1 Introduction to Categorical Amendment Criteria (CAC) Joe Jurecka Aviation Program Leader NWS Lubbock, TX Commercial Pilot ASMEL Instrument SAWS III Phoenix, AZ 23 Mar 2010

2 Contributors Cammye Sims, Aviation Services Branch Brad Sipperley, WFO Fairbanks, AK Aaron Tyburski, WFO State College, PA David Hotz, WFO Morristown, TN Joe Dellicarpini, WFO Boston, MA Todd Lericos, WFO Caribou, ME

3 Presentation Outline  Why change?  Review of Standard Amendment Criteria  CAC Methodology, Thresholds, and Limitations  Amendments Using CAC  Benefits of Using CAC  Implementation

To provide the aviation community with a more responsive product tailored to their regulatory needs A more concise product is possible when the forecast is tailored to aeronautical decisions and impacts. Why make a change?

Standard Amendment Criteria Review of Standard Amendment Criteria

Standard TAF Amendment Criteria

Impacts of Standard Amendment Criteria Non-standard individual airport minimums ignored  Only 200 feet and 1/2SM used (CAT I ILS)  Airfields served only by non-precision approaches are not represented 7

Impacts of Standard Amendment Criteria Aviation community receives too many amendments that do not have an impact on airport operations Forecaster time is diverted from sites/tasks needing attention TEMPO groups may restrict operations resulting in flight delays and impacts the National Airspace System (NAS) 8

CAC Methodology, Thresholds, and Limitations CAC Methodology, Thresholds, and Limitations

Employs the following important concepts:  Ceiling and Visibility meet specific airport requirements  Group Ceiling and Visibility together into categories to match FAA Regulations  TEMPO groups checked immediately against METARS to notify forecasters of resulting customer impacts 10 Methodology

TAF Amendment Current

TAF Amendment Break Down the Wall

TAF Amendment CAC ATCFLOW PRECISION NON-PRECISION

Customized Airport Minimums Airport minimums tailored and grouped together to meet specific airport requirements Airport minimums tailored and grouped together to meet specific airport requirements Eliminates unnecessary or non applicable amendments Eliminates unnecessary or non applicable amendments Example: Airport minimums 400’ AND 1SM (not standard 200’ AND/OR 1/2SM) Example: Airport minimums 400’ AND 1SM (not standard 200’ AND/OR 1/2SM) Eliminates need for amendments once ceiling or visibility falls below 400’ and 1SM Eliminates need for amendments once ceiling or visibility falls below 400’ and 1SM Also applies to alternate minimums Also applies to alternate minimums 14

WFOs have the ability to meet the special needs of the airport or local Air Traffic Management with additional amendment criteria WFOs have the ability to meet the special needs of the airport or local Air Traffic Management with additional amendment criteria  Examples Phoenix Sky Harbor (KPHX) Phoenix Sky Harbor (KPHX) – Visual approaches: Minimum ceiling of 5000’ Boston Logan Airport (KBOS) Boston Logan Airport (KBOS) – Circling approaches: Minimum ceiling of 1400’ and visibility of 3SM Increased service to our customers Increased service to our customers  These are new, customer-driven thresholds only available using CAC thresholds only available using CAC 15 CAC Local Thresholds

CAC Limitations Example: KLBB - Runway 17R Category A Minimum: 200’ and 1/2SM - Runway 35 Category A Minimum: 600’ and ¾ SM CAC uses the lowest airport minimums, which are 200’ and 1/2SM Only addresses categories for ceiling and visibility  Does not include wind or RVR  Thresholds are not “runway specific” Limited to one value for each category at each airport

Categorical Amendment Criteria: Categorical Amendment Criteria:  The lowest element of ceiling or visibility is considered “controlling” for amendment purposes Standard Amendment Criteria: Standard Amendment Criteria:  Software prompts for an amendment based on ceiling OR visibility 17 CAC vs. Standard Amendment Criteria

Better customer service  amendments based upon specific airport criteria  Regulatory needs of the flying community addressed  Quicker response to customer needs, including out of category TEMPO groups Forecaster’s time maximized  Improved situational awareness  Allows focus on sites needing attention  amendments only issued for meaningful thresholds Fewer amendments (WFO FAI decreased by 23%) Comparable reduction seen in Lubbock 18 Benefits of Using CAC

19 WFOs using CAC as of April 2010 Fairbanks, AK

Notify Users well ahead of transition date – Airlines – FBOs – ATC Facilities (TRACON/ARTCC/AFSS) – FAA Safety Team (delivery to GA community) Modify AVNFPS to display CATegory well in advance of transition date. Transition to CAC and remove CIG/VSBY from AvnFPS Follow-up with your aviation partners 20 CAC Transition for NWS Offices

21 Questions??? Introduction to Categorical Amendment Criteria