Tom Bowes Summary: The AI funding had been substantially cut to a point where only 250 to 300 of the original 992 airfields would be surveyed. The biggest program cuts were centered on photogrammetric work years, which are used to compile surveyed information (18.6 work years down to 4.6 wkyrs). NGA has committed to approximately 200 airfields, leaving a delta of only 50-100 uncommitted airfields remaining. The group agreed to conduct a Technical Exchange Meeting (TEM), 12 June 01, at the AFFSA Conference Room, Andrews AFB to further discusses the implication and customer options. NGA/PCO (Mike Riley) will coordinate the TEM and send a message to the services clarifying NGAs position. During the TEM, AFFSA adjusted the survey priority negating the need for a message. 03-1: Mr. Bowes announced the FY03 Funding Cut to the program and work on the program is coming to a grinding halt. NGA will continue to process contracted surveys currently in work, but will not process any addition data sets until funding has been restored. Also, NGA STL stated they were drafting a memo officially announcing the status of the AI effort. 03-2: NGA POR and PVA met with the FCC members and their representatives on 26 and 27 August to discuss streamlining the production process. NGA recommended minimizing ground

surveys and maximizing photogrammetric solutions. During a meeting, AFFSA agreed to set up additional meetings to define and readjust the survey requirement. NGA PVA announced that they would soon be briefing NGA P / Mr. Coughlin on their recommended changes to the process with the intent of implement shortly after. NGA POR recommends that PVA validate any recommendations with FCC members before briefing to Mr. Coughlin. 04-1: NGA reorganized the AI process since the last meeting by separating the process into two separate departments. PVA is responsible for providing photogrammetric data and PTRG is responsible for Geodetic Survey data. PVA will continue to work on the original list of over 970 airfields. PTRG requested a new survey requirements list from the services with submission through their appropriate service Functional Managers. Air Force and Navy has submitted lists, but submission of Army list is uncertain as of this date. 04-2: NGA PVA commented that the SAC program had some funding shortfalls for FY05, but did not elaborate on its impact to customer support. Mr. Eric Werner / 314-263-4777 / “wernere@nga.mil” was identified as the POC for conventional surveys.Action: FCC members agreed to work this issue up through their chain of command determining mission impacts and their agency course of action. Tom Bowes was tasked to provide POCs who deal with the POMing process to FCC. 04-1: PVA and PTRG continue to work on survey requirements as prioritized by the service functional managers. 04-2: No change(Note: The Priority/Criticality for completing this item can be found in “SECTION 11” of this document.)Status: Open

4. FLIP MAINTAINENCE WORKING GROUP (FMWG) Report: OPR: AFFSA a. The European Theater Working Group met at the Weinheim, GE on 9-10 June. Pertinent agenda items have been added as FCC agenda items. The next meeting is scheduled for 8-9 Dec 04 at the Weinheim, GE.b. Pacific Theater Working Group met at Hickam AFB on 18-19 Feb 04. Pertinent agenda items have been added as FCC agenda items. Next meeting scheduled TBD, expect 12-13 Jan 05. c. C&SA Theater Working Group met in Key West, FL on 3-4 Feb 04. Pertinent agenda items have been added as FCC agenda items. The next meeting will be held Feb 05 in Key West, FL.

5. CHART WORKING GROUP (ECWG) ReportOPR: AFFSA04-2: No outstanding issues to warrant a meeting.

6. DIGITAL WORKING GROUP (DWG) Report OPR: USA04-1: The last meeting was held 5-7 October 04, Ft Walton Beach, FL. Pertinent issues were identified and have been submitted for FCC discussion. The Next DWG meeting will be held three weeks prior to the FCC meeting at an undetermined location.

7. U.S. Government Forum Reports: OPR: NGAa. SAE G-10: 04-1: SAE G-10 had not met since last FCC. SAE-G-10 is working on the final draft of the ARD Electronic Display of Aeronautical Information. The next topic for the G-10 is to update the ARD on aeronautical symbols to include electronic symbols. 04-2: NGA OMS/PVA representatives attended 24-27 August 04 meeting. They reported that the committee will request FAA to establish symbology standards for Navigation Systems Certification and will also petition ICAO to establish similar symbols standard.

b. Government Air Charting Forum Report (ACF): 04-2: ACF IAP group met 25 October 04 and Charting group met 27-28 October 04. Next Meeting scheduled for May 05 at NACO Silver Springs Facility.

8. Other:

2

9. AGENDA ITEM STATUS TABLE Item Status A

FArmy

Navy

PVA

OMSF

Title

PART 1: IACC REPORTRD 520 Open X Charting of Compulsory Reporting WaypointsRD 528 Open X X X X X WaypointsRD 540 Open X Broadcast StationsRD555 Open X Planview Leader Lines in LegendRD562 Open X Depicting Taxiways on Airport SketchesRD564 Open X Paired VHF Frequencies With TACAN ChannelsRD567 Open X RVR TableRD568 Open X Charting Unverified Airports on SectionalsRD569 Open X Charting Notes on Airport DiagramsRD570 Open X Depiction of the Class B Airspace NameRD571 Open X Supplement Alaska Table of Contents RD572 Open X Mountain Pass GraphicRD573 Open X Availability of ASR/PAR on TPP ChartsRD574 Open X Non-Towered Communication Data on Airport DiagramsRD575 Open X NOTAM Definition on Chart LegendsRD576 Open X TPP Legend Decision Height

PART 2: OLD BUSINESS96-01-06 Open X X Volpe Format for Instrument Approach charts00-02-02 Open X NAVAID Use Limitations Code00-02-11 Open X X VFR Arr/Dep Books on CD/Web01-02-18 Open X RNP & RVSM information in AP & GP01-02-22 Open X NACO IAP Procedures on DAFIF/Web02-01-03 Open X Changing PAA chart cycle02-01-27 Open X X X X X Eliminating U.S. DoD IAP and IFR Supplement Publications02-02-01 Open X X X X X (Jeppesen) Atlantic Orientation Charts02-02-07 Open X X X X X DAFIF Terminator Paths (Leg Coding)03-01-09 Open X X X X X Long-Term DAFIF Viability03-02-02 Open X Add SID/STAR Identifier Code to DoD Terminal Procedures 03-02-07 Open X X X X X FLIP on Disk Media (CD or DVD) with Browser Function03-02-10 Open X X Changes to NGA PS/1FA/009 and 091 Product Production Specifications03-02-12 Open X X Spot Elevation Data 03-02-20 Open X X Acquisition of U.S. Low Enroute Charts04-01-01 Open X Airport Operating Hours04-01-02 Open X Runway Bearing Strength 04-01-08 Open X X X X X Rescale ENAME Enroute Charts (Co-Production)04-01-09 Open X X X X X Removal of Extended Panels (Co-Production)04-01-10 Open X X X X X ENAME Enroute Charts Re-schema (Co-Production)04-01-11 Open X X Elimination of AP-1A, 2A, 3A, 4A paper publication04-01-12 Open X Reduce Distribution of all Textual FLIP Products04-01-15 Open X X X X X Digital FLIP Data04-01-16 Open X X X X X Restricted Public Access04-01-18 Open X X X X X SMGCS Charts04-01-21 Open X Timeliness of FLIP products04-01-24 Open X Enroute Supplement Section C Cruising Altitude Entries (TFMWG-E 02-1-12) 04-01-28 Open X X X Crisis Support Instrument Procedures04-01-29 Open X X X X X MTR Charts

3

04-01-30 Open X Route and Restriction Information from EuroControlPART 3: NEW BUSINESS

04-02-01 Open X X X X X DAFIF Effective Date/Time (04-01-01 DWG)04-02-02 Open X Heliport Length/Width Changes (04-02-06 DWG)04-02-03 Open X MLS Glide Slope (03-02-13 DWG)04-02-04 Open X Boundary and SUAS Shape Attribute (04-02-01 DWG)04-02-07 Open X GP- DAFIF/Digital Product Error Reporting Process04-02-08 Open X U.S. HIGH H-1204-02-09 Open X X X X Tasks for processing TERMINAL Instrument Procedures (FTIP)

04-02-10 Open X DAFIF depiction of floor of controlled airspace is incorrect and misleading (04-02-14 DWG)

04-02-11 Open Area Planning Document Reformatting (TFMWG-E 99-02-03) 04-02-12 Open X X General Planning Document Reformatting04-02-13 Open X RNAV Loose-Leaf Procedures in DAFIF

ATTACHMENT 1: CLOSED/WITHDRAWN ITEMSRD546 Closed Communication Frequencies Operating less than ContinuousRD 548 Closed Charting of NRS Waypoints on IFR Enroute High Altitude Charts.RD 551 Closed NOTAM Definition on Enroute Chart LegendsRD553 Withdrawn Procedures Not in NFD RD554 Closed Flyover SymbologyRD556 Closed ASR Symbol on Visual ChartsRD557 Closed RNAV Holding Pattern Leg LengthsRD558 Closed Airport Identifiers on WACsRD559 Closed ISO Statement on TPPRD560 Closed High Altitude-Enroute Flight Advisory Service (HA-EFAS) FrequenciesRD561 Closed Next Fix/Navaid Data on U.S Enroute High ChartsRD563 Closed U.S. Terminal Procedures Publication Area of Coverage Graphic00-01-25 Closed ENAME & EEA Chart Realignment00-01-26 Closed Addition of ICAO to airport data block on IFR Enroute Charts. 01-02-15 Closed Runway Slope02-01-09 Closed Waypoint Publication02-01-16 Closed Terminal Procedures Flag for Terrain Impacted Airports02-01-21 Closed Airport/Heliport Communication02-01-29 Closed DAFIF Edition 802-02-03 Closed Create New FIR and UIR Sector Symbols02-02-14 Closed Depiction of CDR (Conditional Routes) on DoD Enroute Charts03-01-01 Closed Publishing SIDs Without a Departure Route Description03-01-07 Closed Non-Standard International Boundary Symbols03-02-01 Closed Depict CNF's on Terminal Procedures03-02-09 Closed Identifying Amended Web Based IAPs03-02-16 Closed DAFIF on DVD (02-2-12 DWG)03-02-17 Closed ICAO REGION DATASET 0 (03-2-01 DWG)03-02-18 Closed ICAO IDENTS/3-LETTER IDENT (03-2-02 DWG)04-01-04 Closed Closed Data Box Depiction04-01-05 Closed Boundary text Order04-01-06 Closed ATS Bypass Symbol04-01-07 Closed Compass Rose Removal04-01-14 Withdrawn Global Reach FLIP04-01-19 Closed Amendments for RADAR, TAKE-OFF-OBSTACLE SIDS, etc.04-01-23 Closed MTR Mnemonic Names (DWG 04-1-02)04-01-25 Closed Effective Time for New DOD FLIP Editions (TFMWG-E 02-2-04)

4

04-01-26 Closed PAA BACKLOG 04-01-27 Closed Format Change to Communication Section IFR SUPP04-02-05 Closed DoD/NGA Contractions, Abbreviations & Acronyms (TFMWG-E 04-1-03) 04-02-06 Withdrawn NGA PS/1FA/009 and 091 Product Production Specifications

10. FCC AGENGA ITEMS

Part 1: IACC REPORT:OPR: NGAThe Inter-agency Aeronautical Coordinating Committee (IACC) is a congressional mandated committee instituted to promote aeronautical chart standardization and minimize product redundancy. Requirement Documents (RD) are recommendations generated through the Government Aeronautical Charting Forum (ACF), which is the US Government (FAA) customer forum with participants from FAA, DoD/NGA and several civil aviation organizations such as the Airline Pilots Association, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, Federal Express, American Airlines, etc., Once approved by the ACF members, RDs are submitted to the IACC for approval. Approval from the Federal Aviation Administration, Nation Aeronautical Charting Office (NACO) and the Department of Defense is required for implementation into US Government FLIP Product Specifications and NGA represents DoD in the IACC as the authoritative signature.The FCC has three opinions when considering an RD: 1) “Concur”, which approves the requirement for FAA and NGA implementation, 2) “Concur with Exception”, which authorizes FAA/NACO to include the recommendation into the FAA product, but does not require NGA to implement because the FCC did not consider it essential to support the DoD foreign mission requirement, and 3) “Non-Concur”, which blocks implementation into US and DoD Products.

RD520: Charting of Compulsory Reporting WaypointsBackground: The traditional way to indicate a compulsory reporting requirement is to use a filled in triangle. The ACF’s RNAV Transition Working Group has discussed this issue over several meetings and concluded that putting a triangle inside of a waypoint indicates that there is a fix co-located at that point, thereby causing confusion for a non RNAV equipped pilot. The pilot may believe that they can identify that point by ground based NAVAIDs, when in fact; the only way to identify the point is through a database. Additionally, placing a triangle in the middle of a waypoint symbol means that you have to have the overall symbol much larger electronically to retain the look of the symbol. Because symbol ‘resolution’ on paper is much better than on an electronic display, what is an easily recognizable symbol on paper may be ambiguous and difficult to differentiate from a similar symbol in an electronic display, with all its pixel limitations. Requirement: Chart compulsory reporting waypoints with the center of the waypoint completely filled in.Comment: Affects US and DoD products.Action: FCC Non-concurred. FCC elected to use the ICAO depiction of Compulsory Waypoint (e.g., display triangle within waypoint; filled in triangle =compulsory; open triangle=non-compulsory). DoD Flight Standards representatives will attend RNAV Working Group to express DoD depiction preference. 02-1: Correct depiction still under OCP WG and RNAV WG consideration, but compromise looks promising at this time. The services, in an effort to standardize, agreed to accept whatever FAA/ICAO determines as acceptable. 02-3: MPOCs Staffing. 03-1: No change. 03-2: no change. 04-1: IACC members directed MPOC to investigate alternate proposal, which can be accepted by DoD and General Aviation. MPOC Staffing. 04-2: NGA stated that they would be depicting RNAV waypoints in accordance with guidance established by FCC during 01-2 meeting. Status: Open

RD528: Waypoints BACKGROUND: The RNAV Transition Working Group (TWG) has identified several issues that will affect the charting of waypoints. The RNAV TWG recommended that offshore waypoints, created to replace offshore reporting points, be charted with coordinates; this in addition to the name and four-pointed star. Coordinates are necessary only for navigation computers without an on-board database. IACC RD 491 states that waypoints are charted only with the four-pointed star and assigned five-letter name; it does not

5

allow the charting of coordinates. This proposed RD would modify that policy by allowing the charting of coordinates only on offshore waypoints that are not constructed with radials/bearings/DMEs from ground-based NAVAIDs. Offshore reporting points are currently charted with coordinates and some are constructed with radials/bearings/DM Es from ground-based NAVAIDs. Reporting points constructed accordingly will generally not be converted to waypoints.The RNAV TWG also recommended that when waypoints are created as part of the airway description, the airway line should be broken for the waypoint symbol and leg mileages on either side of the waypoint should be depicted, but that no course, track, or heading data should be shown.REQUIREMENT: Waypoints created due to the conversion of offshore reporting points will have coordinates charted, in addition to the four-pointed star symbol and assigned five-letter name. Waypoints created for use over land will continue to be charted only with the four-pointed star and assigned five-letter name. Waypoints created, as part of an airway description will have the airway line broken for the waypoint symbol, with leg mileages shown on the airway either side of the waypoint.Comment: Affects US and DoD products.Action: FCC will survey service units to validate or reject adding coordinates on Oceanic Routes. 02-3: MPOC Staffing. 03-1: FCC concurred with adding coordinates to Off Shore Waypoints. MPOC Staffing. 03-2: FAA/ATP and the AISWG are addressing this issue for resolution. No change. 04-1: No Change. 04-2: NACO rewrote the RD to incorporate the DoD recommendation. MPOC recommends FCC approval.Status: Open

RD 536 Reinstate – U.S. and Alaska High and Low Enroute Charts Re-schema (also in the status table).

RD540: Broadcast Stations BACKGROUND: Broadcast stations are depicted on TACs, Sectionals, WACs and Helicopter Route charts. Unless specifically requested by appropriate authority, a station has to meet stringent criteria to be charted, e.g., areas where adequate navaids are lacking, operating in the 500-900Khz band, 1000w output power and, operating 14 hours a day. While the specific location of the transmitting antenna is to be charted with a symbol, very few antenna locations are designated and only the data box with the frequency and call sign are charted in the general vicinity. Cross-checking the information in the DOF, which contains FCC data, many times results in erroneous frequencies and call letters. Pilots have commented that the usefulness of broadcast stations for navigation is non-existent to extremely limited, but that you can listen to ball games, music, talk shows, etc. Entertainment is not a charting factor. Data on visual charts should assist the pilot in navigation or situational awareness; charting broadcast stations does neither. REQUIREMENT: Delete the requirement to show Broadcast stations, except when specifically requested by proper authority.

Delete IACC 2, Ch III, and Para 9.c. (8)(a) and (b) and replace with: Commercial broadcast stations shall be shown when specifically requested by proper authority.

Delete IACC 3, Ch III, and Para 10.c. (7)(a) and (b) and replace with: Commercial broadcast stations shall be shown when specifically requested by proper authority.

Change IACC 15, Ch III, Para 9.c. (6)(a) to read: Commercial broadcast stations shall be shown when specifically requested by proper authority.Action: FCC concurred. MPOC Staffing. 3-2: DoD and NACO concurred. ATA staffing. 04-1: No change. 04-2: No Change.Status: Open.

