Faa Order 8200.34 [610236]

ORDER
FLIGHT PROCEDURES INSPECTOR'S HANDBOOK
August 11, 1994
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 8200.34
Distribution: ZFS-821 Initiated By: AFS-420

RECORD OF CHANGES oiREcnvE No.I L _____ s_z_o_o_._3_4 ____ ____.J
CHANGE SUPPLEMENTS CHANGE SUPPLEMENTS
TO OPTIONAL USE TO OPTIONAL IJSE
BASIC BASIC
"
' ~
FAA Form 1320-5 (5-68) suPERSEDEs PREvious EDITION GPO 1968 OF-308-383

8/11/94 8200.34
FOREKORD
This order implements standardized direction and procedures for
Flight Standards personnel assigned to the regional Flight
Procedures Branches.
The coordination of efforts affecting the promotion of aviation
safety and the consistency and accuracy of the services provided
to the public require users of this handbook to be thoroughly
familiar with the contents and make every effort to comply with
the instructions herein. For this purpose, we have attempted to
provide standardized instructions, criteria, procedures, and
guidance during handbook development. The handbook is not
complete. Some chapters are currently under development while
others may be in coordination. Incomplete portions will be
published as they are finished.
Compliance with the instructions in this handbook is not a
substitute for sound judgment and common sense. All possible
site-specific circumstances, as well as all-inclusive criteria
for new and changing technologies, cannot be included in this
handbook. Flight Procedures Branch personnel are expected to
exercise initiative and take appropriate action in recognizing
the limitations of this guidance in association with the
limitations and capabilities of aircraft, airborne equipment, and
navigational aids. Aviation safety is the prime concern.
We have employed the talent and experience of individuals from
the Flight Procedures Branches and other Flight
Standards/Aviation Standards organizations to develop this order.
We are also using formats and material from other Flight
Standards inspector handbooks. We express our appreciation to
those who have, directly or indirectly, contributed their time
and energies to this effort.
~ ~c. Accardi
Director, Flight Standards Service
Page i (and ii)

8/11/94 8200.34
TABLE OF CORTEHTS
CHAPTER 1. GERERAL CONCEPTS, GUIDAJICE, AND IRFORMATION
SECTION 1. GERERAL BARDBOOK IRFORMATION
Paragraph
1. Purpose •••••••••••••••••••..••••••••••••••••••••• 1-1
2. Distribution .••••••••••••..•••••••••••••••••••••• 1-1
3. Definitions, Abbreviations, and Acronyrns ••••••••• 1-1
4. Implementation ••••••••.•.•••••••••••••••••••••••• 1-2 0
5. Handbook Organization and Use ••••••••••••.••••••• 1-20
6. Handbook Revisions ••••……..•••••.•….•…•… l-24
7.thru 19. Reserved •.•..••.••…….••…•….•••….• l-24
Figure 1-1. Inspector Feedback Sheet •••••••••••• 1-25
SECTION 2. HISTORY OF THE FAA Aim ITS ORGAJIIZATION Aim
AUTHORITY
20. History of the Federal Aviation Administration ••• 1-31
21. History and Organization of Aviation
Standards/Flight Standards ••••••.•••••••••••••••• 1-33
Figure 1-2. AXO & AVR/AVS Organizational Chart •• 1-34
22. The Public Law ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1-36
23.thru 29. Reserved •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1-38
SECTION 3. THE IHTERRATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGAJIIZATION
30. History •••….••••…••••••..••••….•••….••.•. 1-39
31. ICAO Objectives •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1-40
32. Location of ICAO Offices ••••••••••••••••.•••••••• 1-40
33. Organizational Structure ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1-40
Figure 1-3. ICAO Organizational Chart ••••••••••• l-42
34. ICAO Publications •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• l-42
35. Annexes to the Convention •••••••••••••••••••••••• l-43
36. Regional Planning ..•…•.•.•.•.•…..•….••.•••. l-45
37.thru 39. Reserved •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• l-46
Page …
1.1.1.

8200.34 8/11/94
SECTIOR 4. REGUI.ATIORS: CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIORS,
FEDERAL AVIATIOR REGUI.ATIORS, AIID THE
REGUI.ATORY PROCESS
Paragraph Page
40. The Code of Federal Regulations •••••••••••••••••• 1-47
41. Title 14, Aeronautics and Space •••••••••••••••••• l-47
42. Chapter I -Federal Aviation Administration,
Department of Transportation ••••••••••••••••••• 1-48
43. FAA Regulatory Actions ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1-48
44. FAA Regulatory Procedures •••••••••••••••••••••••• 1-48
45. FAA Regulatory Responsibilities •••••••••••••••••• 1-49
46. The Process of Public Petitions •••••••••••••••••• l-49
47. The Process of Initiating Proposed Rules ••••••••• l-49
48. The Regulatory Process and Flight Procedures
Program ….•……..••………………•…… 1-50
49. Reserved ………………………………….. 1-50
SECTIOR 5. FLIGHT PROCEDURES STAIIDARDS
50. History and Concepts ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• l-51
51. Pilot and Aircraft Increases ••••••••••••••••••••• l-51
52. Evolution of Standards ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• l-51
53. Flight Procedures •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1-52
54~ Continuing Changes ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• l-53
55. Problems in Standards Development •••••••••••••••• l-54
56. Current Flight Procedures Standards Development •• l-55
57. Flight Procedures Criteria Developrnent ••••••••••• l-56
58. TERPS Criteria Concepts •••••••••••••••••••••••••• l-56
59. TERPS Criteria and FAA Standards ••••••••••••••••• l-57
60. Determining the Need for New Standards ••••••••••• l-58
61. Testing and Data Gathering Requirernents •••••••••• l-59
62. Collected Data and Evaluation •••••••••••••••••••• l-62
63. Instrument Procedures Design Standards ••••••••••• l-63
64. Test Result Report ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• l-64
65. Other Uses of Test Data •••••••••••••••••••••••••• l-65
66. Issuing New Standards •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• l-65
67. Reserved ………………………………….. 1-67
SECTIOR 6. HE REGIOIIAL FLIGHT PROCEDURES PROGRAM
68. Authority …………………………………. 1-69
69. Program Responsibilities ••••••••••••••••••••••••• l-69
70.thru 199. Reserved …..•.••..••.•…•…•••….•••. l-71
Page iv

8/11/94 8200.34
CHAPTER 2. FACILI~IES Aim EQUIPMERT PROGRAM
SEC~IOR 1. F&E GERERAL
Paragraph Page
200. Purpose ………………………………….. 2-1
201. Background ……………………………….. 2-1
202. The Budget Process ••.•••.•••..•..••••••••••••••• 2-1
203. The F&E Budget ……..••…………………… 2-3
204.thru 219. Reserved ………………………….. 2-5
SEC~IOR 2. THE FPB F&E RESPORSIBILI~IES
220. General ………………………………….. 2-7
221. Library of References .••.•••••••••••••••••••.••• 2-7
222. Tracking Candidate Locations .••••.•…•.•.•.•••• 2-10
223. Files and Records …………………………. 2-12
224. Maintaining F&E Records .••••••…••.•••••••••••• 2-12
225.thru 229. Reserved …………………………•. 2-14
Figure 2-1. ADA Request Form ••••••••••••••••••• 2-15
Figure 2-2. FAA Air Traffic Activity .•••.•••••• 2-16
Figure 2-3. Climatological Study •••••…•.•.••• 2-17
Figure 2-4. Airport Data/Activity ……….•••• 2-18
Figure 2-5. Airport Data/Facilities ••..•••••••• 2-19
Figure 2-6. Form Completion-Airport
Data/Activity …………..•……………… 2-20
Figure 2-7. Form Completion-Airport
Data/Facilities …………………………. 2-21
Figure 2-8.
Figure 2-9. Completed Airport Data/Activity •.•• 2-23
Completed Airport Data/Facilities •• 2-24
SEC~IOR 3. CALL FOR ES~IMADS Aim APS-1
230. General …………………………. ………. 2-25
231. The Call-Order 2500.55 •..•••.•••.•.•.•..•••••••• 2-25
232. Applicable Flight Standards Portions of the
Call …………………………………… 2-28
233. APS-1 and the Benefit/Cost Process •….•…..••• 2-30
234. Applicable Flight Standards Portions of APS-1 ••• 2-32
235.thru 239. Reserved •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 2-34
Figure 2-10. Sample Defer Memo ••••••••••••••••• 2-35
SEC~IOR 4. APS-1 APPLICATIOR Aim CALCULA~IORS
240. General ………………………………….. 2-39
241. Explanation of Call Items •••••.•.••••••••••••.•• 2-39
Page v

8200.34 8/11/94
Paragraph
Figure 2-11. RVR Call Item ••.••.••……..••••• 2-40
Figure 2-12. ILS Call Item ••..•.••••….•…..• 2-43
242. Specific Explanation of APS-1 Criteria .•.••••..• 2-47
243. MLS or ILS, APS-1 Paragraph 20, and Handbook
Figure 2-13 .••••••..••…………..••.••.•..• 2-47
244. Supplemental Criteria for MLS/ILS Establishment
at Commercial Service Airports, APS-1 Paragraph
20d, and Handbook Figure 2-14 .•..•••..••••…. 2-50
245. Supplemental ILS/MLS Criteria for Reliever
Airports, APS-1 Paragraph 20e …•••••••••••••• 2-51
246. RVR with ILS or MLS, APS-1 Paragraph 20h, and
Handbook Figure 2-15 •..••.•..•..•.•..•..•..•.. 2-51
247. Localizer and Marker Beacon, APS-1 Paragraph
22a(1), and Handbook Figure 2-16 ..•.•••••••••. 2-52
248. TVOR, APS-1 Paragraph 22a(2), and Handbook
Figure 2-17 •••••.•..•••………•.••••••••••.. 2-52
249. DME with Localizer, APS-1 Paragraph 22a(3),
and Handbook Figure 2-18 ……•.•.••••.•••…. 2-53
250. VASI/PAPI with Non-Precision Approach
Procedures, APS-1 Paragraph 22a(4), and
Handbook Figure 2-19 ……….•.•..•••.••••..• 2-53
251. MALS or ODALS with Non-Precision Approach
Procedure, APS-1 Paragraph 22a(5), and
Handbook Figure 2-20 •………..•.•.•.•.•.•••• 2-53
252. RVR for Non-Precision Instrumented Runway,
APS-1 Paragraph 22a(6) ……….••.•.•.•••.•.• 2-54
253. REIL, APS-1 Paragraph 30, and Handbook
Figure 2-21 .••••••.•••..•………•••……… 2-54
254. VASI/PAPI (VFR Only), APS-1 Paragraph 31, and
Handbook Figure 2-22 ..•…..•…•.•••••……. 2-55
255. Criteria for Other Systems •.•……..•.••••••••• 2-55
256.thru 259. Reserved …..••••.•.•……….•••••••.. 2-55
Page v1. Figure 2-13. APS-1- ILS/MLS .•…••••.••••••••• 2-56
Figure 2-14. APS-1- Supplemental ILS/MLS ..•••. 2-57
Figure 2-15. APS-1- RVR Precision .•••••••.•••• 2-58
Figure 2-16. APS-1- Localizer •..•.••.••••••••• 2-59
Figure 2-17. APS-1- TVOR •••.••.••.•••••••••••• 2-60
Figure 2-18. APS-1- DME with Localizer .•…••• 2-61
Figure 2-19. APS-1- VASI/PAPI Non-Precision ••• 2-62
Figure 2-20. APS-1- MALS/ODALS Non-Precision .• 2-63
Figure 2-21. APS-1- REIL …..•…….•.•••••.. 2-64
Figure 2-22. APS-1- VASI/PAPI VFR •.•.•.••..•.. 2-65
Figure 2-23. APS-1- Abbreviated ILS/MLS •.•…• 2-66
Figure 2-24. APS-1 -Abbreviated Supplemental
I LSI MLS .••••••••….•.•.•……..••••.••…… 2 – 6 6

8/11/94 8200.34
Paragraph
Figure 2-25. APS-1 -Abbreviated RVR
Precision •••.•.•••••••..••••.•.••••••••••••..• 2-67
Figure 2-26. APS-1- Abbreviated Localizer •..•• 2-67
Figure 2-27. APS-1- Abbreviated TVOR ••••••.••• 2-68
Figure 2-28. APS-1 -Abbreviated DME with
Localizer ………………………………. 2-68
Figure 2-29. APS-1 -Abbreviated VASI/PAPI
Non-Precision •••…••••••••••••.••.•••••••.••• 2-69
Figure 2-30. APS-1 -Abbreviated MALS/ODALS
Non-Precision …..•••••••••.•.••.•••••••••..•• 2-69
Figure 2-31. APS-1- Abbreviated REIL ••••.••••• 2-70
Figure 2-32. APS-1 -Abbreviated
VASI/PAPI VFR •••.•••••…••.••••••••..•••••••• 2-70
SECTIOR 5. F&E SUBMISSIORS
260. General ………………………………….. 2-71
261. Candidate Decisions ••••…••.•..••••••••.•.••••• 2-71
262. Submission Requirements in the Call and APS-1 ••• 2-73
263. Associated Problems and Considerations for
Submissions …………………………….. 2-7 4
264. The Submission ……………………………. 2-78
265.thru 269. Reserved •…•.••.•••••••••.•.••••••••••• 2-79
Figure 2-33.
Figure 2-34. ILS Staff Study Guide ••••••••••••• 2-80
Instructions for ILS Data
Worksheet •••…….••••••••.••••••.••••••••••• 2-82
Figure 2-35.
Figure 2-36.
Figure 2-37.
Figure 2-38. ILS Data Worksheet ••••.•.••••••.•• 2-84
Sample ILS BCR ••••.•.•.•••••••..•• 2-86
Sample Completed ILS Staff Study •• 2-87
Sample Completed ILS Data
Worksheet ………………………………. 2-90
Figure 2-39.
Figure 2-40.
Figure 2-41. Sample Staff Study 1 ••••••..•••••• 2-92
Sample Staff Study 2 •.•••••.•••.•• 2-93
Sample Flight Standards Cover
Letter …………. ……………………… 2-94
Figure 2-42.
Figure 2-43.
Figure 2-44.
Figure 2-45.
Figure 2-46. Sample ILS List .••••••.••••••••.•• 2-95
Sample PAPI Non-Precision List •.•• 2-96
Sample PAPI Visual List ••••••••••• 2-97
Sample REIL List …••……•.••… 2-98
Sample RVR List •.••••••••••••••••• 2-99
Page vii

8200.34 8/11/94
SECTIOR 6. RELATED F&E RBQUIREMBRTS
Paragraph Page
270. General ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••• 2-105
271. Regional Working Groups ••.••••••.••••••••••••••• 2-105
272. Flight Standards Participation in Working
Groups …………………………………. 2-106
273. Changes to an F&E Budget •••••••••••••••••••••••• 2-107
274. F&E Inquiries …………………………….• 2-108
275. Changes to Policy ••••••••.•.••••••••••••••.••••• 2-111
276. Flight Standards Projects and Budgeting
Conflicts ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 2-113
277.thru 299. Reserved •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 2-114
SBCTIOR 7. JOB TASK 110 -DEVELOP AIR RAVIGATIOR FACILITIES
IRPUT FOR FACILITIES ARD EQUIP.MBRT (F&E) BUDGET
(RESERVED) (TBD*)
(Reserved 2-115 thru 2-120)
*TBD=TO BE DEVELOPED
Page viii

8/11/94 8200.34
CHAPTER 3. STARDARD TERMIRAL IRSTRUJIERT PROCEDURES (RESERVED)
(TBD*)
(Reserved 3-1 thru 3-99)
CHAPTER 4. OTHER IRSTRUJIERT PROCEDURES TASKS (RESERVED) (TBD*)
(Reserved 4-1 thru 4-99)
*TBD=TO BE DEVELOPED
Page ix

8200.34 8/11/94
CHAPTER 5. OBSTRUCTJ:OR EVALUATJ:OR
SBCTJ:OR 1. GBRBRAL
Paragraph Page
500.
501.
502.
503.
504. Purpose ………………………………….. 5-1
Background .••••••••••••••.•.•.•.•.•.•.•••••••••. 5-1
Statutory Basis for Obstruction Evaluations •.••• 5-1
Regulatory Basis for Obstruction Evaluations •••• 5-4
Other Considerations Concerning the Statutes
and the Regulations ……………………… S-9
505.thru 519. Reserved .••••.•.•••••••••••••••••••••••• 5-11
SBCTJ:OR 2. RBGJ:ORAL OBSTRUCTJ:OR EVALUATJ:OR PROGRAM
520. General ………………………………….. 5-13
521. Order 7400.2, Procedures for Handling Airspace
Matters ……….. ………………………. 5-13
522. The Regional OE Process •••.••••••••••••••.•••••• 5-17
523. Preservation of Navigable Airspace •••.•••••••••• 5-22
524. Standards of the Other Operational Services ••••• 5-23
525. Division of Responsibilities •••.•••.•.•••••••••• 5-23
526. Release of Information ••.•.•••.•••••.••.•••••••• 5-24
527. Public Demand on FPB Time •.•••.••••••••••.•••••• 5-24
528. Negotiations ……………………. , ……….. 5-25
529. A New Facility from the Construction Proponent
(Reserved) •••••••.••••••..•.•.•.•.••••.••••••• 5-25
530. Aeronautical Studies of Existing Objects .••••.•• 5-25
531. Coordination Within Flight Standards/Aviation
Standards ………………………………. 5-2 6
532.thru 535. Reserved ………………………….. 5-27
Page x Figure 5-1. Sample FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of
Proposed Construction or Alteration •••.••••••• 5-34
Figure 5-2. Sample FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of
Actual Construction or Alteration •••.•.••••••• 5-35
Figure 5-3. Sample FAA Form 7460-7,
Acknowledgement of Notice of Proposed
Construction or Alteration ••.•••••.••••••••••• 5-36
Figure 5-4. Sample FAA Form 7460-8,
Aeronautical Study of Proposed Construction
or Alteration ••••••••••••..•..••.•••.••.•••••. 5~37
Figure 5-5. Sample FAA Form 7460-9,
Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation •• 5-39
Figure 5-6. Sample FAA Form 7460-10,
Determination of Hazard to Air Navigation ••••• 5-41

8/11/94 8200.34
SECTIOR 3. FPB REQUIREMENTS ARD GUIDELIRES FOR OBSTRUCTIOR
EVALUATIORS
Paragraph Page
536.
537.
538.
539.
540.
541.
542.
543.
544.
545.
546.
547.
548.
549.
550.
551. General ………………………………….. 5-4 3
References for Obstruction Evaluations •.•••••••• 5-43
Obstruction Evaluation Training •••••..•••.•••••. 5-43
Common Sense ••••••••••.•••••••••••..•••••••••••• 5-44
Accuracy in Evaluations •••••••• !•••••••••••••o••5-45
Instrument Procedure Design Concepts .•• o•••oo••·5-45
Changing Procedures ….•••••••• o.o••oo••••••····5-49
Procedures Criteria that Segregates Proposed
Obstacles from Existing Obstacles ..••••••••••• 5-52
Proposal Accuracies ………………………. ·· 5-52
Errors in Existing Instrument Procedures
Discovered During the Obstruction Evaluation .• 5-55
Airspace Where Adjustments Increase Operational
Altitudes (Reserved) ••••••.•••• o •'•. o •••••••.• 5-56
Temporary Obstructions •••••••••••••••••.•••••••• 5-56
Considering Procedural Changes ••.•••••••••••••.• 5-56
Procedural Changes and Environmental
Assessments •••.••••••••••••••. ••••••.•.•..•••• 5-56
Evaluating VFR Effects ••••••.••••••••••••.•••••• 5-57
Overview of the Flight Standards Application
Policies ……………………………….. 5-5 8
552. Tools for Obstruction Evaluations ••••.•••••..••• 5-58
553.thru 555. Reserved .••.•••••..•••••.•••.•..••.••••• 5-64
Figure 5-7.
Figure 5-8. Sample Site Survey ..••.••••••••••• 5-65
Sample Computer Generated
7460-1 Form .•.•••••.••••••••••••.••••••..•.••• 5-66
Figure
Form
Figure
Form
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure 5-9. Computer Generated OE Response
#1 ………………………………… 5-67
5-10. Computer Generated OE Response
#2 …•……………………•………• 5-67
5-11.
5-12.
5-13.
5-14.
5-15.
5-16. Sample Yearly OE Status Listing ••• 5-68
Sample Prose Printout ••••••.•.••.• 5-69
Sample TERPS Calculator Printout •• 5-70
Sample GEODES Printout •••••..•••.• 5-71
Sample GEODET Printout •••.•••…•• 5-72
Obstruction Evaluation Job Aid •••• 5-73
Page xi

