What would you do next?

[dtuuri]

A discussion of a certain instrument approach chart in another thread uncovered an error, as pointed out by a chart designer who participated in the discussion. So, after spending some time searching the FAA's website for the most expeditious way to correct the error, I used the link suggested for rendering "better support" than the standard error reporting link. Apparently "better support" means they pass the buck faster than usual to another division. You can always count on that happening, so I was curious if this newer, better "Gateway" actually could deliver the goods. The answer, IMO, is "Business as usual, just faster dissatisfaction."

Now what? If it were you, would you reply to the response? Just forget it? Play ball without complaint? My case number was immediately marked "closed", so do I open a new one? The link they passed me off to, is for initiating a brand-new approach, not for error reporting, do I still use it anyway or was that a typo?

The answer they gave, btw, re: HILPT being for ATC radar vectored aircraft to the FAF is pure bs, IMO. Should I argue that point? With who? Call the person who responded? What would you do?

Here's the website's instructions to "support you better", my emphasis:

"For general comments, e-mail us at <9-AMC-Aerochart@faa.gov>. For specific questions/comments about airports and/or procedures, please use the "E-Mail FAA" links next to the specific Procedure(s) to allow us to support you better."​

Here's FAA's response, including my error report:

Dear David:

Thank you for reporting the problem concerning:



Regarding: DUA ( KDUA) DURANT RGNL - EAKER FIELD, DURANT, OK - VOR/DME RWY 35

David Tuuri sent the following message:

There is a missing feeder route from URH to HANOM (IAF). It's required for lost comms and cruise clearances. It should be shown offset from the final approach course with an associated minimum altitude. Without a published feeder, no HILPT should be charted, since the only entry to the IAF is marked NoPT.


Control Number 20091 has been assigned to this issue for tracking purposes.


This concern has been closed with the following Response:



Mr Tuuri

You have posed a valid comment concerning this instrument approach procedure (IFP). You are correct this IFP could have a feeder route from Texoma to the FAF. However, after researching our files and procedure histories, we are unable to provide you with a reason for the lack of a feeder. However, ATC always has the ability to vector aircraft to the FAF and this most often would require the use of the HILPT.

This office deveolped this IFP at the request of the Flight Procedures Team in Ft Worth. As stated though, we can find no record of the specifics of the original request made in 2001. So at this point we have to assume our specialist developed the IFPs as requested and the original request did not include a feeder off Texoma to the FAF.

You may submit a request to add the feeder, if you feel this would be an enhancement to this IFP. Just go to the following website address and you will be able to enter your request.

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/procedures/ifp_initiation/

Follow the guidance provided and your request will go direct to the Ft Worth office for action. Thank you for your interest in our products.



Regards,

George Gonzalez
Mgr
Phone: (405) 954-2884
​

Is this "better support"? Your thoughts...

dtuuri

 

[peerlesscowboy]

I e-mailed 9-AMC-Aerochart@faa.gov about this matter and got pretty much the same pass the buck response from one;
Donald R Harmer
Supervisor
IFP team 2-A

FWIW, if I was flying in or around Oklahoma I'd follow up on it.

 

[dtuuri]

I e-mailed 9-AMC-Aerochart@faa.gov about this matter and got pretty much the same pass the buck response from one;
Donald R Harmer
Supervisor
IFP team 2-A

Heh, that's actually funny. The same guy sent me the above email, but it has another person's signature--even has his phone number on it! Harmer must be in charge. You have to be an expert at buck passing to rise that far. Notice the footwork:

• HILPT misdirection, since my comment was mostly about the missing feeder
• Told me to contact "Fort Worth", not him (even though he admits his department made the chart)
• Blames lost records (I wonder who "lost" them )
• "Assumed" the chart error must be Forth Worth's omission
• Gave a link for "initiating a procedure" not "changing an existing one" (that'll take about two years I guess)
• Puts somebody else's contact information at the bottom.

You have to admire his finesse and speed at closing case numbers, I'm awed.

dtuuri

 

[coloradobluesky]

I wouldnt worry about it. Its a small thing and they know about it.

 

[dtuuri]

I wouldnt worry about it. Its a small thing and they know about it.

So you're satisfied it's "mission accomplished", the FAA is "on the case" and a corrected chart will be in the next revision bundle?

dtuuri

 

[Clark1961]

So you're satisfied it's "mission accomplished", the FAA is "on the case" and a corrected chart will be in the next revision bundle?

That is not what the poster said. You are once again missing the point entirely.

 

[dtuuri]

That is not what the poster said. You are once again missing the point entirely.

What's the point?

EDIT: Actually, you're missing the point. The point is, "Is the FAA responding well enough to fix a known chart error?" If not, what would you do next? Coloradobluesky appears to be satisfied, so I just want to make sure that's what he means. In your case, you have experience (I believe) doing the exact same dance in Denver I'm doing over Durant. So, what would (did?) you do next?

dtuuri

 

[dtuuri]

Sooner or later every serious pilot will encounter an error on a chart they wish to have fixed. Or maybe they have a question about a procedure only the FAA personnel who established the procedure can answer authoritatively. Many pilots, ie, "customers", complain about the FAA's response, or lack of it, to their concerns.