RD555: Planview Leader Lines in Legend BACKGROUND: The leader lines to named intersections shown in the planviews of TPPs have a striking similarity to the Glide Slope Intercept leader line in the profile. The difference between the two is that the Glide Slope Intercept leader line has an ‘arrowhead’ on the end of it and the planview leader lines do not. When looking at the planview, this minor difference is sometimes not discerned and a named point is mistaken for a Glide Slope Intercept point. REQUIREMENT: Add to IACC 4, Appendix D, Planview Symbols, Reporting Point/Fixes section, a new planview leader line icon into the existing ARC/DME/RNAV fix point. The planview leader line will point to the vertical fix line and be labeled ‘AUSTIN INT’.COMMENTS: This affects IACC Specification 4. Action: FCC non-concurred stating the proposed “Lightening Bolt w/o arrowhead” (used as a pointer to intersections) could be easily confused with the “Lightening Bolt w/ arrowhead” (used to indicate GS intercept). Furthermore, the FCC member requested a new IACC RD be submitted replacing the

6

“Lightening Bolt w/o arrowhead” symbol with “Straight-line w/arrowhead” symbol, which is used as a pointer to a route segment.a. NGA requested FCC written documentation of non-concurrence to the IACC since the IACC rules for Non-Concur require a written statement to the reasons for disapproving the request. 04-2: No response from FCC.b. Furthermore, NGA request assistance in compiling a new IACC Requirement Document changing the “Lightening Bolt w/o arrowhead” to a “Straight-line w/arrowhead”???? 04-2: No response from FCC representatives.Status: Open.

RD562: Depicting Taxiways on Airport SketchesBACKGROUND: Numerous airport taxiways are unpaved, gravel, sod, or other than hard surfaced. This information is invaluable to pilots and is shown on airport sketches in the Airport/Facility Directory and the Alaska Supplement. However, current IAP specs require only hard surface taxiways, ramps and aprons to be depicted on airport sketches. This should be changed to require the depiction of all taxiways, aprons and hardstands/parking areas using the same symbology as is currently used in the A/FD and the Alaska Supplement. The current airport sketch/airport diagram legend and appendices in IACC Specification 4 can remain as written since it does not differentiate between hard surface and other-than-hard surface.REQUIREMENT: Change IACC 4, Ch III, para 4.e.(2)(b)1, to read:

“Taxiways, aprons and hardstands shall be shown using 120L/15%.”

COMMENTS: This affects IACC Specification 4. Action: FCC Concurred Off-line. 04-2: No Change.Status: Open for IACC signature.

RD564: Paired VHF Frequencies With TACAN Channels BACKGROUND: TACAN channels are currently published on the U.S. Terminal Procedures, IFR Enroute Low and High Altitude Charts, and in the Alaska Supplement. TACAN channels are traditionally used by military aircraft and do not indicate a paired VHF frequency. When the TACAN channel is integrated with VOR/DME facilities, the resulting VORTAC is published with both a VHF frequency and a DME/TACAN channel. Frequency pairing data is published in the Alaska Supplement and Airport/Facility Directory Legend, and a minimized list is published in the TPP Legend. Pilots indicated that publishing paired VHF frequency data on the charts would save time by not having to refer to the Airport/Facility Directory Legend at a critical time.It is proposed that the paired VHF frequency be published in the data block after the TACAN Channel, enabling civilian pilots a quick reference to the DME facility data. The paired VHF frequencies will be added to the TACAN data block on U.S. Terminal Procedures, Standard Terminal Arrivals, Departure Procedures, IFR Enroute Low and High Altitude Charts, Alaska Supplement, and the Airport/Facility Directory. REQUIREMENT: Add the paired VHF frequency to the TACAN data block after the TACAN Channel on U.S. Terminal Procedures, Standard Terminal Arrivals, Departure Procedures, IFR Enroute Low and High Altitude Charts, and Alaska Supplement (see attached examples).COMMENTS: This affects the following IACC Specifications: IACC 1, IACC 5, IACC 7, IACC 8, IACC 14 and IACC 17.Action: The FCC concurred with exception to DoD products.Status: Open.

RD567: RVR Table BACKGROUND:  At the Aeronautical Charting Forum, AFS-410 indicated that a change to the RVR Table and its use had been submitted and would be published in the August 2004 AIM. Since this table is in the TPP front matter, the table and the accompanying text will have to change to reflect the new policy and the AIM material. REQUIREMENT: Remove the current RVR/Meteorological Visibility Comparable Values text and table in the “TERMS/LANDING MINIMA DATA” section and replace with the following:

7

Comparable Values of RVR and Visibility

The following table shall be used for converting RVR to ground or flight visibility. For converting RVR values that fall between listed values, use the next higher RVR value; do not interpolate. For example, when converting 1800 RVR, use 2400 RVR with the resultant visibility of ½ mile.

COMMENTS: This affects IACC Specification 17, Appendix E1.Action: FCC approved through offline coordination. Coordinating IACC Signature.Status: Open.

RD568: Charting Unverified Airports on Sectionals BACKGROUND :   The Visual Chart Branch has been charting unverified airports on Sectional charts for several years. The requirement to chart these airports is not currently in the specification. This RD will modify the specification to conform to current practice. REQUIREMENT:Add to Ch III, a new para 3.9.2.1.1.7. to read:Unverified airports

Add to Ch III, a new para 3.9.2.10. to read:3.9.2.10. Unverified airports shall be depicted as shown in the Symbols Appendix with the type “AIRPORT”, followed beneath by three dashes indicating the absence of available information.COMMENTS: This affects IACC Specification 2.Action: FCC approved through offline coordination. Coordinating IACC Signature.Status: Open.

RD569: Charting Notes on Airport Diagrams BACKGROUND: The Instrument Procedures Branch has been adding notes to the airport diagrams for several years by special request. The requirement to chart notes is not currently in the specifications. This RD will modify the specification to conform to current practice.REQUIREMENT:Add to IACC 4, Chapter III, 5.b.(l) to read:(l) Operational notes shall be shown as requested by the appropriate authority. Type shall be 8 pt. Futura, font style regular, and all caps. An example of a charted note follows:

COMMENTS: This affects IACC Specification 4.Action: FCC approved through offline coordination. Coordinating IACC Signature.Status: Open.

RD570: Depiction of the Class B Airspace Name BACKGROUND: The Visual Chart Branch has been charting the Class B Airspace Name on Sectionals, TAC’s, and VFR Flyway charts for several years. The requirement to chart the airspace name is not currently in the IACC 2A Specifications. This RD will modify the specification to conform to current practice.

RVR Visibility(statute miles)

RVR Visibility(statute miles)

1600 ¼ 4500 ⅞2400 ½ 5000 13200 ⅝ 6000 1 ¼4000 ¾

8

REQUIREMENT:Add to IACC 2A, Chapter III, a new para 3.10.4.1.4 to read:The Class B airspace name shall be shown in solid blue at or near the North position, outside the boundary. Type shall be 9 pt. Trade Gothic Bold; e.g.

COMMENTS : This affects IACC Specification 2A.Action: FCC approved through offline coordination. Coordinating IACC Signature.Status: Open.

RD571: Supplement Alaska Table of Contents BACKGROUND: Notices are currently published in Section C of the Supplement Alaska. The notices are divided into five categories or types; i.e. Aeronautical Chart Bulletin, Special Notices, General Notices, Area Notices and Regulatory Notices. These notices are grouped together and published under the appropriate heading. Over the years the Notices Section has expanded from 30 pages to approximately 100 pages of data. The profusion of notices makes it difficult for the user to locate the desired information/data. Publishing a Table of Contents for the Notices Section will assist the user in locating critical data.REQUIREMENT: Modify Appendix A, Section C: Notices to read:Section C: Notices Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Add a table of contents for Section C prior to the Aeronautical Chart Bulletins. Format the table of contents as shown on the attached example, font type and style as currently used in Section E Table of Contents.COMMENTS: This affects IACC Specifications 8.Action: FCC approved through offline coordination. Coordinating IACC Signature.Status: Open.

RD572: Mountain Pass Graphic BACKGROUND: Throughout the last several years the Mountain Pass Working Group has been working towards publishing selected mountain pass graphics in the Airport/Facility Directory. AFS-400 will provide the initial five Colorado mountain pass graphics and corresponding textual data for publication in the Southwest Airport/Facility Directory for the 20 Jan 05 effective date. In addition, Mountain Pass Waypoints will be published in the National Flight Data Digest. These waypoints, depicting the entry and exit points of the mountain pass will be published on the mountain pass graphic and in the Waypoints section of the Airport/Facility Directory.REQUIREMENT: Change IACC 2, Chapter III, 8.h.(2) to read:Those of prominence shall be shown by symbol, name and elevation. Mountain passes with a published graphic in the Airport/Facility Directory will be shown with an asterisk ( * ) following the name in accordance with Appendix A, page 18 Mountain Passes.

Change IACC 2 Appendix A, page 18, Mountain Pass graphic, to include the mountain pass symbol, name, elevation, and associated text as shown:

Change IACC 3, Chapter III, 8.h.(2) to read: Those of prominence shall be shown by symbol, name and elevation. Mountain passes with a published graphic in the Airport/Facility Directory will be shown with an asterisk ( * ) following the name in accordance with Appendix A, page 18, Mountain Passes.

Change IACC 3 Appendix A, page 18, Mountain Pass graphic, to include the mountain pass symbol, name, elevation, and associated text as shown:

9

COMMENTS: This affects IACC Specification 2, and IACC 3.Action: FCC concurred. Coordinating IACC Signatures.Status: Open.

RD573: Availability of ASR/PAR on TPP Charts BACKGROUND: Currently, the IACC 4 Specifications do not address the charting of ASR, PAR or ASR/PAR in the Volpe format. Charting the availability of ASR, PAR or ASR/PAR was not addressed in the original requirement document (RD 496) and/or subsequent editorial change (EC 00-04). The charting of ASR, PAR has not been clearly defined, resulting in numerous inconsistencies on the TPP Charts. ASR, PAR, or ASR/PAR will be shown when available, in the Notes section, left justified and sequenced below the “A” IFR Alternate and/or “T” IFR Takeoff Minimum symbols. This RD will standardize the charting of ASR and PAR data, when available, by placing all minima data in one location. REQUIREMENT: The terms ASR, PAR or ASR/PAR will be shown, when available, in the Notes section, left justified and sequenced below the “A” IFR Alternate and/or “T” IFR Takeoff Minimum symbols as shown in the following example. Modify the corresponding appendices.

COMMENTS: This affects IACC Specification 4.Action: FCC recommended depicting ASR/PAR in accordance with DoD standard, which depicts ASR/PAR within an additional box located in the bottom right side of the frequency briefing box.Status: Open.

RD574: Non-Towered Communication Data on Airport Diagrams BACKGROUND: Currently, the IACC 4 Specifications state that communication information, when available, shall be shown, in the upper left corner of the Airport Diagram. Terminal communication information consisting of ATIS, TOWER, GND CON and CLNC DEL will be shown followed by the specific frequencies. Numerous Airport Diagrams have been developed for non-towered airports. Non-towered airports normally do not have the specified terminal communication data available; therefore, these Airport Diagrams are void of any communication data. Pilots would find communications to non-towered airports useful. Non-towered airport communications information consists of AWOS/ASOS, CTAF/UNICOM, and GCO frequencies.REQUIREMENT: Modify IACC 4, Chapter III, 5.b.(2) (n) d, to read:Clearance Delivery (CLNC DEL) At non-towered airports, the contact facility will be shown in parentheses after the frequency.

Add to IACC 4, Chapter III, 5.b.(2) (n) 4, a new paragraph. Terminal communication information, when available, shall be shown for non-towered airports, sequenced as shown above. Additional communications information, when available, will be depicted at non-towered airports in the following sequence: Automated Weather Observing System/Automated Surface Observing System (AWOS/ASOS), Common Traffic Advisory Frequency/Aeronautical Advisory Station (CTAF/UNICOM), and Ground Communication Outlet (GCO) frequencies. See Appendix J2.

Add to IACC 4 new Appendix J2 as shown on the attached example.COMMENTS: This affects IACC Specification 4.

10

Action: FCC concurred.Status: Open.

RD575: NOTAM Definition on Chart Legends BACKGROUND: RD 551 NOTAM Definition on Chart Legends added a definition of NOTAM in the Special Use Airspace tabulations. After further coordination with the NOTAM Procedures Office it has been determined that the definition of NOTAM currently published in the Special Use Airspace section should be modified. Due to space constraints the NOTAM definition as stated in RD 551 will be modified, deleting the parenthetical remark. Additionally, the explanatory note “Mon-Fri” will be deleted from the current tabulations, as this note is self-explanatory (see attachment A).REQUIREMENT: Change IACC 1, Chapter III, paragraph 2.b(1)(c)1 a, list of definitions, NOTAM –, to read:NOTAM – Use of this term in Restricted Areas indicates FAA and DoD NOTAM systems. Use of this term in all other Special Use areas indicates the DoD NOTAM system.

Change IACC 2, Chapter III, paragraph 3.b.(3)(a)5, list of definitions, NOTAM –, to read:NOTAM – Use of this term in Restricted Areas indicates FAA and DoD NOTAM systems. Use of this term in all other Special Use areas indicates the DoD NOTAM system.

Change IACC 3, Chapter III, paragraph 3.b.(3)(d), list of definitions, NOTAM –, to read:NOTAM – Use of this term in Restricted Areas indicates FAA and DoD NOTAM systems. Use of this term in all other Special Use areas indicates the DoD NOTAM system.

Change IACC 5, Chapter III, paragraph 3.a.(1)(c)2 a, list of definitions, NOTAM –, to read:NOTAM – Use of this term in Restricted Areas indicates FAA and DoD NOTAM systems. Use of this term in all other Special Use areas indicates the DoD NOTAM system.

Change IACC 15, Chapter II, paragraph 1.d. , list of definitions, NOTAM –, to read:NOTAM – Use of this term in Restricted Areas indicates FAA and DoD NOTAM systems. Use of this term in all other Special Use areas indicates the DoD NOTAM system.COMMENTS: This affects IACC Specification 1, 2, 3, 5, and IACC 15.Action: FCC Concurred.Status: Open.

RD576: TPP Legend Decision Height BACKGROUND: In support of International coordination, RD 547 modified the RNAV (GPS) Minima paragraphs in the Terms/Landing Minima Data Section of the Terminal Procedures Publication. In addition, the requirement document changed the chart terminology to support the new procedure types; DA (decision altitude) replaced the term DH (decision height). This requirement document identifies additional legend changes that were not identified in the original requirement. REQUIREMENT: Change IACC 17, Appendix E1, H2, and R, as indicated below.The LANDING MINIMA FORMAT table (page A1 TPP Legend), Appendix E1, replace DH with DA.The COPTER MINIMA ONLY table (page A2 TPP Legend), Appendix E1, replace DH with DA.The ABBREVIATIONS (page F2 TPP Legend), Appendix H2, replace DH… Decision Height with DA…Decision Altitude.The RADAR MINS Section (beginning on page N1 TPP Legend), Appendix R, replace at each airport the column header DH with DA (note that DH is shown twice in each header). COMMENTS: This affects IACC Specification 17. Action: FCC Concurred and will also change DoD IAP Legend. AFFSA agreed to submit FIL to NGA changing the legend information by next effective data.Status: Open.

Part 2: OLD BUSINESS

96-01-06: Volpe Format for Instrument Approach Procedures Discussion: See FCC 97-2 minutes for the background information prior to this entry.Actions: 98-2: The Air Charting Forum and the FCC approve in principle the adoption of the Volpe Format. Once the specification is finalized, NGA may begin publication in the format. The currently

11

agreed upon transition plan calls for the format change to happen by airfield. For instance, if an airfield has 4 approaches and new approach is added, the new approach will be done in the Volpe Format and all other approaches to that airfield will be converted to the Volpe format at that time. 98-3: This issue was given to the Ugly Baby Working Group. This study group will review existing requirements to insure that all of the ideas in this new product format do not conflict with the usability of the product. NGA will continue to participate in the study group and will update the FCC at the next meeting. 99-2: All studies have been completed and the IACC specifications should be published and distributed by November 99. The First Volpe procedure is expected to be published by NACO in February 00. NGA will identify resource/contracting requirements and coordinate a phased implementation with NACO. 00-1: Volpe format implementation started 24 February 00. NGA started POM process for full Volpe implementation -including color—within next two FY. NGA/GIMA brief the FCC on Volpe publishing problems and stated that some country approaches are so complex that they will need to be published using 2 to 3 pages per approach procedure. NGA agreed to develop a prototype for FCC concurrence. 00-2: NGA continues to staff the Volpe project. FAA/NACO has been converting all procedures to Volpe when a new RNAV procedure is published at a given airfield but was forced to break the agreement at the end of their Fiscal Year to meet FAA RNAV production quotas. FAA will clean up any short falls in the next FLIP cycle. 01-1: NGA stated that they are modifying Terminal Product Specification to include Volpe format information. Expect completion by NLT July 01. NGA announced that lack of resources due to severe budget cuts was preventing implementation of Volpe conversion within FY02 and possibly the next FY. (Implementation of requirement was unknown at this time.) NGA also stated that they would not be able to implement any additional aeronautical requirement until the budget issue was resolved. Col Zenk/ NGA PCO agreed to provide a written response stating NGAs position and its ability in fulfilling current and future Priority/Critical aeronautical requirements. 01-2: NGA reported progress in converting DoD procedures in US volumes by using overtime. DoD Low volumes 1, 2, and 3 have been converted and volumes 4 should be completed by next cycle. NGA also reported they have been $340k in FY02/03 POM dedicated towards the conversion process. 02-1: NGA STL stated that they were continuing the in-house conversion of standard IAPs to Volpe and announced a plan to out-source worldwide conversion via Omnibus contractors within one or two years. The FCC requested NGA continue to convert Volpe IAPs with the U.S. as the priority. 02-3: NGA reported that 50% of the U.S. volumes and 34% of Foreign Volumes had been converted to VOLPE Format. (Note: The Priority/Criticality for completing this item can be found in “SECTION 11” of this document.)Status: Open. Note: The FCC determined that RD 498 requirement should be moved from the discussion section and adding to this agenda item since terrain depiction will be accomplished during the Volpe conversions process: RD 498: Terrain Depiction on Instrument Approach Charts (IAP) Adds colored terrain on the plan view portion of all IAP charts for terrain-impacted airports. This change is connected to the Volpe format items. Color terrain will be added as current format is converted to Volpe. FAA has started implementing color changes and expects to complete the conversion to color within 4 years. 01-1: NGA started the Volpe conversion process but was forced to stop implementation in FY 02 due to budget cuts. Action: 00-1 FCC “Concurred”. IACC Members approved RD and directed changing the appropriate IACC and DoD Product Specifications. 01-1: NGA stated that Volpe and color terrain could not be implemented at this time due to budget constraints. The services requested Official Notice from NGA stating their inability to implement Volpe and Color Terrain on Foreign IAPs and US. Col Zenk agreed to draft a letter for NGA signature. 01-2: Recommend identifying this issue as a sub-issue of Volpe Conversion by attaching this issue to agenda items “ 96-1-06 Volpe Format for IAP Charts” 02 -1: NGA announced that implementation of terrain (color conversion) will be done as a separate action by NGA as the Omnibus contractors convert IAPs to Volpe format by Dec 03. This item is still awaiting printing contract funds to include terrain color not just Volpe format change. Some terrain-impacted charts are converted to Volpe and do not show terrain. 02-3: NGA will be testing new color processing capability starting with 31 October 02 U.S. Low TCN (3 procedures) 03-1 COMMENTS: 80% US complete, 95% Low IAPs done, 40% worldwide. Costs are $426K/yr for Vols 1-3. 312 Airports worldwide effected. Color terrain on DoD instrument approach procedures has not funded. NGA continues to convert procedures to VOLPE format and expects completion by mid-year 2004. 03-2: AFFSA introduced a briefing slide from NGA, which indicated Volpe would be completed by September 2003. NGA responded with information showing a 74% completion of the project and further stated that they expect completionby the end of this calendar year. NGA/GTD is currently trying to obtain additional funding through the POM process to expand the current requirement of two-color printing. The additional two-colored printing