8200.34 8/11/94
SBCTIOB 4. TBB FPB OBSDUCTIOB BVALUATIOR
Paragraph Page
556. General ………………………………….. 5-81
557. The More Obscure Factors of the OE Analysis •••.• 5-81
558. The Obstruction Evaluation (OE) .••••.•.••••.•••• 5-84
559. Altitude/Height Verification ..•.•••••••••..••••• 5-84
560. Screening ………………………………… 5-84
561. En Route IFR Operations .••••••.•.•••••..•.•••••• 5-86
562. Terminal Area IFR Operations ••••••.••••••.•••••• 5-89
563. VFR Operations ……………………………. S-104
564. Minimum Safe Altitude (MSA) ••••.•••••••••.•••••• 5-106
565.thru 569. Reserved ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••• 5-106
SBCTIOR 5. FPB RBSPORSIBILITIBS AFTER TBB OBSDUCTIOR
EVALUATIOR
570. General ………………………………….. 5-117
571. Response to Air Traffic ••••.••..••..•.•••••••••• 5-117
572. Air Traffic Actions After the Flight Standards
Response ……………………………….. 5-118
573. FAA Form 7460-8, Aeronautical Study of Proposed
Construction or Alteration ••••••••••••••••••.• 5-119
574. Determinations: FAA Form 7460-9, Determination
of No Hazard to Air Navigation and FAA
Form 7460-10, Determination of Hazard to Air
Navigation ……………………………… 5-120
575. Construction Notice: FAA Form 7460-2, Notice
of Actual Construction or Alteration •••••••••• 5-122
576. Washington Reviews of Regional OE
Determinations ………………………….. 5-124
577.thru 599. Reserved .•.••••••••••.•.•••.•••••••••.•• 5-126
Figure 5-17. Obstruction Evaluation Response
Form …………………………………… 5-127
Figure 5-18. Completed Obstruction Evaluation
Response Form …………………………… 5-128
Figure 5-19. Obstruction Evaluation Response
Form Memo ………………………………. 5-12 9
Figure 5-20. Completed Obstruction Evaluation
Response Form Memo ………………………. S-130
Page xii

8/11/94 8200.34
SECT IOR 6. TASK I 14 -EVALUATE A ROT ICE OF PROPOSED
CORSTRUCTIOR (RESERVED) (TBD*)
(Reserved 5-131 thru 5-135)
SECTIOR 7. TASK 15 -CORDUCT All AERORAUTICAL STUDY
(RESERVED) (TBD*)
(Reserved 5-136 thru 5-142)
SECTIOR 8. TASK 126 -PROCESS A DETERMIRATIOR OF BAZARD/RO
HAZARD (RESERVED) (TBD*)
(Reserved 5-143 thru 5-149)
SECTIOR 9. TASK 127 -PROCESS A ROTICE OF ACTUAL
CORSTRUCTIOR (RESERVED) (TBD*)
(Reserved 5-150 thru 5-156)
*TBD=TO BE DEVELOPED
Page xiii

8200.34 8/11/94
CHAPTER 6. ROR-RULEMAKIRG ACTIORS (RESERVED) (TBD*)
(Reserved 6-1 thru 6-99)
CHAPTER 7. DEVIATIORS TO STARDARDS ARD CRITERIA (RESERVED)
(TBD*)
(Reserved 7-1 thru 7-99)
CHAPTER 8. SYSTEM SURVEILLARCE (RESERVED) (TBD*)
(Reserved 8-1 thru 8-99)
CHAPTER 9. PUBLIC SERVICES (RESERVED) (TBD*)
(Reserved 9-1 thru 9-99)
CHAPTER 10. ERVIRORMERTAL (RESERVED) (TBD*)
(Reserved 10-1 thru 10-99)
CHAPTER 11. MISCELLAREOUS TASKS (RESERVED) (TBD*)
(Reserved 11-1 thru 11-99)
*TBD=TO BE DEVELOPED
Page xiv

8/11/94 8200.34
FLIGH PROCEDURES IRSPBCmR' S JOB '!rASKS
The following are the Flight Procedures Inspector's Job Tasks and
the chapter and page where the abbreviated task accomplishment
steps are located:
Number
Duty 2.3: AIR OPERATOR SURVEILLANCE
2.3.4 Conduct a FAR Part 121 Cockpit Chapter
En Route Inspection •••••••••••••••••••• 8
Duty 4.3: EVALUATION OF FLIGHT PROCEDURES
4.3.1 Analyze a Change in Weather Reporting
Capability ……………………….. 4
4.3.2 Coordinate Development of Original
Terminal Instrument Procedure •••••••••• 3
4.3.3 Conduct a Feasibility Study •••••••••••• 3
4.3.4 Conduct Annual Review of Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures ••••••••• 4
4.3.5 Conduct an Aeronautical Study •••••••••• s ………. S-136
4.3.6 Coordinate Development and Distribution
of Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) •••••••••••• 4
4.3.7 Coordinate Review of Air Traffic
4.3.8
4.3.9 Division Requests •••.•••••••••••••••••• 4
Coordinate Approval of Category II or
Category III Authorizations •••••••••••• 4
Coordinate Development of an En Route
Procedure ………………………… 4
4.3.10 Develop Air Navigation Facilities Input
for Facilities and Equipment (F&E)
Budget ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 2 •••••••••• 2-115
4.3.11 Evaluate a Foreign Instrument
Procedure …..•…..•……………… 3
Page xv

8200.34
Number Chapter
4.3.12 Evaluate an Instrument Flight
Procedure ………………………… 4
4.3.13 Evaluate Establishment of a Category II
or Category III Instrument Approach
Procedure ………………………… 4
4.3.14 Evaluate a Notice of Proposed 8/11/94
Construction .•.•.•••••••••••••••••••••• 5 ••.••••••• 5-131
4.3.15 Evaluate an Airport Surface Movement
Guide Plan •.•.•••••••••••••••••.••••••• 6
4.3.16 Evaluate a Noise Abatement Proposal •••• 10
4.3.17 Evaluate a Proposed Change to a
National Standard •••••.•••••••••••••••• 11
4.3.18 Participate in Joint Planning
Conference ……………………….. 6
4.3.19 Participate in Preconstruction
Conference ……………………….. 6
4.3.20 Conduct an Airport/Airspace Analysis •.• 6
4.3.21 Conduct an Airport Safety Inspection ••• 6
4.3.22 Conduct a Facility Shutdown Study •••••• 6
4.3.23 Conduct an Environmental Analysis •••.•• 10
4.3.24 Conduct an In-flight Evaluation •••••••• 8
4.3.25 Process a Flight Procedures Waiver ••••• ?
4.3.26 Process a Determination of Hazard/No
Hazard …………………………… 5 ……..•. 5-143
4.3.27 Process a Notice of Actual
Construction ……………………… 5 ………. 5-15 0
4.3.28 Provide Geodetic Technical Support ..••• 11
4.3.29 Provide Technical Support for
Alternate Means of Navigation •••••••••• 4
Page xvi

8/11/94
Number Chapter
4.3.30 Represent the FAA at Safety and
Planning Conferences ••••••.•••••••••••• !!
4.3.31 Respond to a Public Inquiry •..•••.••••• 9
4.3.32 Review Preapplication for Airport
Improvement Program (AIP) Funded
Project ………………………….. 6
Duty 4.4: ACCIDENT PREVENTION
4.4.11 Provide Presentations to Organized
(;r<>tl~s ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 11
Duty 4.8: GENERAL
4.8.5 Make a Deposition or Court Appearance •• !!
4.8.9 Provide Technical Assistance to
Legal Counsel ••••..•••••••••••••••••••• ll
4.8.10 Provide Technical Assistance •••••.••••• !! 8200.34
Page xvii (and xviii)

8/11/94 8200.34
CHAPTER 1. GERERAL CORCEPTS, GUIDARCE, ARD IRFORMATIOR
SECTIOR 1. GERERAL BARDBOOK IRFORMATIOR
1. PURPOSE. This handbook
provides standards for aviation
safety inspectors (ASI) and
other personnel in the regional
Flight Procedures Branches
(FPB) concerning the perform­
ance of their primary job func­
tions. This handbook also pro­
vides the concepts and proce­
dures needed to administer the
regional flight procedures pro­
gram.
2. DISTRIBUTION.
is distributed to
ees on special list ZFS-821. This order all address­
distribution
3. DEFINITIONS, ABBREVIATIONS,
AND ACRONYMS. The FAA, other
government and military organi­
zations, and the rest of the
aviation community use a spe­
cialized language and jargon
for both formal and informal
communication. A word like
"AIM", for Airman's Information
Manual, has a meaning different
from what can be found in a
dictionary. Acronyms are also
in general use and both written
and spoken communication have
to include these acronyms for
expediency and better under­
standing. The facility type
"VORTAC" is used rather than
very high frequency omnidirec­
tional range/tactical air navi­
gation. Then there are acro­
nyms that have very limited or
specialized instrument proce­
dure uses; for example, FAF for
final approach fix and MAP for
missed approach point. The
intent of this paragraph is to
Par 1 list and define most of the
words, phrases, and acronyms
that may not be understood by
everyone that could be expected
to read this handbook. The
intent is NOT to redefine terms
when the Airman's Information
Manual, Federal Aviation Regu­
lations (FAR), specific orders
and directives, and other for­
mal guidance have already es­
tablished the proper defini­
tion. In many cases, the list­
ings may be used to "define"
the meaning for this handbook
only or in relation to the
Flight Procedures Branch and
the individual inspector.
a. Use of Acronyms.
Throughout the handbook text,
acronyms are normally defined
by the formal title followed by
the acronym in parenthesis; for
example, Federal Aviation Ad­
ministration (FAA). This for­
mal presentation serves two
functions: the acronym is for­
mally defined and the upcoming
text may use the acronym and
its meaning should be under­
stood. For each chapter, the
first time an acronym is used,
the formal title followed by
the acronym in parenthesis
should be used. Because hand­
books are not always read from
the beginning of the chapter to
the specific area of interest,
the formal acronym presentation
may not _have been read. For
this reason, this paragraph
will list all stand-alone ab­
breviations and acronyms used
throughout the handbook. If
Page 1-1

8200.34
the acronym
one chapter,
be listed;
-Chap1-. was only used in
that chapter will
for example,
b. Listing.
AAA Airport Airspace Analy­sis.
ABU Office of Budget. The
specific office in the
FAA organizational struc­
ture whose responsibili­
ties include fiscal bud­
geting matters.
AC Advisory Circular.
ACR Used only in a Chapter 2
job aid to conserve space
referring to Air Carrier
operation numbers normal­
ly reported by Air Traf­
fic. -Chap2-
ADA Aviation Data and Anal­
ysis System. An Office
of Aviation Policy,
Plans, and Management
Analysis (APO) computer
system used for storage
and access of official
FAA airport, activity,
and activity forecast
data. Also see Terminal
Area Forecast ( TAF) .
-Chap2-
ADO Airport District Office.
The field office for the
regional Airports Divi­
sion. Some regions have
no ADO's.
AEG Aircraft
Group. Evaluation
AEP Annual Enplaned Passen­
gers. The annual fiscal
Page 1-2 8/11/94
year total count of reve­
nue passengers boarding
at the named airport.
This count is available
on computer disk from the
TAF data for a fiscal
year as reported from the
annually published Air­
port Activity Statistics
of Certificated Route Air
Carriers. -Chap2-
AF Airway Facilities. When
used in this handbook, AF
refers to the Airway Fa­cilities organization
within the FAA or indi­
viduals/groups within the
AF organization. In most
cases, AF will be the
appropriate branch/con­
tact within the regional
Airway Facilities Divi­
sion (400 division), but
may refer to field/sector
offices or headquarters
Airway Facilities offic­
es.
AFS Flight Standards Service.
The service in the FAA
organizational structure
whose responsibilities
include operational stan­
dards of flight.
AGL Above Ground Level. Us­
age: AGL is normally
used in reference to the
height above the ground
of obstacles, but may
refer to other flight
procedures requirements
such as airspace, radar
altimeter, etc., which
use AGL. Also, see MSL.
AIA Actual Instrument Ap­
proach. An approach made
to an airport by an air-
Par 3

8/11/94
AIM
AIP
AIP craft on an IFR flight
plan, when the visibility
is less than 3 miles or
the ceiling is at or be­
low the minimum initial
approach altitude. AIA
count is reported by the
Air Traffic Control fa­cility having clearance
responsibility for the
approach procedure.
Traffic counts are col­
lated regionally in the
Air Traffic Division and
reported to Air Traffic
Plans and Requirements
Service, ATR-1, for pub­
lication within the spe­
cific fiscal year FAA or
Federal Air Traffic Ac­
tivity. This data is a­
vailable on computer disk
from the ADA TAF and is
also in a bound, hard
copy by fiscal year.
Interim current data can
be obtained from the re­
gional Air Traffic Divi­
sion. These counts for
each airport are broken
down by Air Carrier, Air
Taxi, General Aviation,
and Military. -Chap2-
Airman's Information
Manual.
Airport Improvement Pro­
gram. An airport grants
program from the Airport
and Airway Trust Fund ad­
ministered by the Air­
ports organization of the
FAA.
Aeronautical Information
Publications. ICAO pub­
lication containing aero­
nautical information es-
Par 3 8200.34
sential to air navigation
for a particular country.
ALP Airport Layout Plan.
ALPA Airline Pilots Associa­
tion. ALPA is the lar­
gest labor union and pro­
fessional organization of
U.S. airline pilots. It is affiliated with the
AFL-CIO and holds bar­
gaining rights for 42,000
airline pilots and 44
airlines. The union is a
major advocate for avi­
ation safety and has ini­
tiated or participated in
most of the safety im­
provements over the past
60 years.
ALS Approach Lighting Svstem.
When used in this hand­
book, ALS will refer to a
runway lighting facility
sited at and prior to the
threshold providing run­
way recognition and visu­
al alignment guidance to
landing aircraft. Nor­
mally, ALS installations
will provide a reduction
in the landing minimums
for instrument approach­
es. Typical ALS types
include:
ALSF-1 -Approach light­
ing system with sequenced
flashing lights used in
ILS Cat-I configuration.
ALSF-2 -Approach light­
ing system with sequenced
flashing lights used in
ILS Cat-II configuration.
Page 1-3

8200.34
SALS/SSALS/SALSF/SSALSF/­
SSALR -Short (S) or sim­
plified short (SS) ap­
proach lighting system
without sequenced flash­
ing lights, with se­
quenced flashing lights
(F), or with runway a­
lignment indicator lights
( R) •
MALS/MALSF/MALSR -Medium
intensity approach light­
ing system without se­
quenced flashing lights,
with sequenced flashing
lights (F), or with run­
way alignment indicator
lights (R).
ODALS Omnidirectional
approach lighting system.
RAIL Runway alignment
indicator lights.
LDIN -Sequenced flashing
lead-in lights.
ALSIP Approach Lighting
System Improvement Pro­
gram. A multiyear pro­
gram to install light­weight, frangible
structures, and energy
and maintenance savings
changes at existing ap­
proach lighting facili­
ties. -Chap2-
AMIS Airman's Management In­
formation Svstem. A com­
puter system and data
base managed by the Of­
fice of Aviation System
Standards (AVN) that con­
tains, along with numer­
ous other elements, the
facility, airport, and
obstacle data used in
Page 1-4 AMP
AND 8/11/94
instrument procedure de­
velopment and flight in­
spection.
Airport Master Plan.
Office of the Associate
Administrator for NAS
Development.
ANN Program Director for Nav­
igation and Landing.
AOPA Aircraft Owners and Pi­
lots Association.
APO Office of Aviation Pol­
icy, Plans, and Manage­
ment Analysis. The spe­
cific office in the FAA
organizational structure
whose responsibilities
include aviation policy.
APS-1 Airway Planning
Standard Number One, Or­
der 7031.2. Contains
criteria and cost/benefit
calculations which apply
to qualifying candidates
for F&E funding, discon­
tinuance, and takeover.
Usage: The acronym
"APS-1" normally refers
to the order or the cri­
teria and guidance con­
tained in the order.
ASI Aviation Safety Inspec­
tor.
ASOS Automated Surface Observ­
ing System.
ASR Airport Surveillance Ra­
dar.
AT Air-Traffic. When used
in this handbook, AT re­
fers to the Air Traffic
Par 3

8/11/94
organization within the
FAA or individuals/groups
within the Air Traffic
organization. In most
cases, AT will be the
appropriate branch/con­tact within the regional
Air Traffic Division (500
division), but may refer
to tower I center or head­
quarters AT offices.
ATA Air Transport Association
of America. ATA is a
trade and service organi­
zation for the nation's
scheduled airlines. The
purpose of the ATA is to
support and assist its
member carriers by pro­
moting the air transport
industry and the safety,
cost effectiveness, and
technological advancement
of its operations; advo­
cating common industry
positions before Federal,
state, and local govern­
ment; conducting desig­
nated industry-wide pro­
grams; and assuring gov­
ernmental and public un­
derstanding of all as­
pects of air transport.
ATC Air Traffic Control.
ATCT Air Traffic Control Tow-
ATX Used only in a Chapter 2
job aid to conserve space
referring to Air Taxi
operation numbers normal­
ly reported by Air Traf­
fic. Chap2-
AVN Office of Aviation System
Standards. Previously,
the Aviation Standards
Par 3 8200.34
National Field Office.
Located in Oklahoma City,
AVN is the specific of­
fice in the Flight Stan­
dards/Aviation Standards
organizational structure
whose responsibilities
include, along with nu­
merous other duties, de­
velopment, standardiza­
tion, and flight inspec­
tion of instrument flight
procedures.
AVR Office of the Associate
Administrator for Regu­
lation and Certification.
AVS Office of the Associate
Administrator for Avia­
tion Standards.
AWOS Automated Weather Observ­
ing System.
AXO Office of the Executive
Director for System Oper­
ation.
B/C Benefit/Cost Ratio.
Ratio The ratio of the pre­
or BCR sent value of bene­fits to the present value
of costs for a proposed
undertaking such as a
navigational facility or
air traffic service.
This ratio reflects the
timing of both benefits
and costs over the life
of a project. A B/C ra­
tio of 1 or more indi­
cates that benefits are
estimated to equal or
exceed costs and that, in
general, a facility or
service may be considered
to be a candidate for
establishment. The bene­fit and cost factors for
Page 1-5

8200.34
Flight Standards appli­
cation calculations are
primarily provided in
APS-1. Some facilities
and services have both a
Phase I ratio and a Phase
II ratio. A Phase I ra­tio is a qualification
ratio based on national
averages and is accom­
plished by the regions.
A Phase II ratio may use
site-specific data such
as weather and does use a
more complicated cost
calculation. A Phase II
ratio is accomplished in
Washington and is the
actual BCR. Usage:
Within this handbook, B/C
ratio or BCR may be the
ratio number (1.0) or the
process resulting in a
ratio number such as "A
BCR must be complet­
ed". -Chap2-
CAA Originally, in 1938, Civ­il Aeronautics Authority.
In 1940, Civil Aeronau­tics Administration. The
CAA became the FAA in
1958.
CAEG Computer Aided Engineer­
ing Graphics. A hard­
ware/software computer
system used for engineer­
ing graphics. Original­
ly, each region had a
CAEG.
CAR/CAM Civil Aviation Reg­
ulations/Civil Aviation
Manuals. Forerunners to
the current FAR.
Call Call for Estimates Facil­
ities and Equipment
(F&E), Order 2500.55.
Page 1-6 8/11/94
Annual order which pro­
vides program guidance
and instructions for the
development and prepara­
tion of a fiscal year
budget estimates for the
F&E (Airport and Airway
Trust Fund) appropria­
tion.
CFR Code of Federal Regula­
tions. General and per­
manent rules issued by
the executive departments
and agencies of the Fed­
eral Government.
CIP Aviation System Capital
Investment Plan. As the
successor to the National
Airspace System (NAS)
Plan, the CIP documents
the FAA's NAS policies
and strategies. The Plan
addresses safety, effi­
ciency, traffic demands,
aging equipment and fa­cilities, airspace use,
and new technologies. In
addition, the annual CIP
adjustment procedures,
the relationship to the
F&E budget process, the
major facility acquisi­
tion policy, and other
policies are described.
Close-in Generically, a
Obstruction close-in ob-
struction is one that is
close to the runway or
airport/heliport that
affects the design and
minimums of a terminal
instrument procedure.
Specifically for depar­
tures, a close-in ob­
struction is one that
penetrates the diverse
Par 3

