IFR procedure coding

22.12.2005

Submission:

Understanding how modern airborne Navigation Systems perform becomes more and more of a necessity for procedure design specialists.

Many procedure designers have voiced concern over the significant differences between what is designed and what is actually flown. These differences often stem from a lack of understanding on the part of the procedure designer as to the effects of coding the procedure into the onboard flight management system. This problem can be solved if the procedure designer has a basic understanding of database coding issues and so ensure that an instrument flight procedure will be flown as originally designed.

For this reason, the Air Navigation Institute of Switzerland has put together a 5-day course on the subject.

Topics covered:

Introduction to the Path/Terminator Concept
Exercises with actually published procedures and the analysis of the effects of different Path / Terminator Codes
Coding Problems (i.e. conditional clearances)
Coding Options
Behaviour of different Navigation Systems
Introduction to the database
ARINC 424 coding lines
Actual coding exercises
Charting and naming conventions
Charting and Naming case studies

Location:
Switzerland.

Dates:
June 26- 30, 2006

Instructor:
Jim Terpstra (Senior President of Jeppesen - Retired)

Registration:
Beat Zimmermann:
bz@airnavigationinstitute.ch

Answer or Commentary:

(I.W.
Previously a procedure designer needed to know how a pilot would fly a procedure (i.e. Fly-ability). Now I think modern procedure designers need to know how the FMS will fly the procedure (i.e. computer-ability).

I personally know of certain AIP charting systems that require the procedure designer to electronically code the IFR procedure into the data base driven system before an AIP chart can be created.)