12

is estimated to cost, $800,014.00 per yr., and is based on the current contract prices. 04-1: VOLPE Format is 82% completed and expected completion on the remaining 18% Sept 04. None of the DoD plates have been evaluated for terrain depiction due to lack of funding. 04-2: NGA reported Volpe is 90% completed. NGA ED stated they have the received funding to go forward with printing all the 2-Color pages NGA PVA can send. I believe. There's some 245 more pages that would / will go into the US Lows, Vols 1-6, and maybe another 90 to go in the OCONUS (Mostly CSA and EUR). PVA stated they would start working to get the additional 2-Color ready and report progress at next meeting. (Note: The Priority/Criticality for completing this item can be found in “SECTION 11” of this document.)Status: Open.

00-02-02: NAVAID Use Limitations Code Submitter: AFFSADiscussion: CL Class under 25 watts with a distance of 15 miles is not being depicted at several locations in the IFR Supplements (e.g., Page B-165: Kotti NDB/LOM shown as MHW under 50 watts 25 miles). This may be a result of the new process using digital data from ADDE to populate/change the IFR Supplements.Action: NGA will investigate TADS software and report findings/fix at the next meeting. NGA submitted Request for Change (RFC). NGA asked to report progress at next meeting. 01-2: Requirement has been added to RFC list but is not funded at this time. O&M monies are expected for FY02 POM. NGA will update status at next FCC. 02-1: NGA will include requirement within DAFIF Edition 8. NGA estimates completion within three years. 02-3: NGA added this to their FY03 POM. Expect prototype in FY04. 03-1: NGA senior leadership did not approve DAFIF ED 8 funding. Item is not funded. 03-2: NGA approved funding for a portion of DAFIF edition 8. This requirement will be pushed back to DAFIF edition 9, which is expected in the fall of 2006. 04-1: No change. FCC requested AFFSA identify the system requiring this support. AFFSA agreed and will report next meeting. 04-2: No additional information from AFFSA. No Change.Status: Open. 00-02-11: VFR Arr/Dep Books on CD/Web Submitter: TFMWG-EDiscussion: Request adding the Arr/Dep Books to the DAFIF CD/NGA www. Adding these books to the DAFIF CD would minimize paper requirement. The Arr/Dep Books are stable publications with minima changes between cycles.Recommendation: NGA modify the DAFIF Specification to include VFR Arrival/Departure Routes and begin adding the digital files on the DAFIF CD. This is for DAFIF 7 of the DAFIF Specifications.Action: FCC concurred and requested NGA to add the books using FCC requirement criticality/priority list. 01-1: Action will be incorporated into DAFIF 7 and completed, as resources become available. 01-2: RFC boarded 15 July. $750k identified in FY02 POM. Analyst expects to start phased population of database by January 02. 02-1: Population of graphic points in ADDE has begun with an estimated completion by Dec 02. 02-3: action completed. Production of digital Arr/Dep books is unknown at this time and contingent upon FCPE funding/implementation. 02-3: NGA has received partial funding to contract out the production of this product from their aeronautical database. Completion date is unknown at this time. 03-1: The information is in DAFIF Edition 7, but web capability is not funded. See DACs capabilities. 03-2: NGA PVA accepted the task to investigate a contract in solution to include VFR Arr/Dep information on CD/Web. 04-1: NGA POR reiterated the need for a contractor cost analysis, which compares contractor provided digital graphics costs (plus cost of adding digital graphics to NGA web/DAFIF CD) against costs of printing/distributing the paper Arr/Dep Books. NGA PVA agreed to investigate the cost comparisons and report finding at next meeting. 04-2: NGA has not been able to identify an acceptable digitization product method that would allow for clear electronic depiction of PFD file. NGA recommended digitizing ARR/DEP over existing digital host country (European/Korean) base charts. NGA agreed to develop a prototype chart for the next FCC meeting. Army agreed to validate need for maintaining VFR Routes within the aero database. (Note: The Priority/Criticality for completing this item can be found in “SECTION 11” of this document.)Status: Open.

01-02-18: RNP & RVSM information in AP & GP Submitter: HQ AFFSA/XOIA

13

Issue/Discussion: Compile and organize all generic information regarding RNP & RVSM be placed in GP. All site and/or region specific information be placed in the appropriate AP book.Action: FCC concurred. AFFSA (OPRR) agreed to identify common RNP & RVSM information from AP to consolidate into GP. AFFSA will also coordinate with NGA for publication and report progress at the next meeting. 02-1: AFFSA to consolidate information. 02-3: AFFSA staffing. 03-1: No Change. 03-2: No change. AFFSA agreed to press their agency (XOP) for guidance by January 23, 2004. 04-1: No change. 04-2: AFFSA changes are not completed at this time. They will report progress at next meeting.Status: Open.

01-02-22: NACO IAP Procedures on DAFIF/Web Submitter: AFFSAIssue/Discussion: AFFSA requires digital U.S. IAPs on DAFIF and the NGA Website. The FCC and NGA are to investigate quality and availability of digital IAPs, and the feasibility of putting them on DAFIF/Web. Action: All parties will report finding at the next meeting. NGA directed to coordinate the action with FAA. 02-1: NGA IFF continues to pursue access to all FAA procedures through FAA website Hot-link authorization or MOU establishing other agency (DoD) access to digital files. 02-3: No change since last meeting. 03-1: FCC stressed the importance of having FAA procedures on the web and directed it be placed on the Priority/Criticality Listing. FCC also asked NGA to elevate this initiative by introducing this issue within the IACC Requirements Process. 03-2: FAA/NACO expects completion of digital IAPs within a year to six months and agrees in principle to pride digital IAP is to NGA on the condition that access is limited to DoD personnel only. 04-1: No Change. FAA has reportedly released their first CD ROM with their digital (.pdf) IAPs. NGA is discussing the most efficient method for the distribution of these procedures via web or other medium as appropriate. NGA will report status at next meeting. 04-2: The group concluded that FAA DVDs would more than half the cost of the paper product. DLA agreed to post an exchange agreement on their website, which would allow the customers to exchange a set of paper TPP for a DVD. FCC members will coordinate with NGA to develop an FAA RD requiring the addition of an Effective Date to digital TPPs. (Note: The Priority/Criticality for completing this item can be found in “SECTION 11” of this document.)Status: Open.

02-01-03: Changing PAA chart cycle Submitter: TFMWG-PIssue/Discussion: Currently the PAA Charts are on a 112-day publication cycle with an ECN published at the 56–day point. Pilots must use the ECN to apply the changes submitted to each chart for their route of flight. Most often, the ECNs are very large and extremely difficult for pilots to use. Members agreed the cycle should be every 56 days. There still will be an ECN for the Enroute Supplement at the 56-day mid-cycle date. Action: FCC concurred and recommended adding issue to Top Requirements List. 02-3: NGA has added to FY03 POM, funding is still TBD. 03-1: NGA Senior Leadership denied Funding. Program is not funded. Estimated cost $225K/Yr. 03-2: NGA/GTD is currently trying to obtain additional funding through the POM process for changing the PAA chart cycle. The estimated costs are $273,407.00 per yr., including printing and distribution, and are based on the current contract prices. 04-1: No Change. Committee requested addition TFMWG-P and PACOM evaluation Theater impacts. NGA requested this issue be staff up through PACOM staff for flag officer support. TFMWG-P requested this item be moved up on the top 10 lists. 04-2: NGA reported that changes were funded in the POM for FY05. Expect implementation in 7 July 05. FCC requested this issue be removed from priority list since it is funded for implementation. (Note: The Priority/Criticality for completing this item can be found in “SECTION 11” of this document.)Status: Open. 02-01-27: Eliminating U.S. DoD IAP and IFR Supplement Publications Submitter: USAASAIssue/Discussion: Army pointed out a duplication of efforts between NGA and NACO since the FCC validated the requirement to add all IAPs to published airports. Army recommended the elimination of DoD IAP and Supplement Publications.

14

Action: Services and NGA will staff a report on findings at subsequent meetings. FCC concurred and added this issue to Top Requirements List. FCC Monitoring (Note: The Priority/Criticality for completing this item can be found in “SECTION 11” of this document.) FCC also discussed a smaller U.S. IFR Supp to support the 3 HI Altitude Terminal Publications. 02-3: No change since last meeting. 03-1: NGA expects cost of $5-6M to implement and will need resources to implement? FCC recommended elevation of this item to IACC. NGA directed to submit to IACC for resolution. 03-2: NGA submitted and the IACC approved the establishment of Task Group 35 to study the feasibility of co-producing a DoD/FAA product. T G 35 will have one year to investigate and report their findings to IACC. NGA/GTD – This implementation could cause customer(s) requirements to increase and impact GTDs current budget.04-1: No Change. FCC requested regular TG 35 Status Reports as provided to the IACC. NGA POR coordinated approval from IACC. Excerpts from IACC meeting dated 25 February 2004 are as follows:TG 35 – US Government Joint Production of Terminal Procedures Publications and Airfield Information Publications.Background: TG 35 was established on October 10, 2003 to investigate the feasibility of DoD/FAA joint production of a single set of FLIP books for the CONUS, identify current similar standards and processes for DoD/FAA Terminal Procedures and Airfield Information Publications, identify and resolve agency differences in product content, product qualities, contractor agreements, cut-offs, and other issues relating to joint production. Estimated completion date is 1 July 2004.04-1: Scott Jerdan, the task group chair reported that TG-35 members have met twice, on January 13, 2004 and February 18, 2004. Minutes of these meetings were provided. Main issues the task group are currently dealing with are concerned with data exchange, gap analysis, cost analysis and data submission dates. A team within TG-35, lead by Jim Hopkins, NFDC, has been formed to conduct a gap analysis between the DoD IFR Supplement and the FAA A/FD. Mr. Jerdan expressed that his greatest concern is that of data exchange and discussion of a new task group to handle the digital data exchange issues was proposed by IACC members, who will meet to discuss specifics. Mr. Jerdan also requested more explicit tasking for TG-35. IACC Members agreed to review the TG-35 Assignment Letter and advise. The task group completion date of July 1, 2004 will be extended. 04-2: TG-35 completion date extended to July 2005.Status: Open

02-02-01: (Jeppesen) Atlantic Orientation Charts Submitter: AFFSA/326 AS/DO (Dover AFB), George N. Talley, Lt Col, USAFR Operations OfficerIssue/Discussion: 1) In recent months AMC missions, particularly the C-5, have flown into Rota AB, Spain via a routing that takes them south of the mainland of Portugal. The programmed routing is normally from KOMUT to VERAM, NARTA, BEXAL, BAROK AKUDA, PESAS and then airways to Rota. There is no map that covers this whole area. The European H15 covers out to BAROK and the Canadian Low 10 covers the Atlantic and the FIR boundary at KOMUT. The intermediate points are not on any chart. 2) The above comment is a minor detail compared to the significant advantage of the Jeppesen Atlantic Orientation Charts. The AT (H/L) chart is a vast compilation of almost every bit of information required for flight over the Atlantic. It includes coast-in, coast-out fixes, RVSM areas and transition areas, HF frequencies, VOLMET frequencies, clearance formats and frequencies, In-flight contingency procedures in RVSM/MNPS airspace plus a wealth of other information. All this information is found on one chart vs. the 3-4 different Handbooks and charts that the DOD has. Recommendation: DOD develops a chart that mirror’s the Jeppesen chart or purchase the Jeppesen chart itself and include it in the DOD group of charts.Action: The individual units purchase copies of the Jeppesen charts. NGA agreed to investigate a chart inset or panel extension. The services will investigate capabilities of FalconView to provide a digital or paper equivalent chart. The members requested that this issue be turned over to the Enroute Chart Working Group. The members requested AFFSA to coordinate an ECWG meeting with the appropriate Service Flight Standards and NGA Enroute Chart experts, who will study/develop solutions for FCC consideration. 02-3: FCC members requested ECWG. AFFSA will coordinate meeting time and place. 03-1: ECWG met and developed a proposal, which would depict routes on FAA North Atlantic Charts. Proposal was sent to FAA and Dover. No response at this time. AFFSA agreed to report results by next meeting. AFFSA recommended that if no answer is received from Dover AFB by next FCC meeting, this item should be closed. 03-2: AFFSA and NGA POR will develop an IACC RD requiring depiction of these routes on FAA North Atlantic Charts. 04-1: AFFSA and NGA POR have not met since last meeting to develop an IACC

15

RD. NGA POR requested the FCC re-evaluate using FAA North Atlantic Chart in favor of adjusting the DoD High and Low IFR Enroute Charts series to cover the area of omission originally identified by this agenda item, since the North Atlantic Charts are not IFR Charts and therefore not required onboard for general IFR operations. NGA POR also recommended that NGA PVA be directed to make these changes as the ENAME chart series are produced by ESRI contractor or produced under the UK co-production initiative if approved. Note: The ESRI solution could resolve this issue by as early as September 04 pending NGA Chart Production Manager and FCC approval is received by 7 April 04. 04-2: NGA actions will be completed on 28 October 204 Enroute Charts. AFFSA will take actions to coordinate review of new charts with the original requester and report status at next meeting.

Status: Open

02-02-07: DAFIF Terminator Paths (Leg Coding) Submitter: NAVFIG/DSC Corp, Mr. Pat Benson Issue/Discussion: AIRINC 424 terminator paths (leg coding) are the topic of contention. If random changes are made to terminator paths it can effect other’s software, hence changes cannot be allowed without extensive coordination. NGA was able to make changes upon request – which has now been changed. FAA, NGA, Jeppesen terminator paths were designed for GPS approaches because this is the only thing the FMS was supposed to be using. Inconsistencies currently exist between FAA – GPS and selected VOR and NGA/Jeppesen – on everything (except NDB). NGA analysts are currently interpreting terminator paths and AVN thinks TERPs should be interpreting (NAVY wants to identify paths themselves). The possible solution: place info into DAFIF dictionary and let TERPsters take over this function to include TERPs AFIs (standardize). Action: The FCC members requested formalizing the TP change notification process which would allow lead time for testing and software modification by DoD systems designers. NGA agreed to review DAFIF documentation to insure current guidance is included and maintained within DAFIF specification. NGA agreed to provide the NGA TP Coding Guidance, which is used by Aero Analyst to code IAP in DAFIF, to customers (upon request). The Navy wants to start providing the path terminator codes. The Army would be providing the path codes through the FAA process of providing the data on the FAA 8260’s. AF is investigating. The services also stated they would like to discuss NGAs terminal path coding process while in St. Louis at the next FCC Meeting. 02-3: Issue deferred to DWG for resolution. FCC requested that Mr.

16

Bodo

BergenHelsinki

StockholmCopenhagen

Berlin

Warsaw

Frankfurt

Paris

Madrid Roma

Istanbul

Ankara

Baghdad

Tehran

Dhahran

Tripoli

Tunis

Aden

Cairo

Khartoum

Kufra

Kano

Dakar

Casablanca

.

. ..

.

.London

Shannon

..

.

..

.

. .

.

. .

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Atar.

H-1

H-2

H-5

H-6

H-3

H-4

H-7

H-13

H-14

H-10

H-9

H-12

H-11

JAN MAYEN INSET

ICELAND INSET

AZORES INSET

H-16(WEST INSET)

H-15

H-16(EAST INSET)

Major cities are shown for chart orientation.