8/11/94
departure obstacle clear­
ance slope and a depar­
ture procedure cannot be
designed to miss the ob­
struction. A set dis­
tance from the runway is
not a factor; the limits
established in the depar­
ture criteria determine if the obstruction is
close-in. When a diverse
departure slope is pen­
etrated, "other than
standard" take-off min­
imums will be required.
CRM Collision Risk Model. A
computerized model based
on extensive test and
evaluation data used to
predict the mathematical
risk of an aircraft in
flight hitting obstacles
under instrument meteoro­
logical conditions (IMC).
Currently, only an In­
strument Landing System
(ILS) CRM is certified
and used. The ILS CRM is
designed to evaluate ob­
stacles in the final seg­
ment and beginning of the
missed approach segment
for that small percentage
of aircraft expected to
execute a missed ap­
proach. Designed for ILS
CAT I and CAT II 1 this
CRM conducts no final ap­
proach evaluation closer
to the runway than the
decision height ( DH)
point (missed approach
point) except as applied
to the missed approach
obstacle evaluation for
aircraft commencing the
climb.
Par 3 8200.34
Departure When used in
Procedures this handbook,
takeoff minimums and de­
parture procedures refer
to FAR Part 97 Instrument
Flight Rules (IFR) Take­
off Minimums and Depar­
ture Procedures as devel­
oped or charted based on
the appropriate FAR and
United States Standard
for Terminal Instrument
Procedures (TERPS), Chap­ter 12. Also, see stan­
dard instrument departure
(SID) •
DER Departure End of Runway.
DH Decision Height. With
respect to the operation
of aircraft, decision
height means the height
at which a decision must
be made, during a preci­
sion instrument approach,
to either continue the
approach or to execute a
missed approach. For
procedure design and ob­
stacle protection, DH is
a specific point on the
glide path and this point is also the missed ap­
proach point.
DME Distance Measuring Equip­
ment. Equipment (air­
borne and ground) used to
measure, in nautical
miles, the slant range
distance of an aircraft
from the DME navaid.
DNE Does Not Exceed. As ap­
plies to obstruction e­
valuation (OE), an obsta­
cle DOES NOT EXCEED an
obstruction standard de-
Page 1-7

8200.34
fined in FAR Part 77.
-ChapS-
DOT Department of Transporta­
tion.
EA Environmental Assessment.
A formal review process,
required by the statutes,
evaluating the environ­
mental impact of specific
FAA actions. The EA can
result in a finding of no significant impact
(FONSI) or require an
environmental impact
statement (EIS). The EA,
FONSI, and EIS are also
the written documents
resulting from an envi­
ronmental review.
EIS Environmental Impact
Statement. The document
that reflects FAA's final
evaluation of the envi­
ronmental impact of a
proposed action. An EIS
may be one result of an
environmental assessment
(EA). Also see EA.
FAA Originally, in 1958, Fed­
eral Aviation Agency.
After 1967, Federal Avia­
tion Administration.
FA Act Federal Aviation Act
of 1958.
FAF Final Approach Fix. A
fix, identifying the start of a SIAP final
approach segment, from
which the final approach
to an airport/heliport is
executed.
FAR Federal Aviation Regula­
tions. Code of Federal
Page 1-8 8/11/94
Regulations (CFR), Title
14, Aeronautics and
Spa~e, Chapter I, Federal
Aviation Administration,
Department of Transporta­
tion (Parts 1-199).
FCC Federal Communications
Commission.
F&E Facilities and Equipment.
FIAO Flight Inspection Area
Office. Previously, the
Flight Inspection Field
Office (FIFO). At over­
seas locations, the In­
ternational Flight In­
spection Office (IFIO).
Flight When used in
Standards handbook, Flight
Standards refers to the
Flight Standards organi­
zation within the FAA
under the Flight Stan­
dards Service (AFS) or
individuals/groups within
this organization. This
includes AFS, the region­
al 200 divisions (and
AEG), and the field of­
fices. The abbreviation
"FS" is NOT used in this
handbook.
FMS Flight Management System.
FONSI Finding of No Signif-
icant Impact. An FAA
document briefly present­
ing the reasons why an
action, not otherwise
excluded, will not have a
significant effect on the
human environment and for
which an environmental
impact statement there­
fore will not be pre­
pared. Also see EA.
Par 3

8/11/94
FPB Flight Procedures Branch.
Regional 220 Branch for
which this handbook was
developed. A Flight Pro­
cedures Branch exists in
AVN and if referred to in
this handbook, AVN-220
will be used. There 1s
also a Flight Procedures
Standards Branch, AFS-
420. Other FAA organiza­
tions such as Air Traffic
may have a branch with a title similar to the
Flight Procedures Branch.
FPP Flight Procedures Pro­
gram. The FPP is that
program administered by
the Flight Procedures
Branches for their geo­
graphical area of respon­
sibility concerning all
aspects of the establish­
ment, safety, revision,
and discontinuance of
terminal and en route
flight procedures. Char­
ted instrument procedures
under FAR Parts 95 (en
route) and 97 (terminal)
are the primary proce­
dures addressed in this
handbook. However, the
regional FPP also ln­
cludes uncharted and vi­
sual procedures. In ad­
dition, the FPP includes
the safety of airport
ground movement in low
visibility and adverse
weather conditions.
FRC Facilities Review Commit­
tee. A regional commit­
tee of division managers
whose major activity ~s
oversight of F&E staff
work accomplished by the
Par 3 8200.34
Interdivisional Working
Committee (IDWC). -Chap2-
FSDO Flight Standards District
Office.
FTE Flight Technical Error.
FTE is the accuracy with
which the pilot controls
the aircraft as measured
by success in causing the
indicated aircraft posi­
tion to match the desired
indicated position. For
an autopilot, FTE refers
to the accuracy with
which the autopilot con­
trols the aircraft as
demonstrated by success
in causing the aircraft
position to match the
desired position as mea­
sured by the deviation
signals input to the au­
topilot. FTE does not
include procedural blun­
ders. Usage: FTE is the
actual error determined
by analysis of air­
borne/simulator flight
test data.
FTT Flight Technical Toler­
ance. FTT is that part
of the total system error
budget allocated to the
pilot or autopilot. This
tolerance considers the
pilot's or autopilot's
ability to maintain the
vertical and lateral
course deviation indica­
tions in the desired po­
sition referred to as
nulled deviation indica­
tion. FTT is normally
used in minimum opera­
tional performance stan­
dards, documents provid­
ing obstacle clearance
Page 1-9

8200.34
and other ap­
to specify the
provided to criteria,
plications
allowance
accommodate
nical error flight tech­
( FTE) .
FY Fiscal Year. A year's
period (October 1 to Sep­
tember 30) used for Fed­
eral budgeting. FY90
began October 1, 1989 and
ended September 30, 1990.
GA General Aviation. All civil aviation operations
other than scheduled air
services and nonscheduled
air transport operations
for remuneration or hire.
GEODES or Two similar pro-
GEODET grams, Geodesic and
Geodetic, written by
Flight Standards person­
nel for personal comput­
ers and used for proce­
dural course, distance,
and location (latitude
and longitude) calcula­
tions.
GPS Global Positioning Sys­
tem. A navigational sys­
tem consisting of earth
orbiting satellites in a
constellation used for
three-dimensional posi­
tioning. Usage: In this
handbook, GPS normally
refers to satellite and
aircraft equipment or the
instrument procedures
designed for opera-
tors/aircraft with this
capability.
GS Glide Slope. Facility
within the ILS used for
vertical guidance.
Page 1-10 8/11/94
GT-CALC Geodetic/TERPS Calc­
ulator. A personal com­
puter program, utilizing
a data base, that was
developed by Flight Stan­
dards personnel and used
for complex TERPS calcu­
lations.
HAA Height Above Airport.
Published for circling
minimums, the HAA is the
height of the minimum
descent altitude (MDA)
above the airport eleva­
tion.
HAT Height Above Touchdown.
Published for straight-in
minimums, the HAT is the
height of the MDA or DH
above the touchdown zone
elevation.
HIRL High Intensity Runway
Lights. Runway edge
lights capable of high
intensity. Runway lights
may also be medium inten­
sity ( MIRL) and low in­
tensity (LIRL).
Hub The term "hub" as applied
to air transportation is
used primarily to des­
cribe an airline route
structure in which
flights radiate out from
a major "hub" airport
like spokes from the hub
of a wheel, with the ma­
jor airport serving as a
transfer point for pas­
sengers changing between
flights. Hub airports
are classified as large
(L), medium (M), small
(S), or non (N) hub air­
ports depending upon the
percentage of the total
Par 3

8/11/94
national passenger en­
planements for which they
account: ( L) 1% or more,
(M) 0.25-1.00%, (S) 0.05-
0.25%, (N) less than
0.05%. Reference: Na­
tional Plan of Integrated
Airport Systems (NPIAS)
1990-1999, Chapter 1.
IAPA Instrument Approach Pro­
cedures Automation. A
computer system designed
to develop instrument
procedures.
ICAO International Civil Avia­
tion Organization.
IDWC Interdivisional Working
Committee. A working
level regional committee
for planning and approv­
ing the annual F&E re­
gional budget submission
and regional reprogram­
ming actions. -Chap2-
IFR/VFR Instrument Flight
IMC/VMC Rules/Visual Flight
Rules. Instrument Mete­
orological Conditions/­
Visual Meteorological
Conditions. IFR and VFR
are the rules of flight
specified in the FAR.
IMC and VMC are interna­
tionally recognized terms
differentiating instru­
ment from visual weather
conditions. Neither IMC
nor VMC is used in the
FAR, but they are common
terms and indicate the
weather conditions, as
delineated in the FAR,
for which instrument or
visual rules may apply.
In conversation, IFR/IMC
and VFR/VMC are sometimes
Par 3 8200.34
used interchangeably and
can lead to misinterpre­
tation and confusion.
ILS Instrument Landing Sys­
tem. A ground navigation
system providing aircraft
with precision approach
guidance to the specific
landing runway. See def­
initions for localizer
(LOC) and GS.
ILS ILS Category I. ILS
CAT I provides the basic
ILS
CAT precision approach min­
imums to a decision
height ( DH) of not less
than 200 feet above the
runway touchdown zone
elevation (TDZE) and vis­ibility of 1/2 mile or
runway visual range (RVR)
2400 feet or RVR 1800
feet if runway centerline
lighting and touchdown
zone lighting are in­
stalled.
ILS Category II.
II ILS Cat II provides
a reduction of basic pre­
cision approach minimums
for approved operators to
either RVR 1600 feet vis­
ibility and DH 150 feet
above TDZE or RVR 1200
feet visibility and DH
100 feet above TDZE.
ILS ILS Category III.
CAT III ILS Cat III provides
an additional reducion
below CAT II minimums for
approved operators to RVR
700 feet visibility or
less (as published or ap­
proved under Operations
Specifications) • No DH
restriction applies.
Page 1-11

8200.34
IM Inner Marker. A basic
electronic component of
an ILS CAT II, used to
designate a specific
point on the localizer
course which marks the
Category II DH point
(normally 100 feet above
the TDZ elevation). Pro­
vides an extremely local­
ized identifiable aural
code signal ( 6 dots per
second continuously) and
activates an aircraft
instrument panel light of
white color.
LLWAS Low Level Windshear
Alert System. -Chap 2-
LOC Localizer. Facility
within an ILS used for
horizontal guidance.
Without a GS antenna in­
stallation, the LOC may
pr-ovide the basis for a
non-precision approach.
LORAN-C A long-range radio
navigational system that
uses ground waves trans­
mitted at low frequency
to provide user position
information. Usage: In
this handbook, normally
referring to the ground
or airborne equipment,
the entire system, or the
instrument procedures
designed for opera-
tors/aircraft with this
capability.
LOM Locator Outer Marker.
Also called compass loca­
tor ( COMLO) , the LOM is
an nondirectional beacon
(NDB) collocated with the
outer marker and associ­
ated with a precision ILS
Page 1-12 8/11/94
approach or a non-preci­
sion localizer approach.
MAP Missed Approach Point. A
point prescribed on the
final approach course at
which a pilot must exe­
cute the missed approach
procedure if the required
visual reference does not
exist.
MCA Minimum Crossing Al ti­
tude. The published low­
est altitude at certain
fixes at which an air­
craft must cross when
proceeding in the direc­
tion of a higher MEA.
MCA's are normally re­
quired to meet signal or
obstacle clearance re­
quirements.
MDA Minimum Descent Altitude.
The lowest altitude, ex­
pressed in feet above
mean sea level, to which
descent is authorized on
final approach or cir­
cling maneuvers for a
non-precision instrument
approach procedure.
MEA Minimum En Route IFR Al­
titude. The published
lowest altitude between
radio fixes which assures
acceptable navigational
signal coverage and meets
obstacle clearance re­
quirements.
MBA Minimum Holding Altitude.
The lowest altitude pre­
scribed for a holding
pattern which meets the
requirements for naviga­
tional signal coverage,
Par 3

8/11/94
communications, and ob­
stacle clearance.
MIA Minimum IFR Altitude.
When used in this hand­
book, MIA is the minimum
IFR altitude ithin a spe­
cified area used by Air
Route Traffic Control
Center personnel. This
altitude meets IFR obsta­
cle clearance criteria.
Military Any type of air-
Operation craft operation
by an aircraft of the
various military servic­
es. Abbreviated as MIL
in Chapter 2 job aids to
conserve space.
Minimums Minimums, rather than
minima, is used in this
handbook and normally
denotes the ceiling and­
/or visibility required
to conduct a specific fli
ght operation.
MLS Microwave Landing Svstem.
Par 3 A precision instrument
approach system operating
in the microwave frequen­
cy spectrum which normal­
ly consists of the fol­
lowing components: ( 1)
Azimuth Station, (2) Ele­
vation Station, ( 3) Pre­
cision Distance Measuring
Equipment ( P-DME) • May
presently be used to pro­
vide MLS Category I mini­
mums to a height above
touchdown of not less
than 200 feet and a run­
way visual range of not
less than 1800 feet.
Category II/III minimums
will be defined in the
future. MM 8200.34
Middle Marker. An
electronic ground compo­
nent of an ILS used to
designate a point on the
localizer course at ap­
proximately the Category
I DH point. Provides a
highly localized identi­
fiable aural code signal
(alternate dots and dash­
es) and activates an air­craft instrument panel
light of amber color.
MOCA Minimum Obstruction
Clearance Altitude. The
published lowest altitude
between radio fixes on
airways and routes which
meet obstacle clearance
requirements.
MSA/ESA Minimum Safe Alti­
tude/Emergency Safe Alti­
tude. One common al ti­
tude or more than one
sector altitude published
on SIAP's providing at
least 1000 feet of obsta­
cle clearance for emer­
gency use within a speci­
fied distance from a nav­
igation facility. MSA' s
are normally 25 NM from
the facility while ESA's
are 100 NM and used on
military high altitude
SIAP's. RNAV procedures
have MSA's within a 25 NM
radius of the runway way­
point or airport way­
point. TERPS provides
criteria for developing
both MSA's and ESA's.
MSL/AMSL Mean Sea Level/Above
Mean Sea Level. The ex­
pression of elevation,
height, or altitude of a
point on the earth, a lo-
Page 1-13

8200.34
cation on an object (nor­
mally the top) fixed to
the earth, or a level
above the surface of the
earth measured above the
mean level of the sea.
MSL is often used follow­
ing a number expressed in
feet (as opposed to AGL
for above ground level) ;
for instance, 1200 feet
MSL. A barometric altim­
eter depicts the MSL al­
titude when the current
barometric pressure is
set. Most charted alti­
tudes are MSL.
MTA Maximum To Avoid. As ap­
plies to OE, the maximum
MSL height an obstacle
can be to not affect a
specified obstruction
standard. MTA has the
same meaning as no exceed
height (NEH) and may ap­
pear in FPB computer pro­
grams. -ChapS-
MVA Minimum Vectoring Alti­
tude. The minimum MSL
altitude an IFR aircraft
can be radar vectored
within a specified area.
This altitude meets IFR
obstacle clearance cri­
teria.
HAS National Airspace System.
Navaid Navigational Aid.
Any ground or space based
navigational equipment
that aids a pilot in
maintaining a specified
ground track, providing
vertical guidance, or
identifying the exact
position of an aircraft.
Page 1-14 8/11/94
Navigable Airspace at and above
Airspace minimum flight alti­
tudes including airspace
needed for safe takeoff
and landing. Reference:
FAR Part 1, Definitions.
NEB No Exceed Height. As ap­
plies to OE, the maximum
height of a structure so
as not to exceed an ob­
struction standard de­
fined in FAR Part 77 and
appropriate FAA direc­
tives. This MSL height
is reported to Air Traf­
fic when the proposed
structure's height ex­
ceeds standards. -ChapS-
NDB Nondirectional Bea-
con/Radio Beacon. A low,
medium, or ultrahigh fre­
quency radio beacon
transmitting nondirec­
tional signals whereby
the pilot of an aircraft
equipped with the direc­
tion finding equipment
can determine his bearing
to or from the radio bea­
con and "home" on or
track to or from the sta­
tion. Can be used as the
sole navaid required for
a non-precision instru­
ment approach, or in con­
junction with the OM, as
a LOM for a precision
ILS.
NFDC National Flight Data Cen­
ter. A division within
the Office of Air Traffic
System Management, spe­
cifically ATM-600, whose
responsibilities include
data for airports, facil­
ities, and communica­
tions, as well as NOTAM
Par 3

8/11/94
and flight procedure da­
ta.
NFDD National Flight Data Di­
gest. A publication is­
sued by NFDC as a means
of rapidly disseminating
information on changes to
navaids, Flight Service
Stations, airports/heli­
ports, etc.
NM Nautical Mile. One nau­
tical mile equals 6076.1
feet as defined in TERPS.
NOAA National Oceanic and At­
mospheric Administration.
Nonfed Nonfederal. A common
abbreviation normally
referring to nonfederal
ownership of facilities.
NOS National Ocean Service.
NOTAM Notice to Airmen.
NPIAS National Plan of In-
tegrated Airport Systems.
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rule
Making.
NR Nonrulemaking. Normally
used in numbering studies
involving navigational
aids.
NRA Nonrulemaking
Normally used
ing studies
airports. Action.
in number­
involving
NTSB National Transportation
Safety Board.
NWS National Weather Service.
Par 3 8200.34
Obstacle An object, whether
man-made or naturally
occurring, that MAY af­
fect an obstruction stan­
dard. An OBJECT becomes
an OBSTACLE when ob­
struction standards are
applied; an OBSTACLE be­
comes an OBSTRUCTION when
an obstruction standard is exceeded or the appli­
cation of an obstruction
standard is affected.
Obstruction An object,
oc
OE
OIS
OM whether man-made or natu­
rally occurring, that
exceeds an obstruction
standard or is the con­
trolling factor in apply­
ing an obstruction stan­
dard.
Obstruction Chart. A
chart surveyed and pro­
duced by NOS at airports
having or expected to
have a precision approach
facility.
Obstruction Evaluation.
Application of specified
obstruction standards to
existing or proposed ob­
jects whether man-made or
naturally occurring.
Obstacle Identification
Surface. A surface, nor­
mally 40 to 1, used for
evaluating IFR depar­
tures. See TERPS Chapter
12.
Outer Marker. A basic
electronic component of
an ILS system used to
designate a specific
point on the localizer
course after intercepting
Page 1-15