Fourteen years ago, ALPA was one "customer" among others, such as GA pilots like us and other organizations like NBAA and AOPA who felt ignored during the implementation of new procedures and amending of existing ones. So, they opened an "issue" at the Aeronautical Charting Forum to address it. Here's their complaint:

"When any customer brings a bona-fide issue about an existing terminal instrument procedure to AVN, that customer should be included in any redesign process prior to the final product emerging as essentially a fait accompli."​

They were persuaded to close the issue by Brad Rush and Dave Eckles who said the upcoming RAPT Order 8260.43A should resolve these concerns, my emphasis:

"The RAPT process considers safety, benefit, impact, urgency, customer input, and other factors so that the FAA can provide informed, timely responses to flight procedure requests. Better service to the users is a primary concern and goal of the RAPT."​

In my mind, timely kicking of the can down the road is not "better service". I expect a "valid comment" to be fixed in the very next chart revision, don't you folks? I've already made my next move, right or wrong, I'm wondering how others would handle it.

dtuuri

 

[Lindberg]

I don't know much about IFR, but I read the response as saying, "You have pointed out an error with the procedure, not with the chart. We fix chart errors, not procedure errors. If you would like a change or correction to the procedure, please contact the appropriate folks."

Seem reasonable to me. Especially for the gov't. But like I said, I don't know much about IFR procedures.

 

[peerlesscowboy]

I don't know much about IFR, but I read the response as saying, "You have pointed out an error with the procedure, not with the chart. We fix chart errors, not procedure errors. If you would like a change or correction to the procedure, please contact the appropriate folks."

Seem reasonable to me. Especially for the gov't. But like I said, I don't know much about IFR procedures.

That's a good point. It's my understanding that the FAA procedures folks that design these things prescribe the procedure in textual form and then the cartographers use that "source" to draw up the approach charts that we the pilots use. It'd be interesting to see if a feeder is included or omitted on the "source"?
If you come strolling into a pharmacy apparently robust and healthy with a scribbled out prescription for morphine I'd hope the pharmacist would at least call the doctor to verify before filling the prescription?

 

[dtuuri]

I don't know much about IFR, but I read the response as saying, "You have pointed out an error with the procedure, not with the chart. We fix chart errors, not procedure errors. If you would like a change or correction to the procedure, please contact the appropriate folks."

Seem reasonable to me. Especially for the gov't. But like I said, I don't know much about IFR procedures.

If I follow the link in the email it appears it would start the process of developing a brand-new procedure which could take years. I opted to hit "reply all" and addressed my complaint to the person who signed the email. Then I noticed the return address went to someone else (Harmer, not Gonzales). Who are these people anyway? I have no way to know how they fit in the bewildering organizational hierarchy. All I know is I made use of a hyperlink labeled "eMail" on the FAA's Instrument Flight Procedures Gateway recommended for "better support" than "general comments". I also know Order 8260.19E says this:

"Any FAA personnel who find or are notified of discrepancies and/or errors in
aeronautical charts should forward the information to AFS-460, or AeroNav Products, Resource Planning and Management Support (AJV-3A). AIM and AIP discrepancies should be referred to the Production Technology & ATC Products Group (AJV-36)."​

I don't know what those departments are for either, but I can see once I've reported it--the ball is in their court to process. Instead, the ball got spiked back to me. If I don't do the right thing it could be years to see an update or I walk away and nothing is ever done, like I walked away from trying to help pilots of /A & /U aircraft get IFR clearances off some Maine airports in Boston Center after numerous unreturned emails and phone calls.

dtuuri

 

[Gerhardt]

...once I've reported it--the ball is in their court to process. Instead, the ball got spiked back to me. dtuuri

That's the way I see it too.

 

[MAKG1]

What would I do?

Keep going up the chain until someone took it seriously.

Kicking an issue over the fence is a tried and true method in many large organizations including the FAA. It's probably a sign that his metric is how many issues he can close. You need to make his reviewer aware that things are being closed that shouldn't be. Loss of traceability is a serious issue.

 

[dtuuri]

After waiting for a few days for a response to my "Reply all" complaint, I sent another email to an fAA employee I thought was in a position to help. He graciously did, but prefers not to be identified. He says action has been started and the Durant approach chart will now be revised with a feeder. He also said the questionable "Initial procedure" hyperlink is also used for making change requests. The first response I received was not from a "cartographer" it was from a developer.

I also asked about the KAPA lack of a feeder for non-turbine, non-GPS aircraft and he said to use the same procedure initiation process to make that change request: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/procedures/ifp_initiation/

I'll cross post this to the other threads.

dtuuri

 

[Henning]

What's the point?

EDIT: Actually, you're missing the point. The point is, "Is the FAA responding well enough to fix a known chart error?" If not, what would you do next? Coloradobluesky appears to be satisfied, so I just want to make sure that's what he means. In your case, you have experience (I believe) doing the exact same dance in Denver I'm doing over Durant. So, what would (did?) you do next?

dtuuri

Didn't they tell you what to do next? Why not try that?

 

[dtuuri]

Didn't they tell you what to do next? Why not try that?

To me, I had already used the "Better support" hyperlink to email the request. My expectation was that should have been the end of it. They threw it back, though, with a bs answer about radar vectors to a HILPT and another link that's for "initial procedure" requests. Initial requests can take years, I understand, so I didn't want to go there. Now that it's been explained that the link, indeed, is for both initial requests as well as changes, I would use the link. They should put it in place of the "serve you better" link I used, however. How was I supposed to know? They shouldn't have bounced it back to me for action anyway, they should have forwarded it themselves to the right place, IMO.

dtuuri