H-4

AREA OF OMISSION

Buckwalter set-up a meeting with Navy stakeholders to discuss their issues. 03-1: The FCC concluded that there are actually two issues surrounding this item. Stabilizing DAFIF Terminator Path (TP) Coding and DAFIF Data Integrity. 1) Stabilizing DAFIF TPs: Effective immediately, NAVFIG will add TPs to all future RNAV 8260s. Army will add TPs to all future RNAV 8260s through the FAA. Air Force remains uncommitted at this time. The DWG recommends that all future ARINC 424 TP changes be coordinated/approved through the DWG before changes are made to the Database to allow for box-maker standardization. FCC Concurred. DWG chairman will implement the process at next DWG meeting.2) DAFIF Data Integrity: DWG recommended developing digital 8260s, which could be reviewed and might eventually be ingested into NGA database without manual inputs to improve data quality. FCC approved and directed the DWG chairman to develop implementation through the DWG. 03-2: No action/progress within the DWG. AFFSA stated that they would proceed when each MAJCOM is comfortable with accepting the responsibility. 04-1: After considerable discussion, AFFSA agreed to modifying the FTIP agreement to require exchange of 8260-2 between DoD terps units and NGA as RNAV procedure are developed but none of the service would concede to following the same process for conventional procedures without further study and coordination with DoD terps units. AFFSA agreed to sponsor/facilitate/POC an agreement between the Military Services and NGA to standardize conventional and RNAV determination. (Also see 03-02-01: Depict CNFs on Terminal Procedures) 04-2: No Change.Status: Open.

03-01-09: Long-Term DAFIF Viability Submitter: DWGIssue/Discussion: Currently, the DAFIF Data Dictionary is in simple word text, which does not support relational Browsing.Recommendation: Convert or restructure data into SQL Language to improve digital manipulation of the data. This concept could also be applied to the DAFIF Data Base (i.e. ADDE) to improve efficiencies and database utility. FCC stated that they were open to discussing improvements, but needed clarification on the requirement and its impacts to the NGA and user community.Action: Members requested further clarification from the submitters in non-technical terms. AFFSA agreed to coordinate a Technical Exchange Meeting (TEM) and forward to all participants. 03-2: NGA continues to investigate technical issues surrounding XML and SQL languages and report findings at the next meeting. Furthermore, this issue will be discussed at the upcoming November Aeronautical Conference. 04-1: Issue under DWG consideration. NGA will report progress. 04-2: NGA OMS proposed having a special meeting of the Digital Aeronautical Transition Working Group (DATWG) to discuss this and other DWG future digital aero issues. DWG concurred. NGA agreed to coordinate a meeting with a target date of 1 December 04. Status: Open.

03-02-02: Add SID/STAR Identifier Code to DoD Terminal Procedures Submitter: NGAIssue/Discussion: The DAFIF currently contains Terminal Approach/Departure Procedure Identifiers, which is/will be used by aircrew to identify/select SID/STAR contained in the FMS. The FAA currently depicts the computer codes identified on their plates. Adding this information will improve aircrew situational awareness by allowing an easy comparison on the paper Procedure to the FMS display. Action: NGA agreed to investigate and make proposal at the next FCC meeting. 04-1: NGA proposed adding information into “Departure Route Description” section, next to the SID name. FCC concurred. NGA agreed to report implementation status at next meeting. 04-2: AFFSA agreed to research source availability and report findings at next meeting.Status: Open.

03-02-07: FLIP on Disk Media (CD or DVD) with B rowser F unctions Submitter: FCC Off-line Meeting (16 July 03)Issue/Discussion: The FCC members discussed moving towards a Digital FLIP environment and felt that --In addition to Web based FLIP-- these products should also be added to a hard copy digital media, such as DVD or CD. Furthermore, to enhanced capability we improve user acceptance and accelerate the users towards a Digital environment, the FCC requested adding browser capability to the Web based and Digital hard copy media to improve usability. (Note: The Priority/Criticality for completing this item can be found in “SECTION 11” of this document.)

17

Action: The FCC requested NGA investigate and report findings for adding the following browser/search parameters to Web based and DVD FLIP:ICAO identifierJulian dateMilitary POCNote: sent to FCC and NGA members for additional browser parameters.04-1: NGA contracted IMAP to develop prototype browser for FCC/DoD coordination. NGA is working a CD/DVD version with Air Force (POC: Bucky). . 04-2: NGA OMS proposed having a special meeting of the Digital Aeronautical Transition Working Group (DATWG) to discuss this and other DWG future digital aero issues. DWG concurred. NGA agreed to coordinate a meeting with a target date of 1 December 04. Status: Open.

03-02-10: Changes to NGA PS/1FA/009 and 091 Product Production Specifications  Submitter:  HQ AFFSA/XOIA Issue/Discussion: AFFSA policy for the USAF is to publish a time/distance table on all host nation instrument approaches even when DME is required for the approach.  This is being done to provide DoD aircrews the ability to use timing as a back up to DME for determination of the missed approach point.   This change to production specifications would apply only to FTIP.Recommendation:   Change Paragraph G, subparagraph 3 of PS/1FA/004/091 to allow publication of time/distance tables on all FTIP, even when the controlling NAVAID is a TACAN, VOR/DME or VORTAC or when the controlling NAVAID is located on the airport.Reproduced below is the current USAF guidance:         "7.1.6.16.  When HOST NATION SOURCE depicts a Time/Distance Table, it shall be depicted on the DoD procedure even when DME is required for the procedure. AIRCREWS CAN USE timing as a back up to DME for determining the missed approach point.  When HOST NATION SOURCE does not depict a Time/Distance Table and there is no indication (AIP, NOTAMS, etc,) that timing may not be used, develop, coordinate, and publish an appropriate Time/Distance Table IAW the following:        7.1.6.16.1.  Convert distances expressed in statute miles or kilometers by host NATION SOURCE to nautical miles; publish distance data in nautical miles.        7.1.6.16.2.  When the host publishes a time/distance table from the FAF or from a step-down fix to THE threshold, determine where the missed approach point (MAP) is located.  Develop the Time/Distance Table based on the FAF to MAP distance or the       step-down fix to MAP distance, as appropriate.        7.1.6.16.3.  When the host NATION has published multiple step-down fixes, develop the Time/Distance Table from the last step-down fix to the MAP.        7.1.6.16.4.  Develop speed values in knots per the JET AIRCRAFT option  (120/140/160/180/200 Knots) when publishing for jet aircraft.        7.1.6.16.5.  Coordinate the USAF developed Time/Distance Table with the host nation.  Only publish the USAF developed Time/Distance Table in the DoD FLIP after coordinating with the host; host nation approval is not required.  Retain coordination documentation in the procedure package."Action: The FCC concluded that additional information was needed from AFFSA. AFFSA agreed to investigate and report further details at the next meeting. NGA was directed to continue with current process until further notice. 04-1: AFFSA continues to investigate issue and will report findings at next meeting. 04-2: FCC requested NGS re-write production specifications with guidance to automatically add “time and distance table” to Air Force and Navy procedures, but not to Army procedures unless specifically requested. NGA will report progress at next meeting.Status: Open.

03-02-12:   Spot Elevation Data Submitter: HQ AFFSA/XOIA Issue/Discussion:  The FAA/NACO has a database containing NAS Spot elevation data. Request NGA establish an MOU to provide Spot Elevation data supporting Instrument Procedure Design for AFTERPS-R. Action: The FCC requested additional information from AFFSA. AFFSA agreed to investigate and report findings at the next meeting. NGA POR will investigate the availability of FAA Spot Elevation information. 04-1: NGA POR directed to develop MOU through FAA NACO for spot elevation data. 04-2: No change.Status: Open.

18

03-02-20: Acquisition of U.S. Low Enroute Charts Submitter: NGA GTDIssue/Discussion: The additional U. S. Low Enroute Charts are estimated to cost, $834,500.00 per yr., including purchasing the charts and distribution based on current contract prices. NGA stated that funding for the re-schema Low charts has not been identified within NGA POM. (Note: The Priority/Criticality for completing this item can be found in “SECTION 11” of this document.)Action: GT will pursue funding efforts and will report status at next FCC meeting. FCC will continue to monitor. 04-1: No Change. 04-2: Remains un-funded. No Change. Status: Open:

04-01-01: Airport Operating Hours Submitter: NGA PVAIssue/Discussion: NGA has ongoing issues with this term and wish to clarify and solidify the definition as agreed by all users. Affected products include and are not limited to; Enroute Supplements, Terminal Approach Procedures, DAFIF, etc. NGA wishes to standardize present FLIP and Digital Products as well as establish the correct Information for future products and comply with established ICAO formatting.Examples of issues are:1. The DOD produced U.S. IFR Enroute Supplement includes Airport operating hours as “ATTENDED…. hrs” (As provided by the FAA). If these airports are listed in a Theater Supplement, such as Honolulu in the PAA Enroute Supplement, the FAA term is still used. However the term “Operating Hours” is used for all Foreign airports in the same book.2. ICAO Annex 15, Appendix 1,Page 34, AD 2.3 “Operational Hours”, specifies the Hours of Operations for Services and Facilities at airports.3. Included in Section A in the front of all DOD Theater Enroute Supplements is the entry (Concerning closed airports) stating that for USN/USMC, and USAF all airports are considered closed during “NON-OPERATING HOURS”. 4. Host Country AIPs are not consistent in the use of the term “Airport” Operating Hours, and offer no definition.5. A pole of seasoned Analyst indicates the belief that an Airport is operational continuous unless NOTAM closed to Aircraft, and that “Hours of Operation” should be associated ONLY with the Services, Facilities and Communications available at that airport as indicated by ICAO.4. An associated item of interest is Format of the Published Times. Should hours be expressed as ending at 23:59 Z vs. (24:00) and beginning time shown as 00Z? Compatibility with the NOTAM system should be desired. Action: FCC requested NGA PVA to acquire the definition for “Attended” from the FAA by next meeting. Once received, the FCC member will consider actions to standardize terminology. 04-2: AFFSA agreed to work with NGA and FAA through the FAA Aeronautical Information Specialists Working Group (AISWG) to standardize ATTENDED/OPERATING HOURS and report progress at next FCC meeting. Status: Open.

04-01-02: Runway Bearing Strength Submitter: NGA PVAIssue/Discussion: NGA has two on going issues with the Runway Bearing Strength information to be shown and wish to clarify and solidify the definition as agreed by all users. Affected products include and are not limited to: Enroute Supplements, Terminal Approach Procedures, DAFIF, etc. NGA wishes to standardize present FLIP and Digital Products as well as establish the correct Information for future products.#1: This issue deals with showing gear configuration data along when a PCN value is known for the runway. Per guidance the ADDE database was programmed with placeholders for PCN and only PCN, since PCN would be the standard for all runways. Recently, several FILs are requesting to add gear configuration values when a PCN value is available/known for the runway. Is there a requirement to show additional runway weight bearing values when a PCN is available? #2: This issue deals with adding/portraying all gear configurations with no values:

S T ST SBTT TT TDT DDT TRT TTTPer FLIP Enroute Supplement Specifications PS/1FA/010:Item 8.a Runway Bearing Strength tells the analyst that a weight bearing capacity in thousands of pounds shall be shown for each runway expressed in terms of gross weight accepted for continuing operations. The last sentence of 8.b tells the analyst that a blank space after S or T, i.e. S___ T___, indicate that the runway has weight bearing capacity to sustain aircraft with the type landing gear configuration shown, but definite figures are not available. Based on current guidance per the Supplement Spec the only three gear

19

configurations that can have no values are S, T, and ST when the T value is less than T63. Is there no requirement to have a weight bearing value with the SBTT, TT, TDT, DDT, TRT, and TTT entries?Action: After a considerable discussion as to the pros/cons for standardizing FLIP depiction, AFFSA requested the issue remain open pending further Air Force investigation. FCC members concurred. AFFSA will report findings at next meeting. 04-2: AFFSA contacted Air Forces Advanced Instrument School at Randolph AFB, who stated the are not training to PCN values at this time. AFFSA agreed to continue their coordination efforts remove issue #2. Status: Open.

04-01-08: Rescale ENAME Enroute Charts (Co-Production) Submitter: NGA PVARecommendation: As a result of co-production discussions with the UK RAF No. 1 AIDU personnel, NGA request all charts would be at a common scale (1:1,000,000). The bar scales would be removed from each panel and a full projection grid line added to the charts. Furthermore, Charts would be printed on front and on ½ of the backside.Issue/Discussion: Adopting an industry standard paper size reduces the cost of printing, less waste and eliminates unnecessary trimming operations. The AI paper size is approximately ¾ inches longer (smaller measurement) and 5 inches less in width (longer measurement). Working in conjunction with this is the recommendation to go to a standard scale chart. US High charts are produced at a 1:30 NM scale (1:2,187,400) for east/west charts. The US Low charts are predominantly 1:12 NM (1:874,960) for east/west charts. ENAME charts would probably be at a 1:1,000,000 scale for Low altitude and a 1:1,500,000 or 1:2,000,000 scale for the High charts.Action: FCC requested prototype charts and deferred decision pending Theater/Unit evaluation. 04-2: No Change.Status: Open.

04-01-09: Removal of Extended Panels (Co-Production) Submitter: NGA PVARecommendation: As a result of co-production discussions with the UK RAF No. 1 AIDU personnel, all charts would be on industry standard size A1Paper and remove extended panel on the charts. Issue/Discussion: To compensate for the slightly small paper size and going to a common scale, the bar scales would be removed from each panel. A full projection grid will be provided for measurements, as well as a bar scale could be added to the front cover. Additionally, removing the legends from each chart will provide an additional half panel to use for chart coverage. Placing the controlled Airspace Communications and vertical limits, Airspace Reservations (SUAS), Notices, and Reporting point coordinates not shown on chart on the back panel will reduce congestion caused from using a larger chart scale.Action: FCC requested prototype charts and deferred decision pending Theater/Unit evaluation. 04-2: No Change.Status: Open.

04-01-10: ENAME Enroute Charts Re-schema (Co-Production) Submitter: NGA PVARecommendation: As a result of co-production discussions with the UK RAF No. 1 AIDU personnel, NGA ENAME charts over Africa (printed every 28 days) would be moved to the Africa package (printed every 112 days). Furthermore, ENAME would be extended to just past Moscow on the East. EEA chart package would be reduced appropriately. Controlled Airspace Communications and vertical limits, Airspace Reservations (SUAS), Notices, and Reporting point coordinates not shown on chart will be moved to the remaining half of back page. This will reduce congestion in body of the chart. Legend would no longer be printed on every chart. One page (printed front and back) insert would be added to each package.Issue/Discussion: Currently the ENAME charts H-9, 10, 11, 12, and 14 and the ENAME charts L-13, 14, 16, 18, 19, and 20 cover Northern Africa, and are being printed every 28 days due to being in the Africa package. FLIP changes in the Africa region typically do not warrant a 28day cycle. The proposal is to realign the ENAME package to cover the northern Africa coast, move the ENAME North Africa charts to the AFRICA FLIP package and publish them every 112day cycle. The new alignment will cover the Mediterranean Basin, but not extend much past the coastline. Additionally, the eleven (11) former ENAME High and Low charts could possible is converted to five (5) High/Low charts, matching Africa’s current High/Low combined format.

20

The realignment of the charts will allow aircrews to use the ENAME chart series to fly from Western Europe to Moscow, bases in the former Bloc areas, the Middle East areas and the Mediterranean. Iceland and The Azores will also be included in the ENAME area. The Africa package will increase by four to five charts and the EEA package will lose three or four charts. Using the back side of the chart to print a two panel extension of the front chart would extend the east to west coverage include on one chart and reduce the number of charts a pilot would have to unfold on a long east to west flight. One chart (front full chart and back two panels) would allow for over an 800 NM (940 mile) east/west flight using one chart.Action: FCC requested prototype charts and deferred decision pending Theater/Unit evaluation. 04-2: No Change.Status: Open.

04-01-11: Elimination of AP-1A, 2A. 3A, 4A paper publication Submitter: NGA PVAIssue/Discussion: Area Planning Special Use Airspace publications contain textual descriptions of SUAS, Military Operating Areas (MOAs) and Parachute Operating Areas. The same data is currently in the DAFIF CD and web based product, as well as the pdf book files on the web sites. The proliferation of Mission Planning Systems, such as FalconView, PFPS, JMPS, TAMP, and AMPs, has negated the need for plotting SUAS on paper NavPlan Charts to a point were paper these Planning Documents are no longer needed. Furthermore, if a paper copy is needed, this Publication could be reformatted into a printable format on the NGA web. As an alternative, the SUAS, MOA, and parachute jump area records in the database could be put in a printable format on the Aero Web page and customers desiring a hardcopy could print out the areas, countries, or sections they required.Action: NGA proposed surveying user community similar to method used to Elimination Paper CHUM. NGA will draft a user survey message, which defines reasons for eliminating these documents, and provide to FLIP and Mission Planning Functional Managers for distribution throughout the user community. The decision to eliminate paper-planning documents will be based on the tabulated survey results. 04-1: NGA wrote a draft survey message and forwarded to DoD Flight Standards Agencies and Geospatial Functional Managers for further dissemination to their operational units with a request to coordinate a response to NGA OMS by NLT 3 January 05. Further NGA actions pending survey response.Status: Open.

04-01-12: Reduce Distribution of all Textual FLIP Products Submitter: NGA PVAIssue/Discussion: Review of distribution listings from DODAAC revealed many customers are getting 1 or 2 copies of the FLIP textual publications (Area Planning, GP, FIH, and Enroute Supplements). It appears that the customers receiving one or two copies of the FLIP textual publications may be using them as reference material. The FLIP textual publications are on the Aero Homepage and also on the DAFIF CD. Customers wanting the documents for reference material could easily access and print them (or parts of them) from the NGA Homepage.Recommendation: Request the FCC consider methods of reducing the quantities of these publications by approving a policy of not distributing the publications in quantities of 1 or 2 copies.Action: The FCC requested additional clarification/prototypes browser from NGA and deferred further action pending the receipt of prototypes. 04-2: NGA will brief issue at next meeting.Status: Open.