8200.34
glide slope. Provides a
highly localized identi­
fiable aural code signal
(2 dashes per second) and
activates an aircraft
instrument panel light of
blue color.
OMB Office of Management and
Budget. A cabinet level
office of the executive
branch of government re­
sponsible for governmen­tal management and na­
tional budgeting.
Operational Operational di-
Divisions visions refer to
or the regional
Services Flight Standards
division (200), Airway Facilities Division
(400), Air Traffic Divi­
sion (500), and Airports
Division (600) and their
field offices and units.
For Services, this term
refers to the complete
organizations of Flight
Standards, Airways Facil­ities, Air Traffic, and
Airports, including head­
quarters. These terms
are not intended to
slight other headquarters
offices, regional offic­
es, and field offices
involved in operational
decisions, but refers to
the divisions or services
(rather than constantly
listing them) for which
extensive coordination is
required to administer
the Flight Procedures
Program (FPP).
OpSpecs Operations Specifica­
tions.
Page 1-16 8/11/94
OST Office of the Secretary
of Transportation. The
headquarters office of
the DOT.
Other than The FAR, TERPS,
Standard and other docu-
Minimums ments establish
standard minimums; for
example, standard takeoff
minimums, standard alter­
nat~ minimums, etc.
These same documents may
also specify that mini­
mums higher or lower than
standard may be required
or authorized under spe­
cific conditions or cir­
cumstances. Because some
minimums may be higher or
lower than standard or
contain conditional re­
quirements, they are re­
ferred to as "other than
standard" minimums. Ex­
ample: Takeoff Minimums,
"Rwy 10, 300-1, or stan­
dard with minimum climb
of 280' per NM to 1800."
PANS Procedures for Air Navi­
gation Services. ICAO
publications covering
operating procedures for
safe and efficient air
navigation.
PAPI See VASI.
PAR Precision Approach Radar.
PC Personal Computer.
POI Principal Operations In­
spector.
Proponent Used throughout this
handbook, proponent or
sponsor refers to an in­
dividual or group that
Par 3

8/11/94
has proposed, requested,
or petitioned the FAA for
considerations or ac­
tions. In some situa­
tions, an FAR requirement
is being met as in a No­
tice of Proposed Con­
struction or Alteration.
For SIAP requests, the
proponent or sponsor is
normally a flying group
or the airport manag­
er/authority. The FAA
may also initiate action
and become the sponsor,
for example when a facil­ity is installed under
the F&E program and a
SIAP is developed. Con­
sultants, engineers, law­
yers, or members of Con­
gress may represent a
proponent or may act as a
proponent. Because of
these complexities, this
handbook will use both
proponent and sponsor to
cover all possible situa­
tions or individuals.
PROSE Preliminary Regional
Obstacle Screening Evalu­
ator. A computer program
developed as a prelimi­
nary screening tool for
the Flight Standards e­
valuation of an individu­
al OE case.
Quad
Chart 7 1/2-Minute Quadran­
gle Chart.
RCL Runway Centerline Light­
ing. Flush centerline
lights spaced at 50 foot
intervals. Normally in­
stalled on designated
instrument runways and
may permit additional re­
duction of visibility
Par 3 8200.34
minimums for landings or
departures wheninstalled
in conjunction with RVR,
TDZL, and HIRL.
REIL Runway End
Lights. Identifier
RNAV Area Navigation. A meth­
od of navigation that
permits aircraft opera­
tion on any desired
course within the cover­
age of the station-ref­
erenced navigation sig­
nals or within the limits
of a self-contained sys­
tem capability. In this
handbook, normally refer­
ring to the instrument
procedures designed for
operators/aircraft with
this capability.
ROC Reguired Obstacle Clear­
ance. A frequently used
flight procedures acronym
referring to the clear­
ance required over obsta­
cles as defined by TERPS
or appropriate direc­
tives.
RVR Runway Visual Ranqe.
Equipment providing an
electronic means of mea­
suring horizontal visi­
bility along the runway
reported in hundreds of
feet. Commonly associat­
ed with low visibility
precision landings and
departures on runways
having HIRL and airports
with an Air Traffic Con­
trol Tower (ATCT). Very
low visibility operations
(CAT II-CAT III) are
supported by a touchdown
zone, a mid-field, and
Page 1-17

8200.34
roll-out end RVR instal­
lations. In some cases,
RVR may refer to visibil­ity minimums that are
required or charted.
PTRS Program Tracking and Re­
porting System.
SDF System Design Factor. A
variable criteria factor
for candidacy for an RVR
system installation based
upon whether this is the first system at the air­
port or not. -Chap2-
SMGCS Surface Movement
Guidance and Control Svs­
tem, AC 120-57. The con­
trol or regulation of fa­cilities, information,
and advice necessary for
pilots of aircraft and
drivers of ground vehi­
cles to find their way on
the airport during low visibility operations
(below 1200 feet RVR) and
to keep the aircraft or
vehicles on the surfaces
or within the areas in­
tended for their use.
SIAP Standard Instrument Ap­
proach Procedure. For
this handbook, SlAP re­
fers to the entire
approach procedure as
developed. This includes
the possibility of mul­
tiple initials and feeder
routes to initials, the
individual approach seg­
ments, a missed approach
procedure, minimum seg­
ment altitudes and mini­
mum safe altitudes,
courses and distances,
course reversal and hold-
Page 1-18 8/11/94
ing, fixes, approach min­
imums, and procedural
notes. In some cases,
SlAP may refer to the
finished product ( 8260
series form where the
procedure is documented)
or the chart itself.
SID Standard Instrument De­
parture. An ATC proce­
dure charted for pilot
use to provide transition
from the terminal area to
the en route structure.
A primary purpose for
SID's is to reduce pi­
lot/controller radio com­
munication for complex
clearances. Commonly,
SID's contain turns, al­
titudes, headings, cours­
es, and routes for depar­
tures.
Sponsor See Proponent.
STAR Standard Terminal Arriv­
al. An Air Traffic Con­
trol procedure charted
for pilot use to provide
transition from en route
to a terminal area. Com­
monly, STAR's provide new
aircraft routes allowing
descent away from depar­
ture and airway traffic.
TAF Terminal Area Forecast.
The air traffic activity
forecast for the large
number of airports in
APO's ADA System. A num­
ber of models and vari­
ables are used by APO to
develop these forecasts.
As APO developed the ADA
System, not only was
forecast data stored, but
past data, current data,
Par 3

8/11/94
and critical airport in­
formation were included.
Current terminal activity is the same as the FAA or
Federal Air Traffic Ac­
tivity which is an FAA
publication issued annu­
ally containing terminal
and en route air traffic
activity information of
the NAS. Usage: The
acronym has evolved to
mean more than just the
forecast data; but actu­
ally, TAF now refers to all data of the ADA Sys­
tem, especially that data
used in APS-1 calcula­
tions. -Chap2-
Takeoff
Minimums See Departure
procedures.
TCH T h r e s h o 1 d C r o s s i n g
Height. The theoretical
height above the runway
threshold if the aircraft
maintains the appropriate
precision final approach
slope. For ground based
vertical guidance navai­
ds, the TCH is from the
aircraft's receiving an­
tenna. TCH' s are also
identified with visual
approach slope systems
and then, the theoretical
height would be from the pilot's eyes. Obviously,
the height of the air­
craft (wheels/tail) over
the threshold is lower
than a published TCH.
TCL Taxiway Centerline Light­
ing System. Semiflush
inset lights installed to
lead an aircraft off the
landing runway center­
line, along the taxiway
Par 3 8200.34
centerline, and along
designated taxiing paths
in portions of runways,
ramp, and apron areas.
TDZ Touchdown Zone. The first usable 3,000 feet
of a landing runway.
TDZE Touchdown Zone Elevation.
The highest MSL elevation
in the first 3, 000 feet
of the landing surface.
TDZL Touchdown Zone Lights.
Two rows of transverse
light bars located sym­
metrically about the run­
way centerline normally
at 100 foot intervals in
the first 3, 000 feet of
the runway.
TERPS United States Stan-
dard for Terminal Instru­
ment Procedures ( TERPS ) ,
Handbook/Order 8260.3
(latest edition). Usage:
The acronym "TERPS" is
normally used to refer to
the order or the criteria
and guidance contained in
the order.
TERPS A personal com-
Calculator puter program,
utilizing a data base,
that was developed by
Flight Standards person­
nel and used for complex
TERPS calculations.
TVOR Terminal Very High Fre-
quency Omnidirectional
Range. A low-powered
standard navigation fa­
cility used primarily to
service non-precision
instrument approach pro­
cedure requirements to
airports/heliports in a
Page 1-19

8200.34
terminal area, (25 NM
service volume area) as
opposed to en route navi­
gation usage of a stan­
dard VOR facility.
UHF, VHF Ultra High Frequency,
and Very High Frequency,
H/M/LF Medium, and Low Fre­
quency. Frequencies of
the radio band normally
associated with ground
navigational or communi­
cations facilities.
VASI /PAPI Visual Approach Slope
Indicator and Precision
Approach Path Indicator
Systems. A system, nor­
mally consist~ng of
lights, that 1s sited
beyond the runway thresh­
old used to provide a
preset, visual approach
slope or path to the pi­
lot. Horizontal baffling
is normally used to set
the approach angle (opti­
mum 3 degrees) for view­
ing lights and/ or color.
Vertical baffling may
also be included, as in
the PAPI, for a visual
course reference.
VDP Visual Descent Point. A
defined point on the fi­
nal approach course of a
non-precision straight-in
approach procedure from
which normal descent from
MDA to the runway touch­
down point may be com­
menced, provided required
visual reference is es­
tablished.
VFR/VMC See IFR.
Page 1-20 8/11/94
VOR Very High Frequency (VHF)
Omnidirectional Range. A
medium powered or high
powered navigational fa­
cility, radiating omnidi­
rectional courses, and
used for standard en
route low altitude or
high altitude navigation.
(Also see TVOR) When DME
is collocated, the facil­
ity is referred to as
VOR/DME; when also col­
located with a Tactical
Air Navigation (TACAN)
facility, which radiates
separate omnidirectional
courses, the facility is
referred to as VORTAC.
VOT VOR Test Signal. Facili­
ty used by pilots prior
to departure to test the
aircraft VOR navigation
receivers for accuracy
within plus or minus 4
degrees in preparation
for IFR operations and in
accordance with FAR Part
91.
4. IMPLEMENTATION. During the
development of this handbook,
sections of task chapters will
be published as they are com­
pleted. Future changes will
add to or complete individual
chapters. Material that is
planned but not yet ready for
publication will be indicated
by the acronym "TBD" (to be
developed) .
5. HANDBOOK ORGANIZATION AND
USE. This handbook has been
designed to serve as a multi­
purpose document that will meet
the needs of new Flight Proce­
dures Branch employees entering
the FAA work force, FAA employ-
Par 3

8/11/94
ees new to flight procedures,
and individuals with many years
of flight procedures experi­
ence. Extensive new guidance
has been written for this hand­
book where none has existed in
the past. Historical informa­
tion regarding flight proce­
dure's evolution is included
and information, currently
found in many separate docu­
ments, has been compiled to
make the handbook as comprehen­
sive as possible.
a. Other Orders. No or­
ders are canceled at this time.
Much of the existing Flight
Procedures Branch guidance is
contained in the latest edition
of Order 8260.19, Flight Proce­
dures and Airspace, and some
guidance is provided in other
directives such as the latest
edition of Order 7 4 0 0 . 2, Proce­
dures for Handling Airspace
Matters. These other orders
define areas of responsibility
for different programs. In­
spectors should continue to
refer to the appropriate direc­
tives even after definitive
task accomplishment guidance is
expanded in this handbook.
b. Directive Information.
In this handbook, directive
information is instruction that
is considered imperative. The
handbook will use the directive
terms "shall" and "must" and
means that the actions are MAN­
DATORY. Use of the terms
"shall not" and "must not" in­
dicates a PROHIBITED action.
These terms do not permit in­
spector discretion and shall be
followed unless specifically
authorized by headquarters di­
vision managers with concur-
Par 5 8200.34
renee of the regional division
manager. The term "will" is
not directive in nature and is
used to indicate an assumption
that an event would normally be
expected to happen.
c. Guidance Information.
Guidance information is materi­
al that is guiding in nature
and contains terms such as
"should" or "may". These terms
indicate actions that are de­
sirable or permissible, but not
mandatory. Flexibility on the
part of the inspector is al­
lowed.
d. Handbook Development.
A primary objective in the or­
ganization and development of
this handbook is to make it as
comprehensive and as easy to
use as possible. Paragraphs
have been reserved in each sec­
tion, pages have been reserved
within a chapter for sections
that will be developed, and
chapters have been reserved for
the tasks. Reservation of par­
agraphs, sections, and chapters
allows for expansion without
re-issuing extensive handbook
material.
e. Chapters Reoresent
Tasks. When completed, the
handbook will consist of a com­
pilation of major and minor
tasks performed by the aviation
safety inspector. A list of
the tasks is located after the
Table of Contents for easy
chapter and page reference.
(1) For chapter se­
quencing, Chapter 1 is general
in nature. The remaining chap­
ters contain one or more asso­
ciated tasks. Chapters and
Page 1-21

8200.34
tasks are grouped based on sim­ilar subjects. The first two
task chapters (Chapters 2 and
3) are work intensive, have
high visibility, and are rela­
tively complex. F&E and flight
procedures are the subjects
discussed. Another chapter
involving flight procedures is
sequenced next. The remaining
major tasks, OE and NRA, are
then discussed along with their
associated tasks. The remain­
ing chapters complete the in­
spector task list.
(2) The tasks were
initially identified in the
1985 Job and Task Analysis,
reviewed and updated in 1992/-
1993, and will probably be re­
vised in the future as inspec­
tor responsibilities change.
f. Chapter Content Orga­
nization. Each of the follow­
ing chapters has an initial
section allocated for general
information and one or more
sections that describes the
procedures on how to complete a
task.
(1) Section 1, Gen­
eral, explains the objectives
of a given subject, presents
the relevant historical consid­
erations, and states current
FAA policy related to the task
or tasks discussed.
( 2 ) The remaining
sections contain step-by-step
procedures and a flow chart of
how to perform the specific
task. Although all steps nec­
essary for task completion are
included, some steps may be
discreet tasks. PTRS codes for
each task will be included.
Page 1-22 8/11/94
( 3) Some subjects
are very complex and in these
cases background information
and policies may be provided in
more than one chapter section;
procedures also may be very
complex and organized into more
than one section. A later sec­
tion may relate several
sections to each other or ex­
plain the differences between
the several sections for a spe­
cific or additional require­
ment. An ending section will
briefly review the specific
procedural steps for accom­
plishing a single task.
(4) Consequently,
the number of sections and or­
der of sections within a chap­
ter will depend upon the de­
tails that need to be present­
ed, the normal progression
from general to specific guid­
ance, and the segregation of
individual tasks to include the
accomplishment steps.
g. Inspector References.
This handbook will use the
terms "aviation safety inspec­
tor," "flight procedures in­
spector,0 and "inspector" to
refer to the technical individ­
uals and manager in the Flight
Procedures Branch.
(1) Occasionally,
inspector references may in­
clude a task title such as "F&E
inspector" or "OE inspector" .
This reference is normally used
within a chapter devoted to a
specific task or group of tasks
and denotes the FPB individual
accomplishing the task(s).
( 2 ) The term "spe­
cialist" will only be used for
Par 5

8/11/94
individuals outside the FPB, no
matter what their official ti­tle may be; for example, the
Air Traffic OE specialist or
procedures specialist, refer­
ring to AVN personnel develop­
ing procedures.
h. Advisory Circulars,
Orders, and FAR References.
Although the intent is to in­
clude in this handbook the ma­terial the inspectors need to
accomplish their tasks, refer­
ences to other orders, hand­
books, or the FAR will be made
to indicate that these sources
should be used for more guid­
ance or more definitive crite­
ria. FAA directive and AC num­
bers will be listed without
their ending letter designator, if one exists; for example,
Order 8260.3B will be Order
8260.3. This method enables
the handbook to retain currency
as other guidance is rewritten.
i. Handbook Enumeration.
Pages and figures will be num­
bered in this handbook in the
following manner:
( 1) Pages. The pag­
ination of each chapter is de­
signed to ease the discovery,
revision, and replacement of
subjects. Each page is num­
bered by stating the chapter
followed by the page; for exam­
ple, Page 5-2 would indicate
the second page of chapter 5.
Page headers present the hand­
book number (and change number, if appropriate) and date of
page issuance. Footers indi­
cate the page number and the
first paragraph number for the
page. If a paragraph commences
on one page and continues on a
Par 5 8200.34
following page, that paragraph
number will appear in the foot­
er of the following page.
(2) Figures. The
numbering of figures, like the
numbering of pages, uses the
chapter number followed by the
figure number. For example,
Figure 8-3 is the third figure
in Chapter 8.
j. Location of Figures.
Forms, job aids, letters, etc.,
will be entitled "FIGURE" and
normally placed at the end of
each appropriate section.
Placement of figures at the end
of the section allows close
proximity for reference, but
does not interfere with the
natural flow of the text. Fig­
ures may also be placed before
or after a paragraph and these
will be used to emphasize the
material presented.
k. Figure Use. When com­
posing a letter or completing a
form, the inspector should use
the figures as a guideline on­
ly.
( 1) Letters composed
in the regional offices must
adhere to the style and format
indicated in the FAA Correspon­
dence Manual.
( 2 )
will state,
figure title. Sample material
"SAMPLE" in the
( 3 ) Material that is
to be used word-for-word will
use "FORM", as in "FORM LET­
TER", in the figure title.
( 4) This handbook
does not initiate any new offi-
Page 1-23

8200.34
cial FAA forms. However, job
aids have been included in the
format of a form for all in­
spectors to utilize. These job
aids may be newly designed or
refinements of tools that have
been used successfully in some
flight procedures branches for
many years.
6. HANDBOOK REVISIONS. The
Flight Standards Service is
responsible for all revisions
to this order and its appendix­
es, as appropriate. Regional
supplements to this handbook
are prohibited. Individuals at
all levels of the FAA and indi­
viduals in the aviation indus­
try are encouraged to make sug­
gestions for handbook revi­
sions.
a. Handbook Revision Pro­
cess. Development and revi­
sion of this handbook is accom­
plished by the Flight
Procedures Standards Branch,
AFS-420. AFS-420 will initiate
revisions based on discovered
deficiencies, changing aviation
requirements, and new FAA poli­
cies. AFS-420 will also review
and research suggested
revisions. After development,
draft revisions will be coordi­
nated with other flight stan­
dards divisions and interested
parties. After obtaining the
Flight Standards Service Direc­
tor's approval, the formal
handbook change will be printed
and distributed through the FAA
distribution system.
Page 1-24 8/11/94
b. Information Currency.
Any deficiencies found, clari­
fications needed, or improve­
ments to be suggested regarding
the content of this order
should be forwarded for consid­
eration to:
Federal Aviation Administration
Flight Procedures Standards
Branch, AFS-420
800 Independence Avenue, s.w.
Washington, D.C. 20591
c. Your Assistance is
Welcome. An Inspector Feedback
Sheet, Figure 1-1, is included
at the end of this section for
your convenience. If an inter­
pretation is urgently needed,
you may call AFS-420 for guid­
ance at (202) 267-8277. In
addition, use the response
sheet as a follow-up to verbal
conversation.
7.-19. RESERVED.
Par 5