04-01-15: Digital FLIP Data Submitter: AFFSA/XOIAIssue/Discussion: Digital FLIP data suitable for use in Electronic Flight Bags / Kneeboard products. Information must be presented in XML to allow the greatest flexibility for presentation and enhanced situational awareness on the flight deck.Action: NGA stated they were working towards xml for FLIP text products and investigating adding xml to DAFIF text remarks through the DWG. 04-2: This issue will be discussed at future DATWG meeting.Status: Open.

04-01-16: Restricted Public Access Submitter: AFFSA/XOIAIssue/Discussion: NGA is tasked to publish and distribute FLIP and DAFIF that is accessible to DoD aircrews, operations and planning agencies globally over free and unrestricted mediums to include CD/DVD, EFB, and the worldwide web.

21

Action: NGA commented that global copyright issues might impact the accessibility of future FLIP. FCC members were encouraged to engage this issue at their highest levels of command if they feel these restrictions will impact operational capability. 04-2: NGA indicated that they were proceeding with this issue and expect to submit an announcement into the Federal Register on 15 November 2004. Public will have 60 days to comment. Status: Open.

04-01-18: SMGCS Charts Submitter: AFFSA/XOIA TFMWG-C 04-1-04 (submitted by HQ AFRC/DOVA)Issue/Discussion: Request the FCC initiate the NGA publication of SMGCS (Surface Movement Guidance and Control System) Charts for airports that produce and use these products.Action: NGA is working on a new DoD product (Geospatial Airport Movement Diagram/GAMD) to replicate SMGCS capability for DoD Airfields and foreign operations. NGA POR reported that no progress has been made requiring FAA/NACO to produce NAS SMGCS even though the FAA has established an FAA Order Requiring SMGCS for CATII/III airfields. NGA recommends submitting this issue to the PBFA for resolution. 04-2: No change since last meeting.Status: Open.

04-01-21: Timeliness of FLIP products Submitter: AFFSA/XOIA TFMWG-P P03-1-2Issue/Discussion Some PACAF units have been complaining that FLIP products are arriving late after the effective date at overseas locations. This has been an ongoing problem that we thought was clearing up earlier in the year. However, in recent months the problem has become severe. All services in the AOR are reporting problems. PACAF/DOY is investigating this issue further with the help of NGA, the units and the Postal Service in an attempt to solve the problem. If attempts are unsuccessful at this level, we plan to get senior PACOM, PACAF, PACFLT, NGA and Postal Service leaders involved. OPR: Ken Sayler requests FCC implement a Requirement for NGA/DLA to resolve this issue.Action: The DLA guest requested establishment of a single Air Force FLIP account manager. Air Force member accepted action to investigate Account Manager request and to further investigate issue surrounding PACOM distribution failures. 04-2: NGA E and OMS are investigating distribution process, but a major failure point is the lack of a customers “deliverable address”. Deliverable address would allow DLA to send FLIP via a traceable means rather than shipping via PO Box through the DoD Bulk Mail System. Changes to the GP, Chapter 11, were recommended and AFFSA agreed to coordinate GP changes with NGA E (John Thomas) by next meeting. DLA reiterated the need for Air Force Account Manager. Status: Open.

04-01-24: Enroute Supplement Section C Cruising Altitude Entries (TFMWG-E 02-1-12) Submitter: AFFSA/XOIA/TFMWG-EIssue/Discussion: TFMWG-E 02-1-12 Enroute Supplement Section C CruisingAltitude Entries Original Discussion (NGA/TNXC): NGA requests a review of section C Cruising Altitudes entry to validate requirements and to remove outdated and duplicated information.The FMWG Chairman reported the other TFMWGs are reviewing NGA request. TFMWG-E is already on record as stating, “Unless comments from the other TFMWGs state otherwise, NGA should standardize the theater supplements using NGA specifications.”TFWG-E ACTION: USA, USAFE, PACAF concurred. Upon receiving comments and recommendations from the other TFMWGs, the FMWG Chairman is requested to present the information to the FCC. 3-23-04 FMWG Chairman reports all Theaters Concur. Recommend NGA implement.Action: FCC Concurred. NGA will implement and report progress at next meeting. 04-2: NGA expects to implement on 20 January 05. NGA will report status at next meeting.Status: Open

04-01-28: Crisis Support Instrument Procedures Submitters: AFFSA/NGAIssue/Discussion: A communication failure occurred when NGA received a request from a unit in a conflict/combat area for an RNAV Loose-Leaf Procedure. Loose-Leaf are Special Military Requested procedures, which are not priority products, do not required meet Terps criteria, not published within FLIP and are not incorporated into the DAFIF. It took about 3 weeks to fulfill the request, which is normal for Loose-Leafs, and did not contain digital data. In actuality, the requesting Unit had Terps the procedure, and needed the procedure and data in the cockpit to power the aircraft FMS within 3-5 days of the request.

22

Action: NGA and AFFSA met to discuss methods to eliminate future communication failures. NGA stated they could/will support Crisis/Combat Support Procedure within 48 hours of the request if they are made aware by the unit that this product is a Crisis Support Request. RNAV/GPS will be added to the DAFIF CD on the next cycle and a digital data file will be provided to the unit within 48 hours of request. AFFSA will add “Crisis/Combat Support Request” to existing AF Instructions and documents. BAE contractor stated they require 6 to 8 months develop to ingest the Crisis Support data into the C-17. 04-2: NGA Actions Completed. BAE has not completed needed software changes at this time. NGA reiterated the need for the FCC to change DoD operational guidance distinguishing the difference between “Loose Leaf” and “Crisis Support”. FCC will report guidance changes at the next meeting. Status: Open.

04-01-29: MTR Charts Submitter: NGA Issue/Discussion: NGA provided the FCC with a prototype MTR Chart, which was produced from the Aero DB by ESRI contractor, for review and comments. To expedite implementation, NGA requested off-line coordination with Mr. John Ingram and FCC Members.Action: FCC viewed the prototype and agreed to survey field units for responses to NGA. 04-2: NGA reported that ESRI would deliver final prototype, which included FCC comments from the original prototype, on 20 January 2005. The final prototype will be coordinated off-line with the FCC for implementation. Status: Open.

04-01-30: Route and Restriction Information from EuroControl Submitter: NGAIssue/Discussion: EuroControl releases Route and Restriction on a 28-day cycle. The ENAME Planning PCN is released on 56-day cycle, which is causing a 28-day information gap. NGA requested FCC guidance for informing user community of changes (i.e., add to website, change PCN cycle to 28-day, etc.)Action: FCC (Mr. Perron) will forward to TFMWG-E for consideration and report findings at next meeting. 04-2: No Change since last meeting.Status: Open.

PART 3: NEW BUSINESS

04-02-01: DAFIF Effective Date/Time (04-01-01 DWG) Submitter: Supports: All DoD systemsIssue/Discussion: According to the current standard indicated within the published documents, the effective time is 0001 local of the date indicated on the cover. 04-1: All DWG/FCC actions completed with respect to DoD products, but DWG participants would like for the FAA to also accept 0001 local time as the standard.DWG Action: Members to report this information as appropriate and be prepared to offer comment as needed for the next meeting. If no comment is made, then this topic will be closed. 04-2: DWG requested FCC to submit Effective Time standardization Requirement to FAA. Action: FCC requested DoD members to the ACF address this issue at the next ACF meeting. Also requested DoD Flight Standards Agencies coordinate with NGA for the submission of an RD to change FAA Effective Times to local. Status: Open.

04-02-02: Heliport Length/Width Changes (04-02-06 DWG) Submitter: NGA/PVA (POC: Jerry Leicht, FM: Scott Adams, Col, USAF)Supports: ProductionIssue/Discussion: Request to eliminate the restriction to the length and width of a heliport area. Currently the length and width of a helipad is restricted to not over 500ft. There are many heliports in the world that used to be airports, but are now exclusively used for helicopters. Currently our database will only allow 500 ft as the maximum allowable length or width. This has the effect of requiring the pad be entered as a runway, which produces an inaccurate depiction.This will affect the data being published in DAFIF.Recommendation: Remove the restriction to the Heliport Length and Width fields to allow a long helipad to be entered.

23

DWG Action: DWG members concurred with recommendation and authorized NGA to make the appropriate changes to DAFIF Edition 9 specification.Action: FCC agreed to remove 500ft restriction. NGA will investigate user impacts of adding to DAFIF Ed 8 and will add to DAFIF Ed 9 if user impacts are discovered. Status: Open.

04-02-03: MLS Glide Slope (03-02-13 DWG) Submitter: NGA (POC: Jerry Leicht, FM: Scott Adams, Col, USAF) Supports: DoD FMSIssue/Discussion: A solution was offered in the form of a strawman that allowed for an additional code for an MLS glide slope antenna. The proposed code is V - MLS GLIDE SLOPE.DWG Action: Group to review. 04-2: DWG members approved strawman implementation. NGA will investigate proper implementation method and coordinate with members/participants on implementation timelines, which is expected to be 90days after coordination.Action: FCC Concurred. NGA directed to add change to DAFIF Ed 9.Status: Open

04-02-04: Boundary and SUAS Shape Attribute (04-02-01 DWG) Submitter: NGA/PVA (POC: Jerry Leicht, FM: Scott Adams, Col, USAF)Supports: All SystemsIssue/Discussion: There has been much discussion regarding the portrayal of Boundary and SUAS shapes. The “line shape argument” is involving whether a line is portrayed as a Great Circle line or a Rhumb Line. It is the position of NGA that, in order for DAFIF to be independent of all software applications, this attribute must be a general value, and the software being used should make the necessary computations to plot the line on any projection in which the program uses. Visually connecting similar points in the two datasets and allowing the software to adjust the dataset accomplishes this. I have had conversations with several of our DOD contractors that use DAFIF data, and the general consensus is that most of the programs use their own projections and adjust the shape of the line to plot correctly. NGA should be independent of all application programs in the aspect of how data is portrayed. To accomplish this, we should be defining the shape of a line as a general “point-to-point” line. In other words, a line defined only by it’s coordinates, leaving the shape (Rhumb-Line or Great Circle) up to the projection and the software application used.

The new list of codes will be: A - POINT (WITHOUT RADIUS OR BEARING)B - GREAT CIRCLEC - CIRCLEG - GENERALIZEDH – BOUNDARY LINE: A LINE, DEFINED BY SPECIFIC COORDINATES, DESCRIBING ATHE HORIZONTAL LIMITS OR EXTENT OF A GIVEN AIRSPACE PLANE OR STRUCTURE.L - COUNTERCLOCKWISE ARCR - CLOCKWISE ARC

Recommendation: NGA immediately change the DAFIF Specs and Data Dictionary to reflect the new Boundary code, and to change all Boundary lines to reflect the change.DWG Action: The group agreed to change the name of “H” in the DAFIF Dictionary back to Rhumb Line and make following adjustments to above definitions: “When LAT 1 = LAT 2 ; and “B” when LAT 1 <> LAT 2, unless specified by host country. NGA will report status of Dictionary change at next meeting. Action: NGA reported that they could implement change except for the “unless specified by host country” statement, which will need to be added as a requirement to DAFIF Ed 9. FCC concurred and requested NGA to coordinate off-line with DQG members to implement with out the host country clause.Status: Open

04-02-07: GP- DAFIF/Digital Product Error Reporting Process Submitter: HQ AFFSA/XOIARequest FCC review GP page 11-5 Para 11-3 QUALITY REPORTS – Paragraph does not address DAFIF and/or Digital Product Error Reporting.

24

NOTE: DWG addressed GPD error reporting resolution/action…(see below)

DWG AGENDA ITEM

04-1-10 Global Procedure Design (GPD)/AFTERPS-R DAFIF Error Report Resolution/action AMD-1 (AFFSA)Issue/Discussion: AFTERPS-R should be fielded in June/July 2004. The System Support Facility (SSF) has developed and error reporting process. It is suggested that others should follow this process. Bob Lyons (robert.lyons1@scott.af.mil) should be contacted if you would like to have information about this solution. The process is currently a user-defined process. It is suggested that the FCC is informed of this process so that ownership of the process can be identified when the process is elevated to NGA for resolution. Since this is a system specific process, and ultimately one that will be resolved at the FCC level, we will not have venue to carry this discussion further.Action: Individual users to act accordingly within their program.Status: OPENRecommendation: FCC review and take action to resolve a DAFIF/Digital error reporting process and revise GP as required.Action: NGA stated the believe that this issue fell under the SSF Program at Hill AFB, which coordinates error information with AFFSA to enhance Quality Assurance. AFFSA agreed to investigate the relevance of SSF program to this issue and report recommended centralized reporting errors and the scope of errors through joint services.Status: Open.

04-02-08: U.S. HIGH H-12 Submitter: HQ AFFSA/XOIAIssue/Discussion: AFFSA request FCC approval to chart H-12 as request by Government/Industry Charting Forum. Recommendation: A High Altitude Chart (H-12) oriented along the U.S. East coast, where a high volume of air traffic exists (see handout). H-12 will be populated on the back (blank) side of H-11.Action: FCC concurred. NGA OMS agreed to coordinate an RD through the IACC process.Status: Open.

04-02-09: Tasks for processing TERMINAL Instrument Procedures (FTIP)Submitter: HQ AFFSA/XOIIssue/Discussion: Request NGA complete assigned TASKERS…(see attached FTIP Working Agreement file) NOTE:Green highlighted areas - changes already coordinated with NGA.Yellow highlighted items are NGA tasks accepted last June 04. Mr. Glick and Waterman) attended AFFSA FTIP Workshop. Action: AFFSA agreed to coordinate changes with Flight Standards Agencies and report status at next meeting.Status: Open.

04-02-10: DAFIF depiction of floor of controlled airspace is incorrect and misleading (04-02-14 DWG) Submitter: AF/AFFSA (POC: Wayne Fetty, FM: Lance Christian, Col, USAF)Supports: GPS (formerly known as AFTERPS-R)Issue/Discussion: FAAO 7400.9 states that it provides a listing of all airspace designations and reporting points, and pending amendments to those designations and reporting points, established in the FAA under that authority of Title 14, CFR, part 71.Additionally it states….6001. Class E Airspace at and above 14,500 feet MSL. Including in the Class E designation is the airspace extending upward from 14,500 feet MLS to, but not including 18,000 feet MSA overlying: the 48 contiguous States including the waters within 12 miles from the coast of the 48 contiguous States; the District of Columbia; Alaska, including the waters within 12 miles from the coast of Alaska, and that airspace above FL 600; excluding the Alaska peninsula west of long. 160 00 00W., and the airspace below 1,500 feet above the surface of the earth unless specifically so designated.

25

Currently, the floor of controlled airspace depicted in DAFIF is the common 700’ and 1200’ only. There are many other areas with floor of controlled airspace either at 14,500’ or another designated altitude. DWG Action: NGA asked to review current database holding against source (Federal Register) to insure all Class E and G airspace dimensions are contained and correct depicted within the database. NGA will report action status at next meeting.DWG Status: Open.FCC Action: NGA stated that they currently depicting FAA reported airspace at this time and are not receiving the above mentioned airspace information (source) from FAA at this time. NGA agreed to open discussion with FAA/NACO to acquire the requested airspace source. NGA will report status at next meeting.FCC Status: Open.

04-02-11: Area Planning Document Reformatting (TFMWG-E 99-02-03) Submitter: TFMWG-EIssue/Discussion: The TFMWG-E reviewed the Area Planning Documents and found several issues with the documents such as: it lacked structure, the data was presented differently by country, Area Analyst data entry is subjective, etc.. Action: The group developed a new format to improve the documents function and provided a reformatted prototype document to the FCC/NGA. The FCC concurred with the new format and directed NGA to initiate a phased format conversion starting with the April cycle. NGA will report progress at next meeting.Status: Open.

04-02-12: General Planning Document Reformatting Submitter: TFMWG-EIssue/Discussion: The TFMWG-E also reviewed the General Planning Document and found issues with the document (such as: it lacked structure, the data was presented differently by country, Area Analyst data entry is subjective, etc.), similar to those in the Area Planning Document.Action: The TFMWG-E recommended a study be performed to develop a reformatted GP prototype for theater evaluation. AFFSA agreed to setup a General Planning Working Group and name Mr. Ric Funkhouser as the GPWG Chairman. Mr. Funkhouser will report the group’s status at the next FCC meeting.Status: Open.

04-02-13: RNAV Loose-Leaf Procedures in DAFIF Submitter: AFFSAIssue/Discussion: AFFSA requested adding RNAV Loose-Leaf procedures into the DAFIF. Action: USAASA and NAVFIG agreed. FCC requested NGA to add RNAV Loose-Leafs through written request of DoD Flight Standards Agencies.Status: Open.

11. FCC REQUIREMENT CRITICALITY/PRIORITY LIST:This is a listing of NGA tasks in the priority established by the FCC during 04-2 meeting. List is subject to change by the FCC. (Note: Underlined items indicate immediate need essential to current and/or future DoD Mission capabilities. Parentheses indicate NGA estimated implementation cost and funding status. Absence of cost/status indicates unknown or undetermined.)

#1: 03-02-20: Acquisition of U.S. Low Enroute Charts ((Unfunded)#2: 96-01-06A: Terrain Depiction on IAP Charts #3: Airfield Survey and Stereo Airfield Collection Update (Unfunded)#4: 00-02-11: VFR Arr/Dep Books on DAFIF CD/Web #5: 02-01-27: Eliminate U.S. DoD Low IAP & IFR Supplement Publications (Unfunded)#6: 01-02-22: NACO IAP Procedures on DAFIF/Web#7: 03-02-07: FLIP on Disk Media (CD or DVD) and Web with Browser Functions#8: DAFIF Edition 9

12. NEXT MEETING:Mr. Messina thanked the participants for their assistance and participation in the FCC Requirements Process and turned over Navy’s Chairmanship to the Army Representative. The Army Representative (Mr. Perron) coordinated the next meeting, which will be held at Ft Belvoir, on 5-7 April 2005, and concluded

26

the meeting. New agenda items for the 05-2 FCC meeting are due to Mr. Riley, NGA/OMS by NLT 28 March 2005.

JOSEPH J. MESSINA, NAVFIGChairman, FLIP Coordinating Committee

ATTACHMENT 1: CLOSED/WITHDRAWN ITEMS

RD546: Communication Frequencies Operating less than Continuous BACKGROUND: There is conflicting information in IACC-4 and the TPP Legend regarding the use of a star on frequencies that operate on a less than continuous basis. IACC-4 states for Approach Control, "When the Approach Control operates non-continuously, a star shall be positioned following the abbreviation"; for Tower, "Towers operating part-time shall be annotated by placement of a star following the tower call"; for Automatic Terminal Information Services (ATIS), "When the ATIS operates non-continuously a star shall be positioned following the letters ATIS." The TPP legend states, "Indicates a non-continuously operating facility...”REQUIREMENT: Change IACC-4 and DoD Terminal Specification references to non-continuous frequencies to the language contained in the TPP legend, a star "Indicates a non-continuously operating facility."Action: FCC Concurred with exception. NRS Waypoints will not be included in DoD produced charts. 04-1: No change. 04-2: IACC signed. MPOC recommends closure.Status: Closed.

RD548: Charting of NRS Waypoints on IFR Enroute High Altitude Charts. BACKGROUND: In support of the High Altitude Redesign (HAR) endeavor, a grid system of waypoints, based on Latitude/Longitude and designated by 5-character alphanumeric location identifiers, has been developed for charting on IFR En route High Altitude Charts. This system of waypoints will allow Air Traffic Control to safely and efficiently control aircraft navigation around weather, traffic congestion and temporarily activated Special Use Airspace (SUA) and Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace (ATCAA). Initially, the NRS waypoints will be spaced every 2 degrees of longitude and every 30 minutes of latitude. Future refinement of the HAR system is expected to increase the number and density of NRS waypoints.REQUIREMENT: Chart NRS waypoints and designators on IFR Enroute High Altitude Charts in 45% screened green. Depict waypoint symbol at 25% reduced size; depict 5-character alphanumeric designators in 5-point techno medium type.Action: FCC concurred with Exception. NRS Waypoints will not be included in DoD produced charts. Status: Closed.

RD551: NOTAM Definition on Enroute Chart Legends BACKGROUND: The Special Use Airspace tabulation on enroute charts sometimes notes ‘By NOTAM’ in the “Times Used” column. The logical assumption by pilots is that they can get this FAA NOTAM during their flight planning or from an FSS. In fact, the term ‘By NOTAM’ may mean that the times of use are in the DoD NOTAM system and not in the FAA NOTAM system. The pilot is unaware of this; creating a potentially unsafe situation. A definition of NOTAM in the Special Use Airspace section would remedy this.REQUIREMENT:

27

Add to IACC 1, Ch III, Para 2.b. (1)(c) 1 a, list of definitions:NOTAM – Use of this term in Prohibited and Restricted Areas indicates FAA and DoD NOTAM systems. Use of this term in all other Special Use areas indicates the DoD NOTAM system.

Add to IACC 5, Ch III, Para 3.a. (1)(c) 2 a, list of definitions:NOTAM – Use of this term in Prohibited and Restricted Areas indicates FAA and DoD NOTAM systems. Use of this term in all other Special Use areas indicates the DoD NOTAM system.Action: FCC Concurred. 04-1: RD was modified to visual charts as well. MPOC Staffing. 04-2: IACC signed.Status: Closed.

RD553: Procedures Not in NFD BACKGROUND: The National Flight Database (NFD) will initially contain conventional and RNAV/GPS DPs, STARs, and GPS/RNAV (GPS) IAPs. Pilots using the FAA produced National Flight Database for navigation need to be made aware when a specific conventional DP or STAR is not contained in the NFD. This should be conveyed to the pilot on each affected chart.REQUIREMENT: Add a boxed note to the front cover of the TPP volumes for 7 cycles, stating: “National Flight Database (NFD) procedures, see GENERAL INFO section.” Since this is a temporary note, IACC 17 will not be changed.

Add to IACC 7, Ch III, Para 3.l., a new paragraph (3), and Add to IACC 14, Ch III, Para 4.m., a new paragraph (3), both to read:(3) Conventional instrument flight procedure charts that are not provided in the National Flight Database will contain planview text “NOT IN NFD” in 35% screened type, all caps. The preferred position will be the lower right corner of the planview, moving clockwise to the other corners as needed to portray other procedural, terrain, navigational, or communication information.

Change IACC 17, Appendix H2, to add to the TPP Abbreviations page (F2): “NFD…. National Flight Database”.

Change IACC 17, Appendix H1, to add new first and second paragraphs to the GENERAL INFO section of the TPP to read as follows:

“National Flight DatabaseThe National Flight Database (NFD) is an FAA-produced flight navigation database formatted to the ARINC 424 Navigation Data Base standard. The NFD includes Departure Procedures (DPs), Standard Terminal Arrivals (STARs), GPS and RNAV (GPS) Instrument Approach Procedures (IAPs). If any conventional based DPs or STARs are not included in the NFD because of coding constraints, they will contain a note “NOT IN NFD” in the planview.

Because of earlier cut off dates for paper charts, the most current listing of procedures not in the NFD will be contained on the NACO website at: naco.faa.gov/nfd.asp.

The following IAPs are not included in the NFD and will not have the “NOT IN NFD” statement: ground-based IAPs (ILS, VOR/DME, VOR, NDB, etc.); and GPS ‘overlay’ IAPs (‘or GPS’ in the title). The ‘overlay’ procedures will be added in 2004.”

COMMENTS: This affects IACC Specifications 7, 14 and 17. Action: FAA ATA non-concurred. Issue on hold pending further FAA evaluation. 04-2: RD withdrawn by FAA/ATA. Status: Closed.

RD554: Flyover Symbology BACKGROUND: IACC RD 531, Fly Over/Fly By Symbology on IAPs, required that fly over symbology be indicated on fixes, intersections and NAVAIDs, as well as waypoints on IAP charts only. Flyover requirements, however, also exist on SIDs/DPs and STARs. REQUIREMENT: Part 1) Add to IACC 7, Chapter III, paragraph 3.a., a new subparagraph (5), to read:(5) Fixes, reporting points, intersections, NAVAIDs, and waypoints designated as flyover will be shown with a circle around the appropriate icon.

28

Part 2) Add to IACC 14, Chapter III, paragraph 4.a., a new subparagraph (5), to read:(5) Fixes, reporting points, intersections, NAVAIDs, and waypoints designated as flyover will be shown with a circle around the appropriate icon.COMMENTS : This affects IACC Specification 7 and DoD, Standard Instrument Departure (SID) Charts – U.S., and IACC Specification 14, Standard Terminal Arrival Charts Action: FCC concurred. 04-2: IACC Signed. Status: Closed.

RD556: ASR Symbol on Visual Charts BACKGROUND: Current specifications require a negative type R in a circle to be charted immediately preceding the airport name for those airports outside the lateral limits of Class B or C or TRSAs that have an Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR). If the airport has an ASR and is inside the lateral limits of Class B or C or a TRSA, then there is no R symbol on the chart and instead, the Tabulation Data will contain ‘ASR’ next to that airport. This forces a pilot to review both the chart for the symbol and the tab data for the ‘ASR’ to determine where ASRs exist. Additionally, searching tab data for ‘ASR’ is only the first step; the pilot then has to locate the airport on the chart to determine if it is within a useful distance. This becomes time consuming and can be frustrating when needing the information in a timely manner. When implemented, this will result in an ASR symbol for all airports with ASRs, not just those outside the lateral limits of Class B and C and TRSAs.REQUIREMENT: Change IACC 2, Chapter III, paragraph 9.b. (5)(b), to read:A negative type R in a circle shall immediately precede the airport name of airports with FAA-operated Airport Surveillance Radars (ASR).COMMENTS: This affects IACC Specification 2. Action: FCC Concurred. 04-2: IACC Signed.Status: Closed.

RD557: RNAV Holding Pattern Leg Lengths BACKGROUND: Current specifications require that RNAV holding pattern leg lengths will be depicted as 4 NM, unless defined otherwise on the procedure. The Form 8260-2 contains the holding pattern leg length, which, in many instances, is different from the previously accepted ‘standard’ of 4 NM. The specification should be changed to remove the standard leg length statement.REQUIREMENT: Change IACC 4, Chapter III, paragraph 4.c.17)(c), to read:RNAV holding pattern leg lengths shall be as specified.COMMENTS: This affects IACC Specification 4. Action: FCC requested additional clarification from MPOC before rendering a decision. 04-1: FCC Concurred Off-line. 04-2: IACC Signed.Status: Closed.

RD558: Airport Identifiers on WACs BACKGROUND: Pilots have commented at Chart Seminars and Airshows over the last several years that they would like to have airport identifiers depicted on the WACs, just as they are on Sectionals and TACs. A prototype WAC (CF-19) with airport identifiers added was taken to AirVenture 2003 at Oshkosh to elicit pilot comments on chart readability and clutter. Nearly unanimously, pilots praised the prototype WAC and stated they could accept the potential clutter as a trade-off for the airport identifiers being added.REQUIREMENT: Add to IACC 3, Chapter III, paragraph 10.b. (5), a new subparagraph (j), to read:(j) For public, joint civil-military, and military airports, the airport identifier will be placed in parenthesis immediately after the airport name. The number “0” will be identified with a “/” through it in order to differentiate it from the letter “O”. Type size will be the same as the airport name.COMMENTS: This affects IACC Specification 3, World Aeronautical Charts, Operational Navigation Charts. Action: FCC Concurred. 04-2: IACC Signed.Status: Closed.

RD559: ISO Statement on TPP BACKGROUND: Aviation System Standards has successfully completed the ISO 9001 requirements to be accredited as an ISO 9001 registered organization. This accreditation is for the end-to-end process of publishing Instrument Approach Procedure in our TPP Volumes; from the TERPs process, completing the Form 8260, the Flight Check of the procedures, the drafting and compiling of the IAP chart, to the

29

publication of the charts in the TPP Volumes. While this accomplishment is recognized by standards-setting organizations, it should be also made known to the users of our IAP charts so that the users can have additional confidence in the charts. REQUIREMENT: Add to IACC 17, Chapter II, paragraph 3.d., a new second sentence to read:The ISO registered organization statement will be shown in the lower left corner, as indicated in the appendices.

Add to IACC 17, Appendices C1 and C2, the following statement below and to the left of the “AREA OF COVERAGE” chart: Aviation System Standards is proud to be an ISO 9001 registered organization.

COMMENTS: This affects IACC Specification 17, Terminal Procedures Publication. Action: FCC Concurred. 04-2: IACC SignedStatus: Closed.

RD560: High Altitude-Enroute Flight Advisory Service (HA-EFAS) Frequencies BACKGROUND: Current IFR Enroute High Altitude charts list all ARTCC HA-EFAS frequencies in a rather large paragraph format. The paragraph lists the ARTCCs in alphabetical order with identifier and frequency. Pilot feedback indicates that the current format is difficult to use, contains frequencies for ARTCCs not on individual charts, and that it is not easily read or found on the chart.

It is proposed that these frequencies be listed in a columned tabulation format, identified as High Altitude Enroute Flight Advisory Service – Flight Watch, and only contain ARTCCs with center boundaries depicted on a particular chart.REQUIREMENT:

Change IACC 5, Ch III, para 3.a.(1)(c) 2., first sentence to read:

2. Tabulation shall be positioned immediately below the IACC credit note.

Change IACC 5, Ch III, para 3.a.(1)(c) 2.a., to read:

a. A multi-columned tabulation titled High Altitude Enroute Flight Advisory Service – Flight Watch, shall be shown. This alphabetical tabulation will contain the ARTCC name, three letter ident, and the HA-EFAS frequency for centers with a boundary located on the chart.

Change IACC 5, Ch III, para 3.a.(1)(c) 3., add first sentence to read:

3. The title, Special Use Airspace, shall be located above the legend description for the tabulation of Special Use Airspace data.

Replace Appendix 10 and 11 once the graphics that comply with this RD are available. COMMENTS: This affects IACC Specification 5.Action: FCC Concurred Off-line. 04-2:IACC Signed.Status: Closed.

RD561: Next Fix/NAVAID Data on U.S. Enroute High Charts BACKGROUND: The new format of the U.S. Enroute High Altitude charts eliminates the North-South overlap that existed on the charts produced in the previous format. In that previous format, the data on interior N-S borders was depicted down/up to the ‘bleeding edge’ and pilots, because of the overlap, could find a fix or NAVAID depicted on both charts on either side of that N-S border. Now that the overlap has been eliminated, the pilot has no common fix or NAVAID that will assist in ‘transferring’ between charts.

To remedy this, when a route continues off the edge of a chart, the next fix or NAVAID along that route shall be shown in the margin area. Current specifications require this only when that route goes into Mexican airspace, Off shore airspace, or Canadian airspace. To accommodate the reduced margin areas on the Enroute High charts, only the fix name, or the NAVAID identifier and frequencies will be shown for internal boundaries. Coordinates for fixes and NAVAIDs, and NAVAID names, will no longer be depicted

30

for internal boundaries. For external boundaries, i.e., Mexican airspace, Off shore airspace, or Canadian airspace, coordinates for fixes and NAVAIDs and NAVAID names will continue to be shown.REQUIREMENT: Change IACC 5, Ch III, para 3.b.(5) to read:

(5) Next Reporting Point/NAVAID

(a) Names indicating the next reporting point, and identifiers and frequencies indicating the next NAVAID, off the chart shall be shown for transitional purposes. They shall be positioned outside and parallel to the borderline, reading ‘up’ along the left side of the chart and ‘down’ along the right side of the chart.

(b) Reporting points shall be indicated with names only. NAVAIDs shall be indicated with identifier and frequencies only. However, when the next reporting point or NAVAID is in Canada, Mexico, or Oceanic Airspace, in addition to the above, coordinates also shall be shown for both, and NAVAID names shall be shown for NAVAIDs. Coordinates shall be placed next to the neat line.

(c) Lead text shall be centered over their respective route ends. In congested areas, priority shall be stacking, offsetting, and use of a pointer as depicted in the appendices.

(d) Names, identifiers and frequencies will be shown in the appropriate color, in 6 point type, Futura Medium. Coordinates will be shown in the appropriate color, in 5 point type, Helvetical 66 Medium Italic.

(e) When a total mileage box is depicted on a route segment whose next NAVAID or compulsory reporting point is off the chart but not identified in lead text, the text “TO FAC/FIX” will be centered below the mileage box. In congested areas, the “TO” note may be placed beside the total mileage box. When showing a “TO” note for a NAVAID off the chart, the 3-letter identifier shall be used; when for a compulsory reporting point, the reporting point name shall be used. When a route exists on the chart such that no NAVAID or compulsory reporting point is shown on the charted route, then the “TO” note shall be in the form of “FAC/FIX TO FAC/FIX”, with the westernmost NAVAID or reporting point shown first. The “TO” note shall be shown in the appropriate color, in 5 point type, Futura Medium.COMMENTS: This affects IACC Specification 5.Action: FCC Concurred Off-line. 04-2: IACC Signed.Status: Closed.

RD563: U.S. Terminal Procedures Publication Area of Coverage Graphic BACKGROUND: Currently the U.S. Terminal Procedures are published by geographical areas. The increasing number of new GPS procedures has caused state coverage in some areas to be split into multiple volumes. Customer feedback indicates that pilots are unable to determine the area of coverage when flying into these areas.

It is proposed that the Area Of Coverage graphic on the back of the Terminal Procedures Publication (TPP) be revised to show the degree of latitude where California is split into two volumes, and the degree of latitude and longitude depicting the three volume split for Texas. To further assist the user some city names with locator points will be added for reference.REQUIREMENT: Add to IACC 17, Ch 11, para 3.d., a new para (1) to read:

(1) State coverage that has been split into more than one volume will be depicted by a degree of latitude and or longitude. For reference, some city names will be added with reference points.

Replace Appendix C1 with attached graphic.

31

COMMENTS: This affects IACC Specification 17.Action: FCC Concurred Off-line. 04-2: IACC Signed.Status: Closed.

RD565 Charting RNAV Legs and Waypoints on RNAV SIDS and STARsBACKGROUND: Pilots track of the aircraft depicted on RNAV SIDs and STARs. The intended track would be cartographically rendered based on the type of waypoint, the type of legs into and out of that waypoint and turns required at the waypoint. For instance, if the waypoint were a flyby waypoint and the legs into and out of the waypoint formed anything other than a straight line, the procedure line would curve prior to the waypoint to intercept the outbound leg. In the same example but with a flyover waypoint, the outbound procedure line would start at a point 180 degrees from the inbound leg and curve (past the waypoint) to intercept the outbound leg. The procedure track arcs would be indicated with a dashed line, as opposed to the current solid lines, to indicate expected track of an aircraft. Examples are attached. Consensus on this was reached at the Aeronautical Charting Forum.REQUIREMENT: Add to IACC 7, Ch III, para 3.f., a new paragraph (7) to read:(7) Depiction of procedure tracks on RNAV SIDs will indicate the expected track of an aircraft in a turn with a dashed line. Depictions will differ depending on type of waypoint, flyover or flyby, leg type and angular difference between inbound and outbound legs. See Appendix XX for different examples.

Add to IACC 7, a new Appendix XX.

Add to IACC 14, Ch III, para 4.f., a new para (3) to read:(3) Depiction of procedure tracks on RNAV STARs will indicate the expected track of an aircraft in a turn with a dashed line. Depictions will differ depending on type of waypoint, flyover or flyby, leg type and angular difference between inbound and outbound legs. See Appendix XX for different examples.