8/11/94 8200.34
FIGURE 1-1. IRSPECTOR FEEDBACK SHEET
Subject:[X] Order 8200.34, Flight Procedures Inspector's Handbook
[ ] Order 8300.10, Airworthiness Inspector's Handbook
[ ] Order 8400.10, Air Transportation Operations Inspec­
tor's Handbook
[ Order 8700.1, General Aviation Operations Inspector's
Handbook
To: Manager, Flight Procedures Standards Branch, AFS-420
Telemail Address: AFS420
Please check all appropriate items. Attach a copy of affected
pages.
[ ] An error (procedural or typographical) has been noted in
Chapter , Section , paragraph ,
on page ____ __
[ ] Recommend in Chapter , Section , paragraph ,
on page , be changed as follows (attach separate sheets
if necessary):
[ ] Recommend a change to National Policy in Chapter~~–'
Section , paragraph , on page as follows:
[ ] In a future change to this directive, please cover the
following subject (briefly describe what you want added):
[ ] I would like to discuss the above. Please contact me.
Submitted by: Date:
Telephone Number: Routing Symbol:
Telemail Address:
Fig 1-1 Page 1-25 (thru 1-30)

8/11/94 8200.34
SECTIOH 2. HISTORY OF THE FAA ARD ITS ORGARIZATIOH ARD AUTHORITY
20. HISTORY OF THE FEDERAL
AVIATION ADMINISTRATION.
a. Early Regulatory Au­
thority and Responsibilities.
( 1) Aviation regula­
tory authority in the United
States began with the enactment
of the Air Commerce Act of
1926. This legislation was
passed in response to requests
from the aviation industry.
Leaders in the aviation indus­
try believed that commercial
use of the airplane could not
reach its fullest potential
without federal regulation of
aviation safety. The Air Com­
merce Act commissioned the Sec­
retary of Commerce to promote
air commerce, issue and enforce
air traffic rules, certificate
pilots and aircraft, establish
airways, and operate and main­
tain air navigation aids. The
Department of Commerce assumed
the task of controlling en
route alr traffic in 1936.
Regulation of en route air tra­
ffic became the department's
most demanding civil aviation
responsibility.
( 2 ) In order to cope
with increased aviation and air
traffic control needs, the Civ­il Aeronautics Act was passed
in 1938. This act established
a new, independent agency known
as the Civil Aeronautics Autho­
rity (CAA) which was given the
additional authority to issue
air carrier route certificates
and regulate airline fares. In
1940, President Franklin Roose­
velt divided the CAA into the
Par 20 Civil Aeronautical Board (CAB)
and the Civil Aeronautics Ad­
ministration, again the CAA.
The CAB was established as an
independent agency and was giv­
en the authority and responsi­
bility for economic and safety
rulemaking and accident inves­
tigation. The CAA was reas­
signed to the Department of
Commerce and it was given re­
sponsibility to regulate air
traffic control, airman and
aircraft certification, safety
enforcement, and airway devel­
opment. -In 1946, Congress cre­
ated a program for federal aid
to airports and assigned its
administration to the CAA.
b. Establishment of the
FAA.
(1) In the 13 years
following World War II, air
commerce, aviation technology,
and public demand for air ser­
vices reached unforseen levels
of complexity. Under the De­
partment of Commerce, the CAA
could not efficiently fulfill
its responsibilities or solve
many of the difficulties caused
by this rapid growth and in­
creasing complexity. Congress
passed the Federal Aviation Act
of 1958 (FA Act) that created
an independent agency, the Fed­
eral Aviation Agency (FAA) • It
empowered the FAA with sole
responsibility for developing
and maintaining a combined civ­il and military system of air
navigation and air traffic con­
trol. The FAA absorbed the
responsibilities of the CAA and
Page 1-31

8200.34
the safety rulemaking functions
of the CAB.
(2) In 1967, the
Federal Aviation Agency was
placed in the newly created
Department of Transportation
(DOT) and renamed the Federal
Aviation Administration (again,
FAA) . This action was based on
the beliefs of Congress, the
executive branch, and the
transportation industry that
integrated and balanced trans­
portation systems were neces­
sary for the nation's transpor­
tation needs and that such sys­
tems could best be managed by a
single, cabinet level depart­
ment. Subsequently, the FAA
acquired additional responsi­
bilities through various amend­
ments to the FA Act. The FAA
became responsible for such
issues as aviation security,
aircraft noise abatement, and
airport certification. Later
legislation authorized the FAA
Administrator to establish min­
imum safety standards for air­
ports and to issue operating
certificates to air carrier
airports meeting those stan­
dards.
c. History of the FAA
Organization. In 1927, the
Department of Commerce employed
234 persons working in the Air
Regulations Division and the
Air Information Division. When
the CAA was created, it was
administered by five appointed
officials who held authority to
regulate civil aviation. Its
associated agency, the Air
Safety Board, was responsible
for investigating accidents,
determining probable cause of
each accident, and making rec-
Page 1-32 8/11/94
ommendations for accident pre­
vention. From 1938 to 1958,
the number of CAA employees
grew from 2938 to 25,805. By
1958, six domestic regions, one
international region, the Aero­
nautical Center, and a Techni­
cal Development and Evaluation
Center (FAA Technical Center)
were directly responsible to
the CAA Administrator. Within
CAA headquarters a major opera­
tional office was directed by
the Assistant Administrator for
Operations. A subordinate of­
fice to the Assistant Adminis­
trator for Operations was
called the Office of Aviation
Safety and was the predecessor
of the Bureau of Flight Stan­
dards. Other offices subordi­
nate to the Assistant Adminis­
trator for Operations were the
Office of Federal Airways, the
Office of Airports, and Wash­
ington National Airport.
(1) In 1959, the
first year of the newly formed
independent FAA, the Washington
Headquarters organizational
structure was as follows:
(a) Three staff
level Assistant Administrators
consisting of Management Ser­
vices, Plans and Requirements,
and Personnel and Training.
(b) Five spe­
cialized offices consisting of
General Counsel, Civil Air Sur­
geon, Congressional Liaison,
Public Affairs, and Interna­
tional Coordination.
(c) Five
operational bureaus consisting
of Research and Development
(including the FAA Technical
Par 20

8/11/94
Center), Flight Standards, Fa­cilities and Material, Air
Traffic Management, and Nation­
al Capital Airports.
( 2 ) The FAA' s re­
gional organizational structure
in 1959 included six domestic
regions, one international re­
gion, and the Aeronautical Cen­ter.
d. Current FAA Structure.
As of 19 9 2 , the FAA employs
more than 45,000 personnel and its organization is largely
decentralized. At Washington
Headquarters, five specialized
offices perform staff functions
for the FAA Administrator and
Deputy Administrator. Three
Executive Directors and five
Assistant Administrators report
directly to the Administrator
for the remaining FAA func­
tions. Eight Associate Admin­
istrators, many headquarters
offices and services, and the
nine regional offices as well
as the Aeronautical and Techni­
cal Centers, report to the Ex­
ecutive Directors. Headquar­
ters is responsible for devel­
oping policy, regulations, and
operational methods and func­
tions. Generally, the regional
offices and the Aeronautical
Center administer to a specific
geographic area or have special
operational responsibilities.
NOTE: Although not
always current, or­
ganizational charts
may be found in the
FAA and DOT tele­
phone directories.
Par 20 8200.34
21. HISTORY AND ORGANIZATION
OF AVIATION STANDARDS/FLIGHT
STANDARDS.
a. Early History of
Flight Standards. When the FAA
was created in 1958, the Bureau
of Flight Standards was estab­
lished as one of the five oper­
ating bureaus within the FAA.
This bureau included most safe­
ty functions of the previous
Department of Commerce Aeronau­
tics Branch and its successors,
such as the Flight Operations
Service and the Office of
Flight Operations and Airwor­
thiness. In 1967, the name of
the Bureau of Flight Standards
was changed to Flight Standards
Service. The director of this
service reported directly to
the FAA Administrator. The
Flight Standards Service was
later assigned as one of sever­
al offices within the Office of
Associate Administrator for
Aviation Standards that had
been established in January
1979. In July of 1979, three
new offices for flight opera­
tions, airworthiness, and
aviation safety, absorbed the
safety functions previously
assigned to the Flight Stan­
dards Service. Most headquar­
ters flight standards opera­
tional functions were performed
by the Office of Flight Opera­
tions and the Maintenance Di vi­
sion of the Office of Airwor­
thiness. In 1984, the Office
of Aviation Safety was reas­
signed as a staff office re­
porting directly to the Office
of the Administrator.
Page 1-33

8200.34
b. Organization of Regu­
lations, Standards, and Compli­
~· Many organizational
changes occurred in the latter
part of the 1980's; the most
significant change was the ap­
pointment of executive direc­
tors above the Associate Admin­
istrators in 1988. Organiza­
tional adjustments were also
made in 1991 when the Flight
Standards offices were joined
with Air Traffic and Airway
Facilities under one operation­
al structure. 8/11/94
(1) Headquarters
Organizations. The Executive
Directorate for System Opera­
tion (AXO) consists of the As­
sociate Administrators of Air
Traffic (AAT) and Airway Facil­ities (AAF), the Office of Sys­
tem Capacity and Requirements
(ASC), Regions and Aeronautical
Center, and the Associate Ad­
ministrator for Regulation and
Certification (AVR) and the
Associate Administrator for
Aviation Standards (AVS).
FIGURE 1-2. AXO & AVR/AVS ORGAHIZATIORAL CHART
( FM ADMINISTRATOR )
REGIONS/AERONAUTICAL CENTER
Page 1-34 Par 21

8/11/94
(2) AVR/AVS Organi-
zation.
(a) AVR.
1· Aircraft
Certification Service (AIR),
four divisions.
Standards Service
divisions. 1· Flight
(AFS), six
.J.. Office
of Rulemaking (ARM), two divi­
sions.
(b) AVS.
1· Office
of Accident Investigation
(AAI), two divisions.
1· of Aviation Medicine
eight divisions. Office
(AAM)'
1_. Office
of Aviation System Standards
(AVN), five divisions.
c. Regional Organization.
The regions are organized into
special staffs and operating
divisions similar to Washington
Headquarters. One of the re­
gional divisions is the Flight
Standards Division, commonly
referred to as the "200 Divi­
sion" • Flight Standards Dis­trict Offices ( FSDO) , report
directly to their respective
regional Flight Standards Divi­
sion managers. Regional Flight
Standards Divisions and Flight
Standards District Offices are
responsible for accomplishing
special regional programs as
well as implementing the
national policies and programs
Par 21 8200.34
developed by the Flight Stan­
dards Service (AFS). Regional
Flight Standards Division man­
agers report directly to the
Director, Flight Standards Ser­
vice.
d. Flight Procedures Or­
ganization. The regional
Flight Procedures Program is
administered by the Flight
Standards Division, and spe­
cifically, the regional Flight
Procedures Branch within the
division. Program policy
guidance is provided by the
Technical Programs Division,
AFS-400. Within AFS-400,
guidance is primarily provided
by the Flight Procedures Stan­
dards Branch, AFS-420, but is
also provided by the All
Weather Operations Branch,
AFS-410. Flight procedure
development and flight inspec­
tion of ground facilities to
support the procedures are
accomplished by the Office of
Aviation System Standards
(AVN) • The primary support
divisions are the Flight Pro­
cedures and Inspection Divi­
sion, AVN-200, and the Airspace
System · Assurance Division
(AVN-800). Under AVN, both
individual Flight Inspection
Area Offices (FIAO) and the
National Flight Procedures
Development Branch, AVN-830
develop procedures. Technical
procedure development standard­
ization is provided by the
Flight Procedures Branch,
AVN-220. The Standards
Development Branch, AVN-210,
accomplishes much of the flight
procedures criteria develop­
ment. The Data Analysis
Branch, AVN-820, provides data
support.
Page 1-35

8200.34
e. Flight Procedures
Branch (FPB) Organization. A
typical FPB is comprised of a
manager, a clerk/administrative
assistant, and several aviation
safety inspectors. The manager
establishes the areas of re­
sponsibility for each of the
inspectors. The manager as­
signs tasks based on an indi­
vidual's specialized expertise
(obstacle evaluation, flight
procedures, etc.) or according
to a geographic area. The man­
ager has the prerogative to set
priorities and use the inspec­
tor's skills according to the
quantity of work and the number
of employees available.
22. THE PUBLIC LAW.
a. The Federal Aviation
Act of 19 58. The Federal Avia­
tion Act (FA Act) of 1958 cre­
ated the FAA and empowered it
to promote safety of flight in
air commerce by prescribing
safety standards. It gave reg­
ulatory authority of aviation
functions to two independent
agencies: the FAA and the Civil
Aeronautics Board (CAB). The
CAB retained the responsibility
for economic regulation of air
carriers and investigation of
aircraft accidents. The FAA
was given five basic responsi­
bilities. These responsibili­
ties are summarized in the FA
Act, Title I, Section 103, Gen­
eral Provisions of the FA Act,
as amended.
( 1) The regulation
of air commerce in such manner
as to best promote its devel­
opment and safety and fulfill
the requirements of national
defense.
Page 1-36 8/11/94
( 2 ) The promotion,
encouragement, and development
of civil aeronautics.
(3) The control of
the use of navigable airspace
of the United States and the
regulation of both civil and
military operations in such
airspace in the interest of the
safety and efficiency of both.
( 4 ) The consolida­
tion of research and develop­
ment with respect to air navi­
gation facilities, as well as
the installation and operation
thereof.-
(5) The development
and operation of a common sys­
tem of air traffic control and
navigation for both military
and civil aircraft.
( 6) The provision of
assistance to law enforcement
agencies in the enforcement of
laws relating to the regulation
of controlled substances, to
the extent consistent with avi­
ation safety.
b. Evolution of Safety
Regulations. Section 8, Arti­
cle 1, of the United States
Constitution gives Congress the
power to regulate and control
interstate commerce. Inter­
state highway, railway, and
water modes of transportation
were regulated for many years
before the advent of air trans­
portation. The Air Commerce
Act of 1926 empowered the Sec­
retary of Commerce to establish
the necessary regulatory system
to control and regulate air
commerce. The regulatory sys­
tem which was initially estab-
Par 21

8/11/94
lished evolved into an organ­
ized system of Civil Aviation
Regulations (CAR). The CAR's
were supplemented by appropri­
ately numbered Civil Aviation
Manuals (CAM) which contained
policies, procedures, and in­
terpretations of each CAR sec­
tion. The CAR and CAM became
outmoded with the rapid growth
of air transportation and the
introduction of turbojet trans­
port category airplanes in the
1950's. Recodification of the
CAR began in 1961 and was com­
pleted in 1964 with the adop­
tion of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (FAR).
c. Aviation Promotion and
Regulation. Promotion and reg­
ulation of civil aviation are
clearly identified by the FA
Act as major responsibilities
of the FAA. The FAA promotes
safe and efficient civil avia­
tion by such activities as es­
tablishing and maintaining Fed­
eral Airways (including naviga­
tional aids), supporting air­
port development, providing air
traffic control services, and
supporting aviation education
programs. The principle objec­
tive of regulation, from the
FAA's point of view, is to as­
sure safety at all levels of
aviation activity. In foster­
ing safety through regulation,
the FAA promotes the use of
civil aviation and helps to
ensure its future. Safety of
flight is dependent upon regu­
lation and enforcement of these
Par 22 8200.34
regulations. Many other na­
tions use United States Federal
Aviation Regulations as regula­
tory models for their civil
aviation programs.
d. National Transporta­
tion Safety Board. The Nation­
al Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB) was established by the
Department of Transportation
(DOT) Act and was made a part
of DOT in 1967. The NTSB was
given the CAB functions, pow­
ers, and duties concerning avi­
ation accident investigations,
findings, and formulation of
aviation safety improvement
recommendations. In 1975, the
NTSB was made an independent
agency. This independence al­
lowed the NTSB to properly ful­fill its responsibilities to
form conclusions and make rec­
ommendations which may be crit­
ical of the DOT/FAA or its of­
ficials. FAA personnel partic­
ipate in aviation accident in­
vestigations conducted by the
NTSB. However, FAA representa­
tives are not permitted to par­
ticipate in determining the
"probable cause" of any avia­
tion accident investigated by
the NTSB. At the request of
NTSB, certain aviation acci­
dents are investigated by the
FAA. The facts, conditions,
and circumstances of these ac­
cidents are reported to the
NTSB which then determines
"probable cause".
Page 1-37

8200.34
e. Civil Aeronautics
Board. The Civil Aeronautics
Board was established by the FA
Act in 1958 and lost accident
investigation functions to the
NTSB in 1967. The Airline De­
regulation Act (ADA) of 1978,
expressed the intention of Con­
gress to diminish the functions
of the Federal Government in
regulating airline economics.
To accomplish this, Congress
directed that the CAB be abol­
ished at the end of 1984 and 8/11/94
that CAB functions be trans­
ferred to the Office of the
Secretary of Transportation
(OST) by 1985. Included in
these remaining CAB functions is the requirement that air
carriers be found fit, willing,
and able to perform as air car­riers. These air carriers must
hold economic certificates or
an exemption under the FA Act
in order to provide air trans­
portation to the public.
23.-29. RESERVED.
Page 1-38 Par 22

8/11/94 8200.34
SECTIOR 3. THE IRTERRATIORAL CIVIL AVIATIOR ORGARIZATIOR
30. HISTORY. An overview of
the International Civil Avia­
tion Organization (ICAO) is
included in this general chap­ter to familiarize the inspec­
tor with the history, struc­
ture, objectives, and influence
of the organization and its
standards and recommended prac­
tices.
a. The Chicago Conven-
tion.
( 1) World War II had
a major effect on the technical
development of aircraft, and
condensed one quarter century
of normal, peace-time develop­
ment into 6 years. Many post­
war political and technical
problems had to be solved to
benefit and support a world at
peace. Safety and regularity
in air transportation necessi­
tated airports, installation of
navigational aids, and weather
reporting systems. Standard­
ization of methods for provid­
ing international services was
fundamentally important to pre­
clude unsafe conditions caused
by misunderstanding or inexpe­
rience. Establishment of stan­
dards for rules of air naviga­
tion, air traffic control, per­
sonnel licensing, airport de­
sign, and for many other impor­
tant issues related to air
safety required international
action.
(2) In 1944, the
U.S. initiated talks with al­
lied nations concerning commer­
cial and legal rights and ar­
rangements for airlines to fly
Par 30 into and through foreign ter­
ritories. On the basis of
these talks, invitations were
sent to allied and neutral
states to meet in Chicago in
November 1944.
(3) The "Chicago
Convention" of 1944 produced a
treaty that required contract­
ing states to agree to pursue
stated objectives, to assume
certain obligations, and to
establish an international or­
ganization that became known as
the International Civil Avia­
tion Organization (ICAO).
b. U.S. Participation in
ICAO.
( 1
) As a charter
member of ICAO, the U.S. fully
supported the organization's
goals from its inception, and
has been especially concerned
with technical matters.
Through ICAO, the U.S. strives
to achieve the highest practi­
cal and uniform air regula­
tions, standards, and proce­
dures for aircraft, personnel,
airways, and aviation services
throughout the world. At the
same time, the U.S. depends
upon ICAO to ensure that navi­
gation facilities, airports,
weather, and radio services
provided by other nations meet
international standards.
( 2 ) Through active
support and participation in
ICAO, the FAA strives to im­
prove worldwide safety stan­
dards and procedures to make
international flying more effi-
Page 1-39

8200.34
cient and economical. The FAA
also provides technical assis­
tance to other nations when
needed.
(3) In 1988, the FAA
had 168 agreements with 62 for­
eign countries to provide tech­
nical assistance in areas such
as flight inspection, training,
air traffic development, loan
of equipment and navigational
aids, and supply support. The
specific terms of these ar­
rangements may be found in
those memorandums of agreement
that describe the services,
special conditions, financial
provisions, liability informa­
tion, effective dates, termina­
tion dates, and other informa­
tion required for particular
situations.
31. ICAO OBJECTIVES. The ob­
jectives of ICAO are to develop
the principles and techniques
of international air navigation
and to foster the continued
development of international
air transportation in the fol­
lowing ways:
a. Promote safe and or­
derly growth of civil aviation
throughout the world.
b. Foster the technical
arts of aircraft design and
operation for peaceful purpos­
es.
c. Encourage the develop­
ment of airways, airports, and
air navigation facilities for
international civil aviation.
d. Meet the needs of the
people of the world for safe,
Page 1-40 8/11/94
regular, efficient, and econom­
ical air transportation.
e. Prevent economic waste
caused by unreasonable competi­
tion.
f. Ensure that the rights
of contracting states are fully
respected and that every con­
tracting state has an equal
opportunity to operate interna­
tional airlines.
g. Avoid discrimination
among contracting states.
h. Promote the develop­
ment of all aspects of interna­
tional civil aeronautics.
32. LOCATION OF ICAO OFFICES.
ICAO headquarters is based in
Montreal, Canada. Seven ICAO
regional offices are maintained
in Bangkok, Cairo, Dakar, Lima,
Mexico City, Nairobi, and Par­is, each_ one accredited to a
group of contracting states.
These offices work with region­
al air navigation plans and are
available as technical consul­
tants for studying specific
problems and recommending reme­
dial action.
33. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE.
ICAO is recognized by the Unit­
ed Nations as a specialized
agency for international civil
aviation. An agreement between
these organizations exists and
is designed to ensure an effi­
cient working relationship and
mutual recognition of their
respective roles. ICAO is not
subordinate to, and does not
receive any line-of-command
authority from, the United Na­
tions.
Par 30

8/11/94
a. Representative Bodies
of ICAO.
( 1) Assembly. The
Assembly is the sovereign body
of ICAO. It meets every 3
years for a detailed review of
the organization's technical,
economic, legal, and technical
assistance programs, and offers
guidance concerning the. future
work of other ICAO bodies.
Each nation has one vote in the
Assembly and unless the conven­
tion provides otherwise, a ma­
jority rules. In 1990, there
were 162 ICAO member nations.
(2) Council. The
Council is composed of Assembly
elected representatives from 33
member states. It investigates
situations that might create
obstacles to international air
navigation and takes action as
necessary to protect global air
safety and order. When re­
quired, it also serves as an
arbiter between member states
on aviation matters.
Par 33 8200.34
( 3) Air Navigation
Commission. Appointed by the
Council, the Air Navigation
Commission is composed of 15
individuals, each considered an
expert in a technical field of
aviation. This group is con­
cerned with the development of
ICAO Standards and Recommended
Practices.
(4) Committees.
There are a number of formal
committees, whose members are
elected by the Council, that
are not under the area of re­
sponsibility of the Air Naviga­
tion Commission. These include
the Air Transport Committee
(economic matters), Joint Sup­
port Committee (financial ar­
rangements for facilities or
services), Committee on Unlaw­
ful Interference (security),
Legal Committee, Finance Com­
mittee, and Personnel Commit­
tee.
Page 1-41

8200.34 8/11/94
FIGURE 1-3. ICAO ORGARIZATIORAL CHART
ASSEMBLY
OF
CONTRACTING
STATES
I
COUNCIL
OF 36
CONTRACTING
STATES
I r I I I I I J
AIR
NAVIGATION 6 OTHER COMMITTEES
COMMISION
b. The ICAO Secretariat.
The Secretariat, headed by a
council-appointed Secretary
General, provides for ICAO' s
daily needs. Made up of perma­
nent positions, the Secretariat
consists of senior personnel
and staff members recruited on
a broad geographical basis and
selected for technical compe­
tence in their respective
fields. The Secretariat is
organized into bureaus roughly
corresponding to ICAO's Air
Navigation Commission and the
different committees. The or­
ganization serves as the tech­
nical and administrative staff
of the representative bodies of
ICAO.
34. ICAO PUBLICATIONS.
a. ICAO Bulletin. This
document is published 12 times
annually and contains a digest
of ICAO meetings and activities
Page 1-42 ICAO
SECRETARIAT
SECRETARY
GENERAL
I
I ORGANIZATION I
for the previous period. Semi­
annually, it publishes a table
that indicates the status of
all ICAO publications involving
air navigation.
b. Final Reports of Meet­
ings. The final reports of
divisional, regional, and panel
meetings include the proceed­
ings and recommendations of
each meeting. These recommen­
dations are not effective until
reviewed by the Air Navigation
Commission or another appropri­
ate committee, and approved by
the ICAO Council. Approved
recommendations are separately
referred ·to the affected states
for implementation.
c. Annexes to the Conven­
tion. ICAO standards and rec­
ommended practices are desig­
nated as Annexes to the Conven­
tion, and are published sepa-
Par 33

8/11/94
rately for each technical field
after adoption by the Council.
d. Procedures for Air
Navigation Services (PANS).
The uniform application of cer­
tain operating procedures is
necessary for safe and ef­
ficient air navigation. Oper­
ating procedures covering air­
craft operations, construction
of visual and instrument flight
procedures, ICAO abbreviations
and codes, rules of the air,
and air traffic services have
been adopted by ICAO. They are
updated at divisional and panel
meetings.
e. Supplementary Proce­
dures. Certain procedures ap­
ply only to specific regions
and those are published as sup­
plementary procedures. A sup­
plementary procedure can ex­
plain and amplify, but cannot
conflict with, international
standards. For convenience, all regional supplementary pro­
cedures applicable to 2 or more
regions are published together.
f. Field Manuals. These
manuals have no formal status
and they derive their authority
from the International Stan­
dards, Recommended Practices,
and PANS from which they are
compiled. They are prepared
primarily for the use of per­
sonnel engaged in operations in
the field.
g. ICAO Circulars. ICAO
circulars are issued by the
Secretary General to make spe­
cialized information available
to contracting states. ICAO
circulars include statistical
studies, summaries of treaties
Par 34 8200.34
or agreements, analyses of
technical documents, and tech­
nical studies. These circulars
are neither adopted nor ap­
proved by the council.
h. Availability of ICAO
Publications. The publications
discussed in this paragraph and
other publications published
and distributed by ICAO are
available at the following ad­
dress:
Public Information Office
International Civil Aviation
Organization
1000 Sherbrooke Street West,
Suite 400
Montreal, Quebec
Canada H3A, 2R2
35. ANNEXES TO THE CONVENTION.
a. Standardization of
ICAO Practices. Since the cre­
ation of ICAO, its primary
technical achievement is stan­
dardization of the operation of
safe, regular, and efficient
air services. This standard­
ization has resulted in high
levels of reliability in those
areas that collectively shape
international civil aviation,
particularly with respect to
aircraft, the crews that oper­
ate them, and ground-based fa­
cilities and services.
b. Annexes as Instruments
of Standardization. Standard­
ization has been achieved
through the creation, adoption,
and amendment of annexes to the
Convention on International
Civil Aviation known as, Inter­
national Standards and Recom­
mended Practices. The "Inter­
national Standards" are direc
Page 1-43

8200.34
ti ves which ICAO contracting
members agree to follow. If a
member has a standard different
from an ICAO Standard, that
member must notify ICAO of the
difference. "Recommended Prac­
tices" are ICAO preferred prac­
tices that members are not re­
quired to follow. The basic
criteria for deciding whether
or not a particular issue
should be an ICAO standard de­
pends on whether it is essen­tial that all contracting
States adhere to it. The ap­
plicability of an ICAO standard
may be subject to certain miti­
gating conditions relating to
terrain, traffic density, stag­
es of flight, and climate.
c. The 18 Annexes. ICAO
annexes contain the Standards
and Recommended Practices that
have been adopted through in­
ternational agreement. The 18
annexes are described as fol­
lows:
(1) Annex 1, Person­
nel Licensing, provides infor­
mation on licensing of flight
crews, air traffic controllers,
and aircraft maintenance per­
sonnel.
of the
lating
visual
rules. (2) Annex 2, Rules
Air, contains rules re­
to conducting flight by
and instrument flight
(3) Annex 3, Meteo­
rological Service for Interna­
tional Air Navigation, provides
for meteorological services for
international air navigation
and reporting of meteorological
observations from aircraft.
Page 1-44 8/11/94
(4) Annex 4, Aero­
nautical Charts, contains spec­
ifications for aeronautical
charts used in international
aviation.
(5) Annex 5, Meas­
urement Units Used in Air and
Ground Operations, lists dimen­
sional systems to be used in
air and ground operations.
(6) Annex 6, Opera­
tion of Aircraft, enumerates
specifications which ensure
that a level of safety above a
prescribed minimum is adopted
for similar operations world­
wide. The three parts of this
Annex are Part I, International
Commercial Air Transport-Air­
planes, Part II, International
General Aviation-Airplanes, and
Part III, International Opera­
tions-Helicopters.
( 7 ) Annex 7 , Air­
craft Nationality and Registra­
tion Marks, specifies require­
ments for registration and
identification of aircraft.
( 8 ) Annex 8, Airwor­
thiness of Aircraft, specifies
uniform procedures for certifi­
cation and inspection of air­
craft.
( 9) Annex 9, Facili­
tation, provides for simplifi­
cation of border-crossing for­
malities.
( 10) Annex 10, Aero­
nautical Telecommunications,
volume 1, provides for stan­
dardization of communications
equipment and systems, and vol­
ume 2 standardizes communica­
tions procedures.
Par 35

8/11/94
( 11 ) Annex 11 , Air
Traffic Services, includes in­
formation on establishing and
operating air traffic control,
flight information, and alert­
ing services.
(12) Annex 12,
Search and Rescue, provides
information on organization and
operation of facilities and
services necessary for search
and rescue.
(13) Annex 13, Air­
craft Accident Investigation,
provides for uniformity in no­
tification, investigation, and
reporting on aircraft acci­
dents.
(14) Annex 14, Aero­
dromes, contains specifications
for the design and equipment of
aerodromes.
(15) Annex 15, Aero­
nautical Information Services,
includes methods for collecting
and disseminating aeronautical
information required for flight
operations.
(16) Annex 16, Envi­
ronmental Protection, contains
specifications for aircraft
noise certification, noise mon­
itoring, and noise exposure
units for land-use planning
(volume 1) and aircraft engine
emissions (volume 2).
( 17 ) Annex 17, Secu­
rity-Safeguarding International
Civil Aviation Against Acts of
Unlawful Interference, speci­
fies methods for safeguarding
international civil aviation
against unlawful acts of inter­
ference.
Par 35 8200.34
( 18) Annex 18, The
Safe Transport of Dangerous
Goods by Air, contains specifi­
cations for labeling, packing,
and shipping dangerous cargo.
36. REGIONAL PLANNING. Al­
though ICAO is basically in­
volved with civil aviation on a
world-wide scale, there are
many subjects it considers on a
regional basis. ICAO regional
air navigation meetings are
held periodically to consider
the requirements for special
air operations in specialties
such as facilities and servic­
es, increases in traffic densi­
ty, new air routes, and the
introduction of new types of
aircraft. The meeting minutes
are reviewed by the Air Naviga­
tion Commission and the minutes
are presented in publications
of the Air Navigation Plan.
a. Air Navigation Plans.
Air Navigation Plans provide
details about the facilities,
services, and procedures re­
quired for international air
navigation within specific ar­
eas. Affected governments can
be assured that if the recom­
mended facilities and services
are furnished in accordance
with the plan, they will form
an integrated air navigation
system adequate for the fore­
seeable future. The plans are
amended periodically to reflect
changes in requirements and in
the status of the implementa­
tion of the facilities and ser­
vices.
b. Aeronautical Informa­
tion Publications (AIP). Each
member state is responsible for
developing an Aeronautical In-
Page 1-45

8200.34
formation Publication (AIP)
which is intended to satisfy
international requirements for
the exchange of aeronautical
information essential to air
navigation for that particular
state. Each AIP contains in­
formation on air traffic,
airports, navaid' s, special use
airspace, weather, and other
data vital to flight crews com­
ing into or flying through the
airspace of a particular state.
Page 1-46 8/11/94
AIP' s contain lists of signifi­
cant differences between the
national regulations and prac­
tices of the state, and the
standards, recommended practic­
es, and procedures of ICAO.
NOTAM's are issued when infor­
mation is temporary or cannot
be made available quickly
enough by an AIP amendment.
37.-39. RESERVED.
Par 36

8/11/94 8200.34
SECT IOR 4. REGULATIOBS: CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIOBS,
FEDERAL AVIATIOB REGULATIOBS, ABD THE REGULATORY PROCESS
40. THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGU­
LATIONS. The Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) is a codifi­
cation of the general and per­
manent rules issued by the ex­
ecutive departments and agen­
cies of the federal government.
New rules and changes to exist­
ing rules are published in the
Federal Register. The code is
divided into 50 titles which
represent broad areas subject
to federal regulation. Each title is divided into chapters
which usually bear the name of
the issuing agency.
a. Published Volumes.
Each of the 50 titles are pub­
lished by volume and updated
annually from rules published
in the Federal Register. These
volume revisions are staggered
through four different dates
(January 1, April 1, July 1,
and October 1), until all ti­
tles are revised. Published
volumes may be purchased by
volume number from:
Superintendent of Documents,
Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. 20402
(202) 783-3238
b. The Federal Register.
The Federal Register is used to
publish the current changes to
the CFR's.
c. Incorporation by Ref­
erence. Incorporation by ref­
erence was established by stat­
ute and allows federal agencies
to meet the requirements to
publish regulations in the Fed-
Par 40 eral Register by referring to
materials already published
elsewhere. The legal effect of
incorporation by reference is
that the material is treated as if it were published in full in
the Federal Register. This
material, like any other prop­
erly issued regulation, has the
force of law. Public instru­
ment approach procedures are
prime examples of incorporation
by reference. Only the proper title of the procedure, amend­
ment number, and effective date
are included in the Federal
Register. The full procedure
document is published in an FAA
transmittal containing numerous
procedures.
41. TITLE 14, AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE. Title 14 of the 50
CFR's is divided into the fol­
lowing four chapters:
a. Chapter I, Federal
Aviation Administration, De­
partment of Transportation,
Parts 1-199.
b. Chapter II, Office of
the Secretary, Department of
Transportation, Aviation Pro­
ceedings, Part 200-399.
c. Chapter III, Office of
Commercial Space Transporta­
tion, Department of Transporta­
tion, Parts 400-499.
d. Chapter V, National
Aeronautics and Space Admin­
istration, Parts 1200-1299.
Page 1-47

8200.34
42. CHAPTER I -FEDERAL AVIA­
TION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION. CFR Title
14, Chapter I, is the Federal
Aviation Regulations (FAR) •
The FAR are divided into sub­
chapters and parts, as follows:
a. Subchapter A -Defini­
tions (Part 1) .
b. Subchapter B -Proce­
dural Rules (Parts 11-15).
c • Subchapter C -Air­
craft (Parts 21-59).
d. Subchapter D -Airmen
(Parts 60-67).
e. Subchapter E -Air­
space (Parts 71-77).
f. Subchapter F -Air
Traffic and General Operating
Rules (Parts
91-109).
g. Subchapter G -Air
Carriers, Air Travel Clubs, and
Operators for Compensation or
Hire: Certification and Opera­
tions (Parts 121-139).
h. Subchapter H -Schools
and Other Certificated Agencies
(Parts 141-149).
i. Subchapter I -Air­
ports (Parts 150-169).
j. Subchapter J -Naviga­
tional Facilities (Part 171).
k. Subchapter K -Admin­
istrative Regulations (Parts
183-191).
1. Subchapters L-M -Re­
served.
Page 1-48 8/11/94
m. Subchapter N -War
Risk Insurance (Part 198).
43 • FAA REGULATORY ACTIONS.
a. Authority. Within the
executive branch of the federal
government, regulatory agencies
carry out the will of Congress,
expressed in public law, which
is considered to be in the pub­
lic interest. One such agency is the Federal Aviation Admin­
istration (FAA) which was es­
tablished by the Federal Avia­
tion Act of 1958. In fulfill­
ing the FAA's regulatory
responsibility, the FAA Admin­
istrator must consider the gen­
eral provisions of the act (see
paragraph 22).
b. Regulatory Process. It is with broad public consid­
erations in mind that the FAA
Administrator regulates air
commerce. The regulatory pro­
cess is interactive and its
pace is affected by the need to
involve the public and coordi­
nate with the Department of
Transportation (DOT), and the
Office of Management and Budget
( OMB) . Only in an emergency
may the normal regulatory pro­
cess be accelerated.
44 • FAA REGULATORY PROCEDURES.
FAA general rule-making proce­
dures are explained in FAR Part
11. These procedures require
the establishment of a public
docket, that is an official,
FAA record of each rule-making
action. Certain rule-making
responsibilities have been del­
egated; for example, the re­
sponsibility for issuing in­
strument- procedure changes to
FAR Parts 95 and 97 are dele-
Par 42

8/11/94
gated to the Flight Standards
Service and specifically to
AFS-1. However, the Adminis­
trator is the final authority
with respect to all aviation
safety rule-making actions.
45. FAA REGULATORY RESPONSI­
BILITIES. To fulfill the FAA's
regulatory responsibility, the
Administrator gives full con­
sideration to the obligation of
air operators and air agencies
to perform their services with
the highest degree of safety in
the public interest. The Ad­
ministrator also considers any
differences that may occur be­
tween civil aviation and air
commerce. Safety standards,
rules, regulations, and certif­
icates are prescribed and re­
vised continuously in recogni­
tion of those differences.
46. THE PROCESS OF PUBLIC PE­
TITIONS. Any interested person
may petition the Administrator
to issue, amend, exempt, or
rescind a FAR requirement. The
public has the right to be
aware of and to comment on any
proposed FAA rule or rule
change. A summary of each pub­
lic petition is published in
the Federal Register to allow
for public comment. Normally,
the public has 60 days to sub­
mit comments on these peti­
tions. After the close of the
public comment period, the FAA
considers all comments received
Par 44 8200.34
and decides whether to accept
or deny the petition. If the
decision is to deny, a denial
of petition is prepared, coor­
dinated, signed, and mailed to
the petitioner. The final FAA
action on each petition is pub­
lished in the Federal Register.
47. THE PROCESS OF INITIATING
PROPOSED RULES. If the FAA
initiates rule-making action or
accepts a petition for rule­
making, a Notice of Proposed
Rule-Making (NPRM) is prepared
by the appropriate FAA office.
With few exceptions, each NPRM
is published in the Federal
Register. A public hearing may
also be held. The length of
the public comment period may
vary because it is based on the
complexity and significance of
the proposed regulatory action.
After the close of the public
comment period, the FAA consid­
ers all comments received and
decides whether to withdraw the
NPRM, change the NPRM, or to
proceed with a final rule.
Usually, a final rule is effec­
tive 30 days after publication
in the Federal Register. The
preceding description of the
rule-making process is greatly
simplified here and this infor­
mation cannot replace informa­
tion provided in FAR Part 11
and associated Acts, Executive
Orders, DOT policies and proce­
dures, or FAA rule-making poli­
cies and procedures.
Page 1-49

8200.34
48. THE REGULATORY PROCESS AND
THE FLIGHT PROCEDURES PROGRAM.
The regional Flight Procedures
Program (FPP) is not the sole
authority for the administra­
tion of any FAR; however, the
FPP is responsible for support­
ing several FAR directed activ­ities, as administered by other
services. The FPP has direct
input and affect on the rule
making process and the method­
ology for implementation of the
program is covered in various
regulations, directives, and
advisory publications that will
be more fully described in fol­
lowing chapters.
49. RESERVED.
Page 1-50 8/11/94
Par 48

8/11/94 8200.34
SECTIOR 5. FLIGHT PROCEDURES STARDARDS
50. HISTORY AND CONCEPTS. The
aviation community discovered
early that standard operating
procedures ("standards") would
be required for flying air­
craft. As far back as the
Wright Brothers, the "pilots"
conducted extensive research to
find conditions and terrain
favorable to flight before se­
lecting the location at Kitty
Hawk. They decided upon a
plan: a short, straight flight
at low level, in favorable
winds, during daylight hours.
The same basic formula remains
in effect today. A pilot eval­
uates the collective capability
of the aircraft, the flight­
crew, and the navigation system
to arrive at a safe plan of
action or, a flight procedure.
51. PILOT AND AIRCRAFT IN­
CREASES. During the early
years of aviation, the individ­
ual pilot accomplished all in­
vestigation and analysis rela­
tive to the procedures he de­
veloped and used. As aviation
expanded, the more experienced
pilots began to develop and
author procedures which provid­
ed safety guidance for the less
experienced. Soon, traffic
density around landing areas
and along certain routes re­
quired anti-collision measures.
The pilots discussed the prob­
lems and agreed on procedures
to be followed in these areas.
These agreements involved indi­
viduals and companies that be­
gan carrying passengers for
hire. Many of the agreed to
"rules of the air" were rela­
tively simple, but gradually
Par 50 became complex and in some cas­
es, became unique to specific
sites or routes. While these
procedures were satisfactory
for a time, the day soon ar­
rived when traffic volume re­
quired some sort of allocation
of priority for their use.
Thus, air traffic control be­
came a real safety requirement.
52 . EVOLUTION OF STANDARDS.
Originally, the aviation proce­
dures and standards were devel­
oped by the individuals or
groups who built the aircraft,
flew the aircraft, were respon­
sible for the takeoff and land­
ing areas (airports), or were
responsible for the navi­
gation/lighting and communica­
tion equipment, both on the
ground and in the air. With
the growth in aviation and at
the request of the aviation
industry, the federal govern­
ment was empowered by law to
"standardize the standards".
a. The basic framework of
today' s standards was developed
by the users of this new, grow­
ing aviation system. Between
the world wars, military avia­
tion was also developing and in
conjunction with the new civil
organization, built upon the
procedures already in place.
Originally, the standards were
gathered, agreed to, and sanc­
tioned based upon the knowledge
of the multi tude of users of
the system. Technological ad­
vances like new and faster air­
craft, passenger service,
ground and air navigational
systems, and all-weather opera-
Page 1-51