Add to IACC 14, a new Appendix XX.

COMMENTS: This affects IACC Specification 7 and 14.Action: The FCC non-concurred stating the current flyover/flyby symbology clearly/intuitively represented the desired aircraft track and could not be cost justified. Additionally, the DoD members were concerned that the users would assume an “implied accuracy” of the tracks when displayed in the cockpit or EFBs and felt it would be too technically challenging to exactly represent the true track/turn radius of different category aircraft on the procedures. They also felt that this would establish precedence for depicting tracks on IAPs, which would further add to funding and technical issues. Status: Closed.

RD566 Q Route MEAsBACKGROUND:  At the Aeronautical Charting Forum, AFS-410 indicated that DME/DME/IRU RNAV, in addition to GNSS RNAV, will be authorized for use on Q routes. Charting specifications will have to allow for new DME/DME/IRU RNAV MEAs as well as legend entries on the High and Low Enroute charts. This RD does not apply to Q routes in the Gulf of Mexico.

32

According to the concept briefed at the ACF, GNSS and DME/DME/IRU RNAV operations will be authorized along all Q routes at FL 180 and above, and GNSS and DME/DME/IRU RNAV MEAs will only be published on charts if they are above FL 180.REQUIREMENT: Add to IACC 1, Chapter III, paragraph 2.d.(6)(e), a new paragraph 2 to read:RNAV MEAs for GNSS RNAV aircraft will be depicted in blue type as 2000G.(Renumber existing paragraph 2 and subsequent paragraphs accordingly.)

Add to IACC 1, Appendix 18a, the following legend material:2000G (blue type) MEA for GNSS RNAV aircraft.

Add to IACC 5, Chapter III, paragraph 3.c.(6)(d), a new paragraph 2 to read:MEAs for GNSS RNAV aircraft, shown only when higher than 18,000’, will be depicted in blue type as MEA-00000G. MEAs for DME/DME/IRU RNAV aircraft, shown only when higher than 18,000’, will be depicted in blue type as MEA-00000. (Renumber existing paragraph 2 and subsequent paragraphs accordingly.)

Add to IACC 5, Appendix 3, the following legend material:RNAV Route (Not including Q routes in the Gulf of Mexico). GNSS or DME/DME/IRU RNAV required, unless otherwise indicated. Radar monitoring required. DME/DME/IRU RNAV aircraft refer to Airport/Facility Directory for DME information.

Add to IACC 5, Appendix 3, the following legend material:MEA-00000G (blue type) MEA for GNSS RNAV aircraft.

Shown when other than 18,000’.MEA-00000 (blue type) MEA for DME/DME/IRU RNAV aircraft.

Shown when other than 18,000’.

Q Route Data will be charted under the same specification criteria as the Jet Route Data only in blue type. When required, the note “GNSS REQUIRED” will be placed in/adjacent to each Q route icon grouping, in blue type, using 7 point type. Update specifications accordingly. COMMENTS: This affects IACC Specifications 1 and 5. Action: FCC approved through offline coordination. Coordinating IACC Signature.Status: Closed.

00-01-25: ENAME & EEA Chart Realignment Submitter: NGA.Discussion: Areas within EEA charts need to be moved to the ENAME charts to eliminate excessive NOTAMS caused by the increased frequency of changes in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, & Romania areas. NGA felt that this action would better serve the aircrews and reduce by workload caused by NOTAMS. The FCC tasked the ECWG to review the charts and propose recommendations at the next FCC meeting.Recommendation: The ECWG presented the following proposals for item TFMWG-E 99-01-25 (Czech Republic, Slovakia, & Romania Aero Data Relocated to ENAME Product Series)1. Create new L21 and L22 between L-2 and L-10 at a scale of 1:10NM to cover the areas of Poland, Czech Republic, and Slovakia.2. Extend panel on L-10 to cover Romania.3. Populate all (brown) airspace on High and Low ENAME charts covering the desired new countries (H-5, H-6, L-2, L-5, L-6, and L-10). Remove same information from EEA Charts.4. Create ENAME H-8 and add to back of H-7 utilizing two panels for an inset to cover Poland. The other countries are already sufficiently covered by other ENAME high charts and only need to have data entered for the ENAME 28-day cycle.5. Move panel legend from H-7 to new H-8 and remove the panel extension from H-7.6. Consider extending panel on H-2 eastward to pick up high coverage for part of Estonian, Latvia, and Lithuania.Actions: 00-2: FCC concurred with the ECWG recommendations and tasked NGA to implement the changes. 01-1: NGA stated that, due to lack of resources, they would be unable to implement this requirement. Col Zenk/PCO will provide written response to the services regarding NGAs position and inability in fulfilling current and future aeronautical and flight safety requirements. 01-2: Col Zenk’s letter

33

was sent to FCC members. No change since last meeting. NGA STL has identified contracting funding to complete task. NGA will notify customers once implementation timelines have been established. 02-1: Once funding is secured, NGA expects to complete conversion using OmniBus contractors. 02-3: NGA expects completion within FY03. 03-1: Requires addition of a new chart. NGA senior leadership withdrew funding. Item is not funded. Estimated costs = $225K. . 03-2: NGA PVA that this program is cost justified. NGA/GTD is currently trying to obtain additional funding through the POM process for ENAME & EEA Chart realignment. The estimated costs are, $182,000.00 per yr., including printing and distribution, and are based on the current contract prices. 04-1: No Change. 04-2: NGA Actions completed. (Note: The Priority/Criticality for completing this item can be found in “SECTION 11” of this document.)Status: Closed.

00-01-26: Addition of ICAO to airport data block on IFR Enroute Charts. (Ref: RD 504) Note: The FCC elected to move this issue from the discussion section, adding it as an FCC agenda item after the fact to allow implementation monitoring. This item was discussed at the 00-1 FCC meeting but it was felt that the FCC members’ decision was not fully explained in the last meeting minutes. NGA requested FCC clarification. Action: 00-2: FCC members discussed this item and re-validated concurrence to add airport ICAO identifiers to NACO and DoD foreign IFR Enroute Charts. IACC Members approved RD and directed agency to change the appropriate IACC and DoD product specifications. 01-1: NGA stated that they would not be able to implement any additional aeronautical requirement due to GI budget cuts. Col Zenk/PCO will provide a written response to the services stating NGAs position and ability to fulfill this and future Priority/Critical aeronautical requirements. 01-2: Recommend adding this issue as a FCC agenda item until implementation is completed. 02-1: (Note: Same conditions as 00-01-25) Once funding is secured, NGA expects to complete conversion using OmniBus contractors. 02-3: NGA expects completion within CY03 as charts are digitized. 03-1: No change. 03-2: NGA revised its estimated completion date (ESD) to CY04. 04-1: No Change. 04-2: All NGA actions completed. (Note: The Priority/Criticality for completing this item can be found in “SECTION 11” of this document.)Status: Closed.

01-02-15: Runway Slope Submitter: NGAIssue/Discussion: Current Terminal Product Specification require publishing the runways slope if the runway slope exceeds 0.3% from the threshold to the runway midpoint. NGA requests changing the Product Spec allowing publishing the runway slope exceeding 0.3% from threshold to threshold when the elevation of the runway midpoint is unknown.“Runway Slope

(a). Runway slope shall be shown as a percentage value of the slope of the runway measured from each threshold to midpoint of all runways 8,000 feet or longer, from threshold to threshold on runways shorter than 8,000 feet, and portrayed when greater than or equal to 0.3% (defined to the nearest 0.1%). Note: For those runways 8,000 feet or longer and the midpoint elevation is unknown, the runway slope will be from threshold to threshold.”Action: The FCC requested further information for the requirement before approving. AFFSA will contact Tanker Community to help validate the requirement. If it is determined to be invalid, FCC will petition IACC to determine slope from threshold-to-threshold. FCC requested NGA to change the reference to Slope, but not to address the Runway midpoint application until the issue can be clarified. 02-1: Tanker community: “if it is impossible to obtain midpoint, calculate distance using threshold to threshold and provide a note as non-standard.” FCC directed NGA to include FAA slope data in DoD IAP Legend and add note to IAP sketches for all slopes that are calculated from end-to-end. Also, directed NGA PORF to check FAA policy concerning publishing of non-standard slope information and submit IACC RD if no requirement exists. 02-3: NGA POR staffing. 03-1: NGA PORF was directed to investigate FAA method for calculating Runway Slope and publishing of non-standard slope information, and report findings at next meeting. 03-2: FCC accepted the current guidance for calculating runway slope and directed NGA to add a note to the legend explaining nonstandard calculations. 04-1: No Change. NGA PVA will report status at next meeting. 04-2: FCC authorized NGA to publish that the runway slope is “Unknown” when the runway midpoint is not available.Status: Closed.

34

02-01-09: Waypoint publication Submitter: TFMWG-C (02-1-1)Issue/Discussion: For off route points not associated with airways or terminal procedures in terminal areas specific points can be published by SMRs if the waypoint or reporting point is used as an ATC function. This action does not resolve the larger issue of a requirement to depict waypoint not associated with airways. The TFMWG-C requests the FCC to create an Enroute Chart Working Group (ECWG) to review this issue and recommend actions.Action: FCC concurred stating those specific points can be published using the SMR process if the reporting point or waypoint is published by host country source. The FCC will refer this issue back to TFMWG-C for clarification. 02-3: No change since last meeting. 03-1: FCC/ECWG uncertain about the requirement and needs further clarification from Pacific and European Theater. AFFSA will coordinate other theaters for clarification. 03-2: No change. TFMWG-C has not met since last FCC meeting. 04-1: No Change. 04-2: FCC agreed to authorize depiction through SMR.Status: Closed.

02-01-16: Terminal Procedures Flag for Terrain Impacted Airports Submitter: AF/XORCDiscussion: The new Volpe format requires display of terrain on procedures, which have terrain rising more than 2000 feet within 4 nm of the airport, or rising 4000 feet within the chart area. DAFIF does not indicate the airports/procedures that are “terrain impacted”.Requirement: Add a data flag at the airport record level indicating this airport is Terrain Impacted, which will alert future software to import and display contour lines, pseudo-color shaded relief background behind the procedure plan view graphics. Action: FCC Concurred. NGA STL will develop straw man for inclusion into DAFIF Edition 8 and submit a proposal at next DWG meeting. FCC Monitoring. 02-3: FCC continues to monitor. Expect further clarification at next DWG. 03-1: Included within DAFIF Ed 8. 03-2: NGA expects DAFIF Edition8 implementation by fall of FY04. . 04-1: No Change. 04-2: NGA included Terrain Flags in DAFIF Edition 8. Action Completed.Status: Closed.

02-01-17: Terminal Procedures Flag for Shoreline Airports Submitter: AF/XORCDiscussion: Instrument Approach Procedure Specification’s call for display of the shoreline boundary whenever an airport is near the ocean. (Note: The Technical Threshold for this requirement is not as well articulated as it is for terrain-impacted airports). Therefore many paper FLIP procedures display shoreline data. The DAFIF does not indicate which airports are near shorelines.Requirement: Add a data flag at the airport record level indicating shoreline depiction.Action: FCC Concurred. NGA STL will submit proposal at next DWG meeting. FCC Monitoring. 02-3: FCC continues to monitor. Expect further clarification at next DWG. 03-1: Included within DAFIF Ed 8. 03-2: NGA expects DAFIF Edition 8 implementation by fall of FY04. . 04-1: No Change. 04-2: Included in DAFIF Edition 8. Action Completed.Status: Closed.

02-01-21: Airport/Heliport Communication Submitter: AF/XORCDiscussion: The DAFIF airport communication record is a free-form text field, which is loosely structured and with little consistency from airport to airport and difficult to parse. This lack of structure makes it difficult for kneeboard or FCPE software to port communication data to the Communication-Briefing Bar section at the top of Instrument Approach Procedures. Also, clearly define communication data will be required to generate future vector and FCPE enroute charts. Requirement: Request establishing communication records with clearly defined and parsed text fields.Action: FCC Concurred. NGA STL will submit a straw man at next DWG, which is expected to satisfy the requirement. FCC Monitoring. 02-3: FCC continues to monitor. Expect further clarification at next DWG. 03-1: Included within DAFIF Ed 8. 03-2: NGA expects DAFIF Edition 8 implementation by fall of FY04. 04-1: No Change. . 04-2: Included in DAFIF Edition 8. Action Completed.Status: Closed.

02-01-29: DAFIF Edition 8 Submitter: FCC

35

Issue/Discussion: DAFIF Edition 8 contains critical items to support future requirements. The FCC supports these issues and requests NGA start the funding process to insure the smooth transition of Edition 8. (Note: The Priority/Criticality for completing this item can be found in “SECTION 11” of this document.)Action: FCC Monitoring. . 02-3: NGA POM for FY04 completion and expects no problems. 03-1: NGA Leadership did not approve DAFIF Ed 8 funding. Estimated implementation Cost of $1M. The FCC members reaffirmed the need for DAFIF Ed 8 and elected to take this issue up through their command chain, directing the issue to NGA Director (Ret. LTG Clapper). Service will report status at next meeting. FCC also stated that DAFIF Ed 8 updates should be reopened to continue to add requirements as necessary if their efforts fail and funding is not received. NGA is to decide and report to the FCC by the next meeting whether or not DAFIF Ed 8 will be funded. FCC will pull requirement if no decision made by NGA to reopen updates to DAFIF Ed 8 so it will not become obsolete upon release (18 months delayed). 03-2: NGA expects DAFIF Edition 8 implementation by fall of FY04. 04-1: No Change. 04-2: DAFIF Edition 8 completed.Status: Closed.

02-02-03: Create new FIR and UIR Sector symbols Submitter: NGAIssue/Discussion: The following changes were requested to support NGA outsourcing effort to produce digital FLIP enroute charts from their Data Base: 1) Create new FIR and UIR Sector symbols that are more logical and differ significantly from the current FIR/UIR symbol. 2) Delete the current FIR/UIR symbol that is currently very similar to the ARTCC symbol. 3) Use same symbol for ACC and ARTCC. The function of the Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCC) within the U.S. is very similar to the Area Control Centers (ACC) outside the U.S.Action: FCC concurred. FCC requested NGA to coordinate the changes with FAA (submit IACC RD if required) and report changes to the FCC as they occur. NGA Reston reviewed the change with IACC and found the symbology to be in conformance with IACC. No RD required. 02-3: NGA completed changes effective 3 October 02. 03-1: NGA estimates completion by CY03 as charts are digitized. 03-2: NGA re-estimated completion by CY04 as charts are digitized. 04-1: NGA reported that C&SA, Africa, and PAA 1&2 had been completed with ENAME completion expected in September 04. 04-2: NGA completed actions. Changes effective on Octobers Charts.Status: Closed.

02-03-14: Depiction of CDR (Conditional Routes) on DoD Enroute Charts Submitter: TFMWG-E (01-2-02)a. Original Discussion (USAFE): It is the consensus of units within USAFE that these routes are of a permanent nature, are fully flight plan usable and should be depicted on Enroute Charts. These routes are depicted on Host Nation charts and are identified as such. Identification should be in the form of: e.g. A25 (CDR1), B25 (CDR 1,2). Information for active times, altitudes, etc. is through daily CRAM messages. Some of the routes are on the Enroute Charts, but are not identified as such. b. The NGA representative reported that the action is still under review. Many of the associated CDR 2 times has been deleted from the AP/2; however, additional review is needed. NGA will report status at the next meeting.TFMWG-E Action: USA, USAFE concurred. USN was not present. NGA will report their chart findings at the next TFMWG-E meeting and remove the associated CDR2 times as appropriate.Action: FCC requested NGA to investigate possible CDR symbol changes rather than labeling CDR Routes as CDR 1 or 2. NGA agreed to coordinate their findings off-line and report conclusion at the next FCC meeting. 03-1: NGA will phase-in changes as ESRI contractor digitizes charts. Expect completion by CY03. 03-2: No change. 04-1: NGA expects completion by 30 Sept 04. 04-2: NGA reported that the software was delivered and changes will be depicted starting with the 25 November chart cycle.Status: Closed.

03-01-01: Publishing SIDs without a Departure Route Description: Submitter: NGADiscussion: Current specification allows publication of SID without a DRD in C&SA theatre only. MSGT John Figgins, USAFE TERPS, submitted a Special Military Request for a SID at Ashgabat, Turkmenistan, and Lviv, Ukraine and expects more. Recommendation: Request FCC approve the specification change allowing for publishing of SID without DRD in all theaters. Current spec reads, "In the Caribbean and South America area, when there is no

36

textual description, the planview will occupy the entire space within the borderlines." Suggest changing to: "When there is no textual description, the planview will occupy the entire space within the border lines."Action: FCC concurred and requested submission of an IACC RD through IACC process. NGA will draft RD for off-line FCC coordination. 03-2: No Change. 04-1: The group concluded that no IACC RD was required. PVA will take action to change SIDs and report status at next meeting. 04-2: All actions completed.Status: Closed.

03-01-07: Non-Standard International Boundary Symbols Submitter: TFMWG-EIssue/Discussion: The International Boundary Symbols on ENAME Enroute Chart series for Sweden, Austria and Germany uses a heavy bold brown symbol to distinguish country boundaries. This differs from the standard “light blue” boundary symbol, which is used for all of the other chart series. NGA has not been able to find records requesting this special depiction. Recommendation: Change to standard boundary symbology.Action: FCC will survey the TFMWG-E to determine the impacts of changing to standard boundary symbols. NGA POR to contact US State Dept and report results. 03-2: NGA POR reported that the State Department had no conflicts with changing the boundaries symbol. All other actions completed. NGA expects completion by mid FY04. 04-1: Expect completion by 30 Sept 04. 04-2: NGA reported that the software was delivered and changes will be depicted starting with the 28 October chart cycle.Status: Closed.

03-02-01: Depict CNFs on Terminal Procedures Submitter: NGAIssue/Discussion: DoD currently has a policy on not depicting the CNF and associated identifiers on DoD Terminal Procedures. This practice is inconsistent with FAA depiction policy. The addition of this information will aid in aircrew situational awareness, allow DoD Systems developers in creating accurate FMS and aid other data providers, such as NACO, in populating their database. CNFs are already displayed and identified on Enroute Charts.Action: FCC concurred. NGA agreed to coordinate with the FAA for the usage of unpronounceableComputer Navigation Fixes (CNF) on analog procedures. This issue also concerns international namingconventions will be discussed at other forums. NGA will phased-in implementation as changes occur. 04-1: NGA Stated that they can only depict points identified in DAFIF, but have no process for coordinating CNF with FAA. (Also, see 02-02-07: DAFIF Terminator Path (Leg Coding)) 04-2: FCC determined that CNF were not needed since conventional procedures are for visual awareness only when depicted on FMS and RNAV procedures already include all named points.Status: Closed.

03-02-09: Identifying Amended Web Based IAPs Submitter: FCC Off-line Meeting (16 July 03)Issue/Discussion: The FCC requests NGA to investigate methods of identifying Web based amended and changed IAPs. The addition of this feature would enhance usability. Action: FCC concurred. NGA will report findings at next meeting. 04-1: NGA continues to investigate issue and will report progress at next meeting. 04-2: NGA could not identify technical or cost effective method of marking the procedure changes. Additionally, it was felt that this change would not benefit the aviator since they are only concerned with the currency of the product, not the recent changes. NGA recommended the issue be withdrawn. FCC members concurred.Status: Closed

03-02-16: DAFIF on DVD (02-2-12 DWG) Submitter: NGABackground: The group requested that the chair to ensure that the FCC has approved edition 8 to be on DVD. Further we are looking for clarification that edition 7 will be on CD and will also be on a DVD in conjunction with edition 8. AFFSA requested, and the group concurred, that the FCC might consider allowing for the entire DoD FLIP is provided in a raster scan on DVD with DAFIF. Using liberal estimates, it is fairly certain that all DoD FLIP volumes will fit on one DVD. Suggestion is to use a double-sided DVD that will have FLIP on one side and DAFIF on the other. Recommendation: Please confirm the movement to DVD for edition 8 and beyond as stated above. Request NGA reps to the DWG to report the confirmation of the FCC.

37

Action: FCC Concurred. 04-1: NGA confirmed DAFIF ed 8 will be on DVD and is on schedule for an October 04 release. 04-2: DVD will be available 23 November 04 cycle.Status: Closed.

03-02-17: ICAO REGION DATASET 0 (03-2-01 DWG) Submitter: NGABackground: GTRI requested that a digital source be provided for the ICAO region boundaries. The group agreed that the suggestion has value and NGA will perform a feasibility check. Bucky reported that this would be an easily accomplished function that NGA will be able to perform and suggested that this be authorized for an amendment.Recommendation: FCC to consider the merits. NGA DWG representative will report the decision of the FCC.Action: NGA provided an example diagram to the FCC of the requested information. The FCC was uncertain if this fulfilled the intent of the requestor and requested the DWG Chair resubmit to DWG for clarification. 04-1: NGA clarified the merits of regionalizing the data set to ICAO. FCC concurred. NGA agreed to implement as amendment to DAFIF Ed 8. Implementation timeline TBD. 04-2: FCC requested acknowledgement from the FCC members that the ICAO regional graphic will only be used for situational awareness and basic mission planning purposes, and would not be used for operational support of any kind. FCC agreed and authorized NGA to add appropriate notes stating the use of the ICAO graphic information.Status: Closed.

03-02-18: ICAO IDENTS/3-LETTER IDENT (03-2-02 DWG) Submitter: NGA/ESCBackground: A proposal to revise the DAFIF logic for “FAA_HOST_ID” field in the ARPT table to include the following:

1. If ICAO is 4-letter, then no change2. If ICAO is not 4-letter then

a. If FAA is 4-character then use itb. If FAA is 3-character (only in USA) the prefix with “K” if within CONUS or “P” if in

Pacific (Alaska or Hawaii)c. If FAA does not provide code than create a code that is the 2-letter ICAO Region code

followed by a unique alphanumeric. An approach to creating the unique number mentioned in 2c is assigning a number that is the alphabetical sequence number. If a so created 4-character code exists in the list, then use the next available number. It will probably be necessary to use an extended number set like Hexadecimal or 01…WXYZ. A complete recommendation will be prepared for the next meeting.Recommendation: FCC to consider the proposal on its merit. NGA rep will report the FCC decision to the DWG.Action: Air Force and Navy concurred with the recommendation, but Army representative had concerns that the wording in Para 2.c. may conflict with foreign Airport Identifications. NGA will investigate possible foreign conflicts and report detail at next DWG. 04-1: NGA reported computer review and found only two instances of duplication, which are easily corrected and blocked from future corruption. NGA agreed to continue integrity checks if proposal is accepted. FCC approved the proposal as defined. NGA will implement and report status at next meeting. 04-2: NGA completed action May 04. FAA submitted letter of intend to also add identifiers in FAA National Flight Database.Status: Closed.

04-01-04: Closed Data Box Depiction Submitter: NGA PVAIssue/Discussion: NGA requested removing split data boxes on navaids and air boundary data boxes. Put all text inside the box and use a single leader line points to the navaids/boundary.

38

Action: FCC concurred. NGA will implement as charts are produced using ESRI contractor. 04-2: NGA Action Completed.Status: Closed.

04-01-05: Boundary text Order Submitter: NGA PVAIssue/Discussion: NGA requested modification of boundary text by changing the text to the order contained within the aeronautical date base. This effort will reduce software programming and improve production efficiencies.

Change from: TCA/CLASS A To: PEREIRA TCA PEREIRA CLASS A

Action: FCC concurred. NGA will implement as charts are produced using ESRI contractor. 04-2: NGA action completed.Status: Closed.

04-01-06: ATS Bypass Symbol Submitter: NGA PVA

Issue/Discussion: NGA requests the removal of ATS bypass symbol requirement for on route waypoints/navaids by replacing the symbol with a note telling the pilot which ATS route this waypoint is used on.

Example: GEROT N24* 19.6' W75* 24.5' (A300 ONLY)Note: The bypass symbol would still be used around off route waypoints and navaids. The bypass symbol will only be removed on routes that over lye each other and the symbol will remain on crossing routes, off route waypoints and navaids.Action: FCC concurred. NGA will implement as charts are produced using ESRI contractor. 04-2: NGAAction Completed.Status: Closed.

04-01-07: Compass Rose Removal Submitter: NGA PVAIssue/Discussion: NGA requests the removal of Compass Rose/North Arrow requirement from NGA Production Specifications. The new format would simply depict Radial and ATS Centerline emitting from the Navaid symbol. Action: After considerable debate, the FCC members elected to further investigate user need for compass rose depiction. FCC members will report findings at next meeting. 04-2: FCC elected to retain compass roses. Status: Closed.

04-01-27: Format Change to Communication Section IFR SUPPSubmitter: AFFSA/XOIAIssue/Discussion: When more than one APP CON is provided the frequencies should be listed with the appropriate APP CON facility. For Example current entry in IFR SUPP for EAST TEXAS RGNL, TX is LONGVIEW APP/DEP – Opr 1200-1400Z++, OT ctc FORT WORTH CENTER 135.1 269.2. (R)(E)

39

118.25 124.675 128.75 133.1 270.3 REMARKS: 379.15 385.4 (TRSA 30 NM out) (118.25 270.3 E at or blw 4000’) (124.674 128.75 379.15 385.4 W at or blw 5000’) (133.1 at or above 4500’)SUGGESTED FORMAT: LONGVIEW APP/DEP – Opr 1200-1400Z++, (R)(E) 118.25 124.675 128.75 133.1 270.3 REMARKS: 379.15 385.4 (TRSA 30 NM out) (118.25 270.3 E at or blw 4000’) (124.674 128.75 379.15 385.4 W at or blw 5000’) (133.1 at or above 4500’), OT ctc FORT WORTH CENTER 135.1 269.2.Action: NGA stated that this change would require software changes and incur additional costs. NGA will study impacts and report findings at next meeting. 04-2: FCC elected to withdraw issue pending TG-35 FAA/NGA co-production efforts.Status: Withdrawn.

04-01-14: Global Reach FLIP Submitter: AFFSA/XOIAIssue/Discussion: Request NGA provided global reach FLIP to DoD. IAPs will be published for every airport identified by the services in VOLPE format, IAW RD 496, agreed upon and signed, 9/2/99.   Available airport supplemental information should be included for evey airport to include noise abatement procedures, speed restricions, gate information... similar to information found in Jeppesen products.Action: NGA commented that all additional FLIP develop for the AMC Global Reach effort would be provided to other DoD agencies on an as needed bases. The addition of Airport Diagrams and addition gate information has not been identified by AMC as a requirement at this time. NGA recommended that the FCC members submit a requirement to include gate information on Airport Diagrams through the FCC process. Army indicated this does not meet their needs unless runways less then 3000 feet were also included. Army would need NGA to purchase Jeppesen products until this need is fulfilled. NGA responded by asking for written Senior Army Flag Officer requirement identifying the need for NGA support. 04-2: NGA requested this issue be withdrawn until the program is implemented. FCC concurred.Status: Withdrawn.

04-01-19: Amendments for RADAR, TAKE-OFF-OBSTACLE SIDS etc. Submitter: AFFSA/XOIA TFMWG-C 04-1-05 (submitted by HQ AFRC/DOVA)Issue/Discussion: Request the FCC initiate a method of the NGA identifying amendments to individual IFR Approaches, Takeoff Minimums and (Obstacle) Departure Procedures and Radar Instrument Approach Minimums by runway. Currently the method of assigning an amendment number to a combined plate, airport identification header of the IFR Takeoff Minimums and (Obstacle) Departure Procedures, or Radar Instrument Approach Minimums does not allow for the tracking of amendments by specific procedure or runway.Action: FCC agreed to standardize depiction method. Navy and Air Force will survey units for authorization to use “Amendment Method” rather than Julian date. FCC will report finding at next meeting. 04-2: FCC elected to depict both the “Amendment Method” and the “Julian date”. NGA will implement as procedure changes occur.Status: Closed.

04-01-23: MTR Mnemonic Names (DWG 04-1-02) Submitter: NGADiscussion: The problem was identified and a solution is offered as a strawman. This could be entered as an amendment to edition 7. The strawman was accepted at this meeting with the concurrence of the services and is approved. DWG Action: Forward to the FCC. DWG Status: Open for the report of FCC findings.Action: NGA agreed to investigate and report findings at next meeting. 04-2: NGA Actions Completed.Status: Closed.

04-01-25: Effective Time for New DOD FLIP Editions (TFMWG-E 02-2-04) Submitter: AFFSA/XOIA/TFMWG-EIssue/Discussion: The USA received the following message from the field: Can you answer a question? On the US DoD FLIP publications, there is a time that the new pubs are effective. For example, the cover of the US IFR - Supplement states it is effective 0901Z 8 Aug 2002 to 3 Oct 2002. The DoD Supplement for Europe states, for example, it is effective 5 Sep 2002 to 3 Oct 2002 (no time indicated on the cover). So, my question is, is the IFR Supplement (for Europe) good through the end of the Zulu day on 3 Oct or did it expire at 0000 on 3 Oct? The ENAME IAP volumes publish the effective date and time as being "...0001 hours local time of the date shown on the front cover." No further reference to effective time is

40

published for the other ENAME documents. The USA requests a discussion from NGA on whether or not the reference to "0001" is applicable to all OCONUS FLIP documents? If it is, the services are asked to comment on the appropriate location for depicting this information so that all aircrews understand when a new edition of FLIP is effective (e.g. Similar to US IFR Supplement (effective 0901Z 8 Aug 2002 to 3 Oct 2002), general statement in the GP, Chap 11, or General statement in each separate document such as currently depicted in the ENAME IAP Volumes General Information page, etc). FMWG Chairman reported the other TFMWGs concurred with this issue. b. After a short discussion, the TFMWG-E recommends that all FLIP products display the effective times for each product. Suggested format for overseas products: Effective as of 0001Z of the date shown on the product.TFMWG-E ACTION: USA, USAFE concurred. USN was not present. Forward to the FMWG Chairman for presentation to the FCC. 3-23-04 FMWG Chairman reports all Theaters Concur. Request FCC/NGA verify 0001 Local Vs. ZULU Time.Action: FCC concurred. NGA will send wording to FCC for off-line coordination and expects implementation by fall 04 cycle. 04-2: All Actions Completed.Status: Closed.

04-01-26: PAA BACKLOG Submitter: AFFSA/XOIA/TFMWG-PIssue/Discussion: There is currently 250 USAF and 85 NAVY procedures in the Pacific Region sent to NGA that need to be published in the Terminal Booklets. This backlog is causing numerous NOTAMs to be published and monitored and also causing the TERPSTER to do Jepp review on these procedures. Another concern is the supporting information (Non Procedural Changes) is being sent thru FILs and published in the SUPP. This can cause a conflict of information published.Action: NGA has taken steps to work off the PAA Backlog and will continue to work overtime, focusing only on backlog until finished. 04-2: All Actions Completed.Status: Closed.

04-01-27: Format Change to Communication Section IFR SUPP Submitter: AFFSA/XOIAIssue/Discussion: When more than one APP CON is provided the frequencies should be listed with the appropriate APP CON facility. For Example current entry in IFR SUPP for EAST TEXAS RGNL, TX is LONGVIEW APP/DEP – Opr 1200-1400Z++, OT ctc FORT WORTH CENTER 135.1 269.2. (R)(E) 118.25 124.675 128.75 133.1 270.3 REMARKS: 379.15 385.4 (TRSA 30 NM out) (118.25 270.3 E at or blw 4000’) (124.674 128.75 379.15 385.4 W at or blw 5000’) (133.1 at or above 4500’)SUGGESTED FORMAT: LONGVIEW APP/DEP – Opr 1200-1400Z++, (R)(E) 118.25 124.675 128.75 133.1 270.3 REMARKS: 379.15 385.4 (TRSA 30 NM out) (118.25 270.3 E at or blw 4000’) (124.674 128.75 379.15 385.4 W at or blw 5000’) (133.1 at or above 4500’), OT ctc FORT WORTH CENTER 135.1 269.2.Action: NGA stated that this change would require software changes and incur additional costs. NGA will study impacts and report findings at next meeting. 04-2: FCC elected to withdraw issue pending TG-35 FAA/NGA co-production efforts.Status: Withdrawn.

04-02-05: DoD/NGA Contractions, Abbreviations & Acronyms (TFMWG-E 04-1-03) Submitter:: USAF/XOIADISCUSSION: Suggest we re-look the current usage of abbreviations, contractions and acronyms as used in the DOD Flight Information Publications. To provide full service to our customers, it is suggested; in addition to those in the DOD FLIP, we include those authorized for use in the FAAH 7340.1 Contractions.edc

a. NGA reported it is already working a similar action with an estimated completion date of SEP 04.

b. The services unanimously agreed that the FIH and IFR Supplement Contractions, Abbreviations and Acronyms should marry up. However, as to whether an across the board use of ICAO over FAA definitions be used, the USA and USAFE concurred with using ICAO definitions since the use of ICAO is becoming the norm. The USN dissented because of concerns of using ICAO definitions inside the NAS. It was agreed that this issue be forwarded to the FCC for resolution.

41

ACTION: USA, USAFE and USN concurred.

FCC review and take action on the use of FAA versus ICAO derived definitions in DOD FLIP.

Source documents:  

FIH Flight Information HandbookIFR Supplement7930.2J Notices to Airmen (NOTAMS)7340.1W CONTRACTIONS7110.65 Air Traffic ControlAeronautical Information Manual (AIM)  Examples

EXPLANATION OF CODES GEN - Indicates general aeronautical usage. NWS - Indicates National Weather Service and aeronautical weather usage. ATC - Indicates Air Traffic Control usage. ICAO - Indicates ICAO usage. International messages should use these. METAR/TAF - Indicates ICAO weather usage.  FIH vis = visibilityNWS vsby = visibilityGEN vsb = visible FIH/ICAO vrb = variableGEN vrbl = variableRecommendation: FCC review and take action on the use of FAA versus ICAO derived definitions in DOD FLIP.Action: NGA stated that defining a hierarchy would assist in IACC TG-35 efforts to co-produce FLIP. FCC concurred and authorized NGA to use the hierarchy of : ICAO, FAA, then DoD whenever possible.Status: Closed.

04-02-06: NGA PS/1FA/009 and 091 Product Production Specifications Submitter: AFFSA/XOIAIssue/Discussion: AFFSA policy for the USAF is to publish a time/distance table on all host nation instrument approaches even when DME is required for the approach.  This is being done to provide DoD aircrews the ability to use timing as a back up to DME for determination of the missed approach point.  This change to production specifications would apply only to FTIP.Note: This is already USAF and USN policy.   NGA has had enough Special Military Requests (SMRs) on this topic in the last 18 months to warrant the change to the specification. Implementation of this spec change will reduce service headquarters involvement with SMRs and reduce coordination between NGA and the Tri-Service TERPS OPRs. Recommendation: Change Paragraph G, subparagraph 3 of PS/1FA/004/091 to allow publication of time/distance tables on all FTIP, even when the controlling NAVAID is a TACAN, VOR/DME or VORTAC or when the controlling NAVAID is located on the airportAction: Duplication. Issue was addressed and resolved in 03-02-10.Status: Withdrawn.

42