8200.34
tions soon dictated that more
than just human experience and
knowledge were required to es­
tablish new standards. Proce­
dures and systems would have to
be tested using pilots and air­
craft to properly evaluate what
the new standard must be.
b. The new Civil Aviation
Authority (CAA) tried to catch
up and keep up with aviation
growth in all phases of its
regulatory and standards devel­
opment authority. The require­
ment to involve the flying pub­
lic, both civil and military,
in establishing appropriate
standards necessitated very
comprehensive, detailed studies
and justification. A set of
procedures were established to
develop standards and to coor­
dinate, within the CAA itself,
the aviation community, and
with the public, the informa­
tion available concerning the
proposed standard. The results
were the Civil Aviation Regula­
tions, (followed by the Federal
Aviation Regulations-FAR), and
a complex set of directives,
criteria, and guidance for both
internal CAA use and in some
cases, for use by the entire
aviation community.
53. FLIGHT PROCEDURES. Flight
procedures can be loosely de­
fined as any predetermined,
preplanned set of actions oc­
curring in flight. The takeoff
and departure, en route, and
arrival phases of flight are
the flight procedures of con­
cern in this handbook, rather
than how to accomplish an acro­
batic maneuver like a barrel
roll. Standardization of
flight procedures was a primary
Page 1-52 8/11/94
objective of the CAA and later,
the FAA. Instrument flying,
flight operations using cockpit
instruments (normally in low
visibility or poor weather con­
ditions), greatly complicated
this CAA standardization objec­
tive. With the pilot not al­
ways being able to see and
avoid other aircraft, a sepa­
rate set of standards, instru­
ment flight rules (IFR), had to
be established in conjunction
with visual flight rules (VFR).
Also, a method of aircraft sep­
aration had to be established
for the IFR aircraft. The re­
sult was the air traffic con­
trol system.
a. Air Traffic Control
( ATC) is an integral part of
flight procedures because con­
trollers on the ground, as op­
posed to pilots in the air,
allocate airspace for different
aircraft (separate aircraft) in
the terminal and en route envi­
ronment. Consequently, the
standards for ATC were devel­
oped supplementing the stan­
dards for the pilots in the air
(VFR/IFR). Note that in the
current FAR, Subchapter F,
Parts 91 through 109, is titled
Air Traffic and General Oper­
ating Rules.
b. With the end of World
War II, the demands upon the
CAA and its personnel expanded
far beyond their capability.
War surplus aircraft were re­
leased at minimum prices and
the civil aircraft population
soared. Pilots and other tech­
nical personnel were returning
to civil life in great numbers,
many of them electing to stay
in aviation. Two of the great-
Par 52

8/11/94
est impacts were the increase
in the number of air carriers,
both scheduled and nonsched­
uled, and the increase in busi­
ness and corporate aircraft
operators. The potentials of air freight volume also at­
tracted many new operators.
Business and corporation execu­
tives began adjusting their
sales and management operations
based on the use of air travel.
This fueled air carrier growth
and produced large fleets of
twin and multi-engine aircraft
for business use.
c. The manpower and bud­
getary limitations of the CAA
did not provide for a commensu­
rate increase in terminal and
en route navigational aids,
instrument flight procedures,
and air traffic control. The
CAA airway system still primar­
ily used the low frequency
range which gave audible course
guidance. Having no alterna­
tive, the air carriers, munic­
ipalities, and corporate air­
craft operators began install­
ing and operating their own
navigation aids. War surplus
non-directional beacons ( NDB 1 s)
made it possible to navigate,
for the first time, in instru­
ment meteorological conditions
(IMC) using cockpit navigation
displays. The growth of non­
federal ( nonfed) NDB 1 s produced
off-airway routes nearly equal
in volume to the CAA airway
system. The CAA had to "scram­
ble" to produce new standards
for this new navigational sys­
tem. Also, many of these new
operations were being conducted
in uncontrolled airspace. A
re-evaluation of airspace allo­
cation was required to safely
Par 53 8200.34
protect en route and terminal
IFR operations.
d. The major problem
though, was the increase in
congestion and traffic delays
being experienced at major ter­
minals, particularly by air
carriers. By law, these opera­
tors were required to use only
the routes and procedures con­
tained in their specifications.
During peak periods, saturation
became the general rule. ATC
needed flexibility and the
first departure routes were
developed as flight procedures.
In like manner, the holding
procedure was developed to pro­
vide a delaying technique for
arriving aircraft. Thus the
fundamental navigation and
flight procedure requirements
were established: the depar­
ture procedures, the en route
procedures, the holding proce­
dures, and the approach proce­
dures.
54. CONTINUING CHANGES. Be­
yond this era (approximately
1948-1949), history and events
did not change the basic flight
procedure requirements, but
only added to he complexity of
the problem. Major events
were:
a. Implementation of the
Instrument Landing System
( ILS) .
b. Implementation of VOR.
c. The Korean War, recre­
ating numerous air bases for
the new jet aircraft.
Page 1-53

8200.34
d. Implementation of ra­
dar as a navigation aid and for
ATC use.
e.
tance
( DME) . Introduction of Dis­
Measuring Equipment
f. Resolution of the
VOR/DME (civil) and TACAN (mil­
itary) controversy and develop­
ment of the VORTAC system.
g. Introduction of jet,
high speed, pressurized air­
craft, especially in civil
transports, for operations in a
high altitude environment where
flight, crew capability, and
navigational aids have charac­
teristics vastly different from
those found at basic altitudes.
h. The series of mid air
collisions that vividly indi­
cated the "see and be seen" or
"see and avoid" concepts must
be replaced, in many locations,
with navigation and flight pro­
cedures.
55. PROBLEMS IN STANDARDS DE­
VELOPMENT. The phenomenal
growth of aviation in this
country is evident in the re­
lated history. For the CAA/­
FAA, or at least many of its
departments, this growth so
over-taxed standards develop­
ment capabilities that a proper
job could not be done. Many of
the difficulties can be traced
to insufficient trained person­
nel and budgetary constraints,
but it was the pace of aviation
growth and rapid change, both
for civil and military opera­
tions, that were the main prob­
lems.
Page 1-54 8/11/94
a. Some of the following
situations arose:
( 1 ) Proposed stan­
dards obsolete before the
drafts could be completed.
(2) Regulations not
always realistic; appropriate
revision agreements could not
be reached.
( 3)
time extensive. Coordination
( 4 ) Gray areas of
jurisdiction evident.
was in
dating
higher (5) Once a standard
place, revising and up­
impossible because of
priority requirements.
b. Some matters were fre­
quently so urgent from a safety
standpoint that the decisions
were made by the inspector I­
specialist in the field. Other
situations were referred to the
regional offices. The more
complex problems were handled
at Washington Headquarters.
There were wide variances in
the handling of a given situa­
tion by field personnel and
even by regions. There were
occasions when headquarters had
to over-rule a field decision.
c. There were also cases
when specific operators, orga­
nizations, or governmental bod­
ies were dissatisfied and
brought their problems direct
to Washington. Washington
personnel had to devote so much
time to the analysis and set­
tlement of field problems that
the development of necessary
standards, criteria, and policy
Par 54

8/11/94
had to be neglected. Absence
of such field guidance created
additional variances and the
problem compounded itself.
NOTE: This histori­
cal perspective of
problems is present­
ed only to reflect
the general atmos­
phere of CAA/FAA
operations in devel­
oping flight proce­
dures standards.
Critics, outside the
FAA, may say that
this is a typical
bureaucratic opera­
tion, where leader­
ship and regulation
are expected, but
pushing and prodding
are required. Crit­
ics, inside the FAA,
may say that this is
exactly what is hap­
pening today. Al­
though there is a
small amount of
truth in both
critics' statements,
the real truth is
that the FAA has
come a long way in
establishing stan­
dards, criteria, and
policy. FAA's
flight procedure
standards are ac­
cepted for use by
countries all over
the world. Much of
the FAA's work was
used as the founda­
tion for ICAO stan­
dards. The current
Flight Standards
organization can
greatly expand upon
Par 55 8200.34
what has been and is
being accomplished.
56. CURRENT FLIGHT PROCEDURES
STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT. For
flight procedures standards
development, the 1950's and
1960's have been generally con­
sidered as "catch-up time" and
the 1970's and 1980's as "try­
ing to keep up time". The first complete book of criteria
was CAA' s U.S. Manual of Crite­
ria for Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures. The cur­
rent criteria handbook, Order
8260.3, United States Standard
for Terminal Instrument Proce­
dures (TERPS), superseded the
CAA manual and was issued in
1966 with major revisions in
1970 ( 8260. 3A) and 1976
( 8260. 3B) 1 with numerous chang­
es since. Order 8260.19,
Flight Procedures and Airspace 1 is a "how to" manual and was
originally designed to consoli­
date numerous orders, guidance,
and policy and specifically, to
provide additional instructions
for applying TERPS. Order
8260.19 was issued in 1970,
revised after many changes in
1984 (8260.19A), and revised
again in 1991 (8260.19B).
Throughout this 40 year span,
additional guidance has been
issued in other directives and
advisory circulars. Many of
these will be discussed in the
following chapters.
a. The economic condi­
tions in the aviation industry
go through cycles where large
expansion occurs, followed by a
period of consolidation or con­
traction. Even with these cy­
cles, the average air opera­
tions have steadily grown since
Page 1-55

8200.34
World War II. The FAA, by con­trast, is not as affected by
economic cycles as is aviation.
The executive government and
Congress control FAA's person­
nel, budgetary, and regulatory
expansion. Nevertheless, the
FAA has also grown steadily
trying to meet the ever in­
creasing demands of the flying
public. Many times, appropri­
ate standards are not in place
when required because FAA staf­
fing is only beginning to ex­
pand in these major upsurges in
aviation. This is the case in
one of the recent economic up­
turns caused by good economic
conditions and airline deregu­
lation.
b. Standard development
requirements normally come from
new technology (aircraft, avi­
onics, and navigation facili­
ties), but recently, these re­
quirements are also coming from
terminal area congestion. Ca­
pacity issues are forcing the
FAA to restudy and reevaluate
current standards, both on the
ground (airports) and in the
air (air traffic procedures and
terminal procedures). New and
larger airports are one answer,
but these take years of plan­
ning and large amounts of money
and still may not solve all the
problems. Refinements to cur­
rent standards are needed to
accomplish capacity gains. De­
sired increases in capacity
require innovative ideas and
concepts, use of current and
new technology (including air
and ground computerization),
extensive feasibility testing,
and then, establishing a new
standard or modifying an old
one.
Page 1-56 8/11/94
57. FLIGHT PROCEDURES CRITERIA
DEVELOPMENT. Terminal area
congestion and new technology
are the major cause for stan­
dard development requirements
and will be for years to come.
Establishing new flight proce­
dures standards and modifying
old standards will be a contin­
uing process and is the respon­
sibility of Flight Standards.
The flight procedures criteria
development process can roughly
be broken down to three steps:
determine the need, test and
evaluate, and establish the
standard. Actually, the pro­
cess is normally a lot more
complicated than just these
three steps.
58. TERPS CRITERIA CONCEPTS.
The primary objective of flight
procedures criteria is to de­
sign instrument procedures that
utilize the National Airspace
System (NAS) economically and
efficiently, and meet an ac­
ceptable level of safety.
a. Criteria contained in
TERPS must provide for all nor­
mal IFR operations. Emergency
situations such as loss of an
engine, loss of communications,
loss of signal from the facil­
ity, etc., are not considered
when establishing the basic
criteria.
b. The concept of flight
procedure criteria is to pro­
vide a predetermined envelope
of airsp_ace, vertically below
and horizontally under the IFR
aircraft, starting at take-off
and ending where a visual land­
ing can be made. This envelope
of airspace protects the air­
craft from collision with the
Par 56

8/11/94
ground or ground objects and is
known as obstacle clearance.
c. Based upon the re­
quirement for navigation, four
types of errors may have to be
taken into consideration for
criteria development: ground
system error, signal propaga­
tion error, airborne system
error, and flight technical
error (pilot error).
d. The size of the air­
space envelope is normally de­
termined by extensive flight
test and mathematical test
evaluation to produce a safety
probability on the order of
1 x 10-7 ( 1 chance in 10 mil­
lion of hitting an object).
Because of the need to protect
ALL aircraft SAFELY, TERPS cri­
teria are understandably con­
servative.
59 • TERPS CRITERIA AND FAA
STANDARDS. The standards and
criteria of other FAA organiza­
tions, in many cases, supple­
ment or are designed around the
safety requirements of ;TERPS
criteria. After all, an IFR
aircraft operation must take
off from an airport, depart the
terminal area, fly to destina­
tion, and land at the destina­
tion airport. The minimums and
flight procedures (takeoff, de­
parture, en route, sometimes
holding, and approach) used in
this IFR operation are designed
by Flight Standards based on
TERPS criteria.
a. Air Traffic (AT) Stan­
dards. The major responsibili­
ty of AT is the separation of
aircraft. Their separation
standards are based on the same
Par 58 8200.34
airspace envelope concept as
TERPS except vertical protec­
tion above an aircraft is also
required. In some cases, their
horizontal and vertical air­
craft protection is based on
the TERPS area of protection.
When AT utilizes published in­
strument procedures developed
by Flight Standards, obstacle
clearance protection is as­
sured. If AT vectors IFR traf­
fic off published instrument
procedure routes, they provide
obstacle clearance protection.
TERPS obstacle clearance stan­
dards are used. AT, as an or­
ganization, has responsibility
over designation of airspace.
In many cases, the TERPS area
of protection is used to define
the shape of airspace; for ex­
ample, airways, controlled air­
space, etc.
b. Airports Standards.
Many of the Airports standards
are predicated on TERPS crite­
ria or related guidance; for
instance, runway separation,
obstacle free zones and runway
slopes, runway and taxiway
lighting, taxiway location,
etc.
c. _Airways Facility (AF)
Standards. Because TERPS cri­
teria are normally based on a
ground facility used for navi­
gation, AF standards for facil­
ity performance must conform to
the originally defined facility
limits used to establish the
TERPS area of protection.
These standards are continually
verified by flight inspection
aircraft. Also, facility
siting standards may be predi­
cated on TERPS criteria.
Page 1-57

8200.34
d. Flight Standards.
From a purely self-centered,
self-serving point of view, it
could be rationalized that
TERPS criteria are the "guiding
forces" or "central authori­
ties" for many of the standards
of the above three operational
services. In reality, this is
not true. The safety standards
established by one service must
be agreed to by all the other
operational services. In many
cases, joint agreements are
reached or flight procedures
standards originate from the
existing standards of other
services. Whatever the origin,
compatible standards are estab­
lished by each service for
safety and continuity.
60. DETERMINING THE NEED FOR
NEW STANDARDS. Most of the
need for new standards origi­
nates from within the FAA, but
some do come from outside the
FAA.
a. Within the FAA, re­
search and development pro­
jects, Flight Standards pro­
jects, and projects of the oth­
er operational services are the
major source of new standards
requirements. Occasionally,
some requirements come from
International, Environment,
Safety, and other offices.
(1) Large projects,
like introducing a whole new
navigational system or aircraft
type, sometimes require a spe­
cial office to be established
in headquarters. This new of­
fice's main job is to facili­
tate and coordinate. Regional
working groups may be estab-
Page 1-58 8/11/94
lished for these large pro­
jects.
(2) Other standards
requirement projects may have
working groups established with
headquarters and regional rep­
resentatives, cooperating to
complete the project. General­
ly, these working groups are
made up of members of AT, AF,
Airports, and Flight Standards,
but may be dominated by a spe­
cific service. The military,
civil companies, and aviation
organizations may also be asked
to participate.
(3) The last type of
project is one by an individual
service or office. These types
of projects are normally han­
dled by one person or a small
group from the same service.
( 4 ) The problem with
all these types of projects is
recognizing early that some
standards need to be developed
or changed to complete the pro­
ject. Also, because of the
interdependence of standards
for all the operating services,
standards changes for one ser­
vice normally affect other ser­
vices. Consequently, many of
the headquarters standards de­
velopment requirements are well
thought out and planned, but
there are always occasions when
a breakdown in communications
causes disharmony between ser­
vices and a delay in the needed
standards.
b. Outside the FAA, stan­
dards development requirements
can come from anyone in the
aviation community. Problems
and recommendations are brought
Par 59

8/11/94
to the attention of the FAA
through their field offices,
regional offices, or even,
headquarters. These problems
and recommendations may become
projects based on FAA's respon­
sibility to serve the flying
public. The projects, in turn,
generate the need for stan­
dards.
(1) The military is
a major source for new stan­
dards. Because of their spe­
cial operations and mission
requirements, various branches
of the armed services bring
problems/solutions to the FAA.
( 2) Air carriers and
other flying companies have
site specific problems that
need to be solved. In most
cases, these problems involve
their company's operational
efficiency, but may have direct
safety and capacity possibili­ties that, when solved, may
affect more than one company or
be used for more than one site.
( 3 ) Aviation organi­
zations that represent individ­
uals, groups, or companies gen­
erally petition the FAA with
broad concepts and proposals
that can affect all aviation
users. These recommendations
may be very difficult to evalu­
ate and establish as a project.
Yet again, the requests may be
relatively simple. Standard
changes may or may not be re­
quired.
( 4) The remainder of
the aviation community, from
manufacturers to local govern­
ments to individual pilots,
constitute another source for
Par 60 8200.34
standards requirements. Pro­
jects derived from their prob­
lems and recommendations may be
of any size or scope.
61. TESTING AND DATA GATHERING
REQUIREMENTS. Many of the
Flight Standards projects re­
quiring standards development
also require testing, data
gathering, and data/test evalu­
ation. This is especially true
for TERPS criteria.
a. Early in the project,
a determination of the testing
and data gathering requirements
must be made. Some projects
just require data gathering and
evaluation but not testing.
Standards requiring only weath­
er conditions or traffic count
are examples. Most projects
though, require extensive test­
ing.
b. Normally, the first
step in establishing testing
requirements is to develop the
test plan. The test plan is a
formal document that spells
out, in detail, the different
phases of the test, exactly how
each phase will be conducted,
what data will be collected and
how, how many tests are expect­
ed, what are the minimum data
required for each phase, where
will the tests be held, and
what are the expected results
for each phase. Most test
plans are very thorough and
comprehensive. Generally, the
project manager works very
closely with the data collec­
tors and evaluators in organiz­
ing and writing the test plan.
The Standards Development
Branch, AVN-210, accomplishes
most TERPS criteria planning,
Page 1-59

8200.34
testing, and development as
well as participating in many
other Flight Standards pro­
jects. Consequently, AVN-210
helps determine the material to
be included in the test plan
and, in many cases, writes the
test plan.
c. Depending upon what
types of tests will be re­
quired, other organizations
within the FAA may be included
in the planning phase. Offices
within the Technical Center and
the Aeronautical Center as well
as any of the different head­
quarters or regional offices
that may be participating or
involved in the tests will be
consulted during the planning.
Outside the FAA, organizations,
manufacturers, consultants, and
other government agencies, in­
cluding the military, may be
consulted.
d. Flight test is the
most commonly considered form
of testing. Because of the
cost of flight testing and pos­
sible disruption of air traffic
in busy terminal areas, simula­
tors represent another fre­
quently used viable option.
Air Traffic has a target gener­
ating radar simulator for air
traffic control at the Techni­
cal Center. Many Air Traffic/­
Flight Standards joint projects
are tested there. Aircraft
flight simulators owned by the
FAA and the National Aeronau­
tics and Space Administration
{NASA) are commonly used for
standards development tests.
Occasionally, airline and air­
craft manufacturers flight sim­
ulators are used. With today' s
technology, an innovative con-
Page 1-60 8/11/94
cept, of telephone linkage of
flight simulator output to a
terminal ATC computer system,
has produced a mixture of live
traffic and simulator targets
on the terminal controller's
radar scope. With this capa­
bility, many types of new con­
cepts (like simultaneous opera­
tions to closely spaced or con­
verging runways) and "pilot
blunder" scenarios can be in­
troduced and evaluated without
having to use multiple test
aircraft, interrupting traffic,
or risk aircraft collision.
e. Terminal instrument
procedure criteria development
uses data collected from both
actual flight tests and flight
simulator tests. Tests are
based on subject pilots with
different levels of experience;
aircraft are representative of
those operating or expected to
be operating in the NAS; air­
borne and ground navigation
systems have operating and er­
ror characteristics the same as
production systems; operation­
ally valid instrument flight
conditions are used; and meteo­
rological conditions that would
affect the instrument approach
procedure most adversely are
incorporated. To assure that
test data is operationally rep­
resentative, the test condi­
tions that normally would be
followed are discussed below.
(1) Pilots. A rep­
resentative cross section of
active pilots, with experience
ranging from limited to highly
experienced, should be includ­
ed. Private, commercial, and
transport rated pilots should
all be used. If possible, sub-
Par 61

8/11/94
ject pilots should be obtained
from each segment of the avia­
tion community including gener­
al aviation, business, and air
carrier operations. Under some
conditions, government, mili­
tary, or test pilots may be
used, but the data should not
be based exclusively on such
subjects.
(2) Aircraft. Air­
craft performance and flight
characteristics have a direct
effect on the airspace and vis­
ibility required to perform
terminal instrument maneuvers,
such as circling to land,
achieving a departure or missed
approach climb, descent/ascent
gradient, or making final
alignments to land. TERPS cri­
teria are based on aircraft
speed (approach categories A
through E defined in FAR Part
97). However, in the develop­
ment phase of the criteria,
aircraft performance factors
such as climb gradient, holding
speed, balked landing, etc. ,
and flight characteristics such
as roll characteristics, con­
trol forces, stability levels,
stability augmentation' etc. '
are considered. The particular
aircraft configuration may have
to be coordinated with an oper­
ations inspector or project
manager to assure the proper
determination of criteria as it
applies to turn radii, mini­
mums, obstacle clearance areas
and surfaces, etc. Any crite­
ria to be revised or developed
should account for these air­
craft differences. Some test
programs typically include only
one or two aircraft approach
categories. To develop suit­
able criteria for the full
Par 61 8200.34
range of approach categories, a
data sample from each category
or a suitable mathematical mod­
el which _will predict appropri­
ate characteristics for the
ones not tested should be pro­
vided. Aircraft or flight sim­
ulators used in a data collec­
tion program should be rep­
resentative of those expected
to utilize the IFR system and
should be fully certified.
(3) Navigation Sys­
tems. Airborne and ground nav­
igation systems should be rep­
resentative of those available
or proposed for operational
conditions. If prototype sys­
tems are used, then data sam­
ples or a suitable predictive
model should substantiate that
operating and error character­
istics are the same as those
anticipated for production sys­
tems.
(4) Inflight Proce­
dures. All proposed instrument
inflight procedures should be
examined for operational valid­
ity. New aircraft designs,
navigation systems, displays,
computers, system integration,
auto pilots, etc. may introduce
approach profiles not presently
covered by TERPS criteria. All
proposed test profiles should
be reviewed by an operations
inspector or the project man­
ager for their operational val­
ue before flight tests are per­
formed. Those determined to be
feasible should be tested to
establish appropriate criteria.
( 5) Cockpit Disci­
pline. Flight test or ground
simulation involving flight
crews should be carried out
Page 1-61

8200.34
under conditions that simulate
actual flight conditions with
comparable workload and crew
duties. Every attempt should
be made to provide operational
flight conditions as contrasted
to laboratory type conditions.
(6) Meteorological
Conditions. Flight tests
should be conducted under a
full range of meteorological
conditions, including high wind
velocity, wind direction vari­
ability, turbulence, wind
shear, limited visibility, and
high density altitudes. Par­
ticular attention should be
given to those conditions that
affect the test procedures most
adversely. If flight tests are
not performed under IMC, then
an approved device should be
provided to restrain the sub­
ject pilot's visibility outside
the cockpit.
62. COLLECTED DATA AND EVALUA­
TION. The primary purpose of
the collected data is to deter­
mine the volume and shape of
airspace required to provide
appropriate obstacle protection
or to conduct an instrument
operation. Some of the data
collected are referred to as
flight track data. Flight
track data on a given navlga­
tion system provide positive
information with regard to one
or more dimensions. For exam­
ple, VOR provides information
in only one dimension, azimuth;
VOR/DME increases this to two,
azimuth and range; while MLS
provides information in three
dimensions, azimuth, elevation,
and range. The flight track
data are obtained by using so­
phisticated optical tracking
Page 1-62 8/11/94
devices, radar tracking, or
simulator computer tracking.
The mathematicians and statis­
ticians evaluate the data to
validate an operational assump­
tion of the airspace volume re­
quired to protect an instrument
flight procedure, or to develop
or validate a mathematical mod­
el of the distribution of prob­
able flight tracks of aircraft
expected to fly this procedure.
a. Validate an Opera-
tional Airspace Assumption.
The total system error (ground
equipment, signal, airborne
equipment, and pilot) must be
statistically tested against
the operational assumption to
validate the airspace require­
ments. Essentially, this sta­tistical test determines that
no significant difference ex­
ists between observed error and
hypothesized error. Validation
will be considered satisfactory
when the original hypothesis
cannot be rejected at a 95 per­
cent confidence level.
b. Produce or Validate a
Model. Standard, though com­
plicated, statistical analysis
methods are used to develop or
validate the mathematical or
probability model of aircraft
dispersion. Flight track data
are statistically characterized
(graphed, charted, and digita­
lized-computers being indis­
pensable). The model is again
based on total system error
derived from data obtained, in
conjunction with proper analy­
sis. The purpose of the model
is to calculate the deviation
probability of an aircraft from
the intended flight track dur-
Par 61

8/11/94
ing approach, missed approach,
or departure.
(l) The error data
should be measured along the
intended flight track through­
out the entire procedure with
measurements made at least once
per second in the three axis
(azimuth, elevation, and
range). Ideally, a data rate
of five times per second is
preferred.
(2) Adequate colli­
sion avoidance with fixed ob­
jects along the flight path
must be provided for in the
extreme limits of the vertical
and crosstrack distributions.
Since random sampling will not
likely produce sufficient data
to model the extreme limits
to the order of 1 X 1 o-7
1 the test should be designed to
include factors that contribute
to significant lateral and ver­
tical excursions. The collect­
ed data from comprehensive
testing may be used to model
the extreme limits of the dis­
tribution or a suitable "ex­
treme value" model may be used.
(3) Statistics
should account for estimates of
appropriate sampling error.
All data related to blunders or
unusual events should be docu­
mented and an determination
made whether to include or ex­
clude the sample.
(4) Pilot question­
naires are used to gain a com­
plete perspective of the flight
operation being performed. Al­
though not factored into the
model, pilot comments are valu-
Par 62 8200.34
able to determine if an indi­
vidual sample is appropriate.
NOTE: This handbook
will not detail the
complexity of the statistical and
mathematical data
analysis process
that must be per­
formed. Statistical
methods and applica­
tions like standard
deviation, kurtosis,
skewness, correla-
tion coefficient,
null hypothesis,
etc. , all relate to
the evaluation and
may be part of this
process. The evalu­
ation is methodical
and uses standard
statistical analysis
procedures. The
resultant criteria
support the analysis
and are open for
review by any inter­
ested party.
63. INSTRUMENT PROCEDURES DE­
SIGN STANDARDS. The main pur­
pose of the testing, data col­
lection, and data evaluation is
to establish or validate a spe­cific flight procedure
standard. This criteria devel­
opment process has produced the
design standards that exists in
TERPS today. Most of TERPS has
been tested over several years
of operational use and are gen­
erally understood and accepted.
A relatively small amount of
testing may be required to re­
fine or establish some new cri­
teria based upon past tests and
experience. However, with the
introduction of new terminal
Page 1-63

8200.34
approach/departure systems such
as MLS and the flight manage­
ment system (FMS), or aircraft
with new flight characteristics
such as the tiltrotor, new ap­
proach/departure profiles must
be tested and evaluated. New
concepts such as curved ap­
proach/ departure segments, with
onboard computed course guid­
ance, also require careful
testing.
a. The validation of pro­
cedural design values also must
consider the pilot. Pilot fac­
tors such as flight technical
error, maintenance of airspeed,
rate of descent or climb, power
input frequencies, heading
changes, etc., are built into
the test and evaluation. Sub­
jective values such as cockpit
workload, crew coordination,
and pilot orientation must rely
on the pilot questionnaire or
comments. A good cross section
of pilots expected to use the
procedure is important. Air­
borne and simulator observer
logs may also be critical. In
any event, all pilot factors
must be favorable to operation­
ally validate these design val­
ues.
b. The determination of
minimums is a prime component
of TERPS criteria.
( 1) Minimum altitudes
are charted for cockpit use and
are defined as the lowest alti­
tude authorized in IMC. Mini­
mum altitudes are determined by
adding the volume of airspace
height (required obstacle
clearance), based upon the hor­
izontal airspace limits (area
Page 1-64 8/11/94
of protection), to the highest
obstacle.
( 2 ) Approach mini­
mums al~o include visibility
minimums which provide adequate
time for visual transition
from instrument flight to visu­
al maneuvering and landing.
(3) For approach
minimums, altitude and visibil­
ity go hand-in-glove to provide
adequate obstacle clearance,
minimize surface contact on go­
arounds, provide adequate ma­
neuvering airspace for landing,
provide sufficient time and
visual conditions for visual
transition, and provide for a
margin of safety to accommodate
the effects of uncertain navi­
gation system factors.
c. TERPS criteria also
allow minimums adjustment for
specific approach lighting sys­
tems, terrain, a remote altime­
ter source, excessive final
approach length, or to satisfy
obstacle clearance require­
ments. Under other circum­
stances, some minimums can not
be approved unless the crew is
properly qualified and special
equipment is available, such as
ILS Cat II/III. Test data
evaluation must substantiate or
modify the existing minimums
adjustment criteria.
64. TEST RESULT REPORT. A
report describing the details
of the test will be issued by
AVN-210. Normally, flight
track data will be in graphic
form as well as being explained
in paragraph form. The methods
used in determining the recom­
mended area of protection and
Par 63

8/11/94
obstacle clearance requirements
will be documented. Any other
information deemed critical to
the final flight procedure de­
sign standard will be included,
such as pilot questionnaires,
operationally critical problems
encountered, what data was not
used and why, criteria limiting
factors discovered, etc. This
report normally precedes the
issuing of the new standard,
but in some cases, tests are
multi-year in duration and some
preliminary standards are re­
quired earlier.
65. OTHER USES OF TEST DATA.
Other than new standards devel­
opment, test data may have
broader uses. The primary ex­
pected value of the tests is to
validate already existing stan­
dards. Minor adjustments may
result to existing standards
based on extensive testing re­
quired for the new standards.
Also, test data is shared with
other segments of the aviation
community and may affect future
equipment/aircraft production
and future operational policies
and procedures. Test data is
also shared with the interna­
tional aviation community, es­
pecially ICAO, which may affect
international standards. The
ILS Collision Risk Model (CRM),
which is accepted by ICAO, re­
sulted from extensive U.S. and
foreign tests. Data collection
and evaluation will produce
other internationally accepted
CRM's.
66. ISSUING NEW STANDARDS.
The ideal sequence of events is
to test and evaluate, issue
report, write new criteria, and
publish a TERPS change. This
Par 64 8200.34
is an overly simplistic se­
quence because the operational
demand for new criteria, espe­
cially with new systems, air­
craft, and concepts, requires
preliminary standards to even
complete the operational test­
ing. Also, because of the in­
terdependence of TERPS criteria
with the standards of AT, AF,
and Airports, time is necessary
for coordination and for the
evolution of compatible stan­
dards. Flight Standards typi­
cally issues "TERPS type" in­
terim criteria in advisory cir­
culars and existing/new orders.
This type of action will allow
procedure design with continued
testing and data evaluation, as
well as allowing the necessary
time required for the aviation
community and other FAA/Govern­
ment offices to adjust. Inter­
im criteria are typically con­
servative because of safety
concerns and may not adequately
cover all details a TERPS
change would require. After
continued testing/evaluation,
finalized criteria are normally
more thorough and comprehen­
sive.
a. Examples. Area Navi­
gation (RNAV) criteria resided
in an advisory circular for
years before it was incorporat­
ed into TERPS. The criteria
were refined over this period
of time. MLS criteria went
through a series of orders be­
fore finalized criteria were
decided upon. There is also
the incremental method of stan­
dards development used in ILS
CAT II/III. Lower and lower
minimums were authorized (II,
IIIa, IIIb) as the ground and
airborne- systems and flight
Page 1-65

8200.34
crew requirements were being
defined, tested, and redefined.
A series of advisory circulars
were used.
b. Writing Criteria.
Writing good TERPS criteria is
an art. Good criteria are writ­
ten so that a specialist in a
field or regional office, using
maps, can design a procedure
and determine minimums. Pre­
cise language must be used
which will have the same mean­
ing to all TERPS users. The
criteria must also be thorough
enough to allow for computer
programming; more and more pro­
cedure development concepts and
criteria are being computerized
to ease the time consuming, map
study methods. Although the
test data supposedly set the
obstacle clearance and area of
protection parameters, obstacle
clearance may be a slope and
the area is generally trape­
zoidal. Consequently, the
mathematics of procedure design
is necessarily complex, but
basic trigonometry is used.
For more complex mathematical
calculations, a graph, table,
or chart is designed. Of
course, there are always a mul­ti tude of diagrams to show what
the words of the criteria are
explaining. Establishingmini­
mums is very important and both
charts and words are commonly
used in TERPS. The final test
for new criteria is real-world
application. The criteria must
be comprehensive enough, yet
precise enough, to account for
all aircraft types, unique air­
port designs, different terrain
features, specific operational
requirements, etc. Typically,
interim criteria are not this
Page 1-66 8/11/94
thorough, but criteria incorpo­
rated into TERPS must be.
c. Coordination. Crite­
ria, whether interim or final,
require extensive coordination.
Because TERPS is a joint-use
document with the military ser­
vices, discussions are ongoing
with military counterparts. A
TERPS Working Group ( TWG), con­
sisting of FAA TERPS special­ists and military TERPS
specialists, was formally es­
tablished with the main objec­
tive of enhancing this coordi­
nation process and expediting
TERPS changes. Coordination
with the -Flight Standards users
is important, as well as other
Flight Standards offices.
Other FAA offices, especially
the operational offices of AT,
AF, and Airports, require con­
tinuing coordination. Aviation
organizations and the aviation
community in general are not
left out of the coordination
process. In many cases, infor­
mational meetings are held in
Washington headquarters or Ok­
lahoma City to discuss and ex­
plain proposed criteria. Draft
criteria will go through many
revisions before finally is­
sued. Coordination is a
lengthy process.
d. Need to Inform. New
systems and new concepts re­
quire information exchange with
the entire aviation community.
Explanations are normally in­
cluded in the AIM and in offi­
cial FAA publications. Infor­
mative videotapes are often
produced for meetings at head­
quarters or in the field. In­
formation for the public is the
responsibility of the program
Par 66

8/11/94
office or office of primary
interest. Many times, new
standards require a change in
the FAR. FAR changes are part
of the coordination process,
but these changes also go
through the rulemaking process
for public comment.
67. RESERVED.
Par 66 8200.34
Page 1-67 (and 1-68)

8/11/94 8200.34
SECT IOR 6. THE REG I ORAL FLIGHT PROCEDURES PROGRAM
68. AUTHORITY. The Flight
Standards Division mission,
structure, and functions are
described in Order 1100.5, FAA
Organization Field. The
Flight Procedures Branch (FPB)
responsibilities to the divi­
sion are described below.
69. FPB RESPONSIBILITIES. The
Flight Procedures Branch is
comprised of aviation safety
inspectors who have technical
knowledge and skills in all­
weather terminal operations.
The FPB accomplishes its prima­
ry responsibility, AVIATION
SAFETY, by authorizing, main­
taining, and canceling terminal
instrument procedures. These
three tasks are the FPB's core
functions. The FPB has addi­
tional responsibility to sup­
port regional programs by ac­
complishing obstruction evalua­
tions ( OE) , airport airspace
analyses (AAA), and facilities
and equipment (F&E) navaid and
visual landing aid evaluations.
Although subsequent chapters
will discuss these functions,
detailed information may be
found in the following FAA Or­
ders. Terminal procedure de­
velopment is discussed in Or­
ders 8260.3, United States
Standard for Terminal Instru­
ment Procedures ( TERPS) , and
8260.19, Flight Procedures and
Airspace; obstructions evalua­
tion and airspace analysis are
described in Order 7400.2, Pro­
cedures for Handling Airspace
Matters, and the facilities and
equipment navaids/visual land­
ing aids evaluation is dis­
cussed in Order 7031.2, Airway
Par 68 Planning Standard Number One –
Terminal Air Navigation Facili­
ties and Air Traffic Control
Services. Additional responsi­bilities related to development
and maintenance of the National
Airspace System (NAS) are list­
ed in paragraph c, below.
a. Coordination. To ac­
complish these functions, the
FPB must directly interface
with other regional divisions,
aviation users, and industry
groups. National program poli­
cy guidance is provided by the
Technical Programs Division,
AFS-400, primarily through the
Flight Procedures Standards
Branch, AFS-420, and the All
Weather Operations Branch,
AFS-410. The FPB coordinates
with AFS-420, AFS-410, and
AFS-400 when additional guid­
ance is required and to solve
unique problems. The FPB also
interfaces with the Planning
and Program Management Branch,
AFS-12 for the facilities and
equipment program and the Of­
fice of Aviation System Stan­
dards, AVN, to resolve specific
technical issues that impact
the Flight Procedures Program.
b. Flight Procedures. At
the regional level, the Flight
Standards Division has overall
responsibility for the flight
procedures program. The FPB
accomplishes the instrument
procedures tasks. The FPB de­
termines whether or not termi­
nal instrument procedures and
facilities are required, autho­
rizes procedure development,
assures published procedures
Page 1-69

8200.34
incorporate upcoming and recent
changes in their region, and
determines whether or not ter­
minal procedures are canceled.
The Flight Procedure and In­
spection Division (AVN-200) in
Oklahoma City, establishes na­
tional policy for the implemen­
tation of portions of the
flight procedures and airspace
program. The Airspace System
Assurance Division (AVN-800) is
responsible for practical pro­
cedure development, review and
changes to existing procedures,
and flight inspection of proce­
dures. The National Flight
Procedures Development Branch
(AVN-830), the Flight Inspec­
tion Area Offices (FIAO), and
the International Flight In­
spection Offices (IFIO) accom­
plish these tasks. Practical
procedure development would
include applying the design
parameters and minimum stan­
dards, determining controlling
obstructions, and completing
the appropriate procedural
forms and routing them for pub­
lication.
( 1) Procedure Autho­
rization. The FPB may generate
the need for terminal proce­
dures within the region or re­
ceive a request for a proce­
dure. Instrument procedure
authorization may be based on
an existing navigation aid or
based on establishing a new
facility through either the F&E
program or the non-federal
( nonfed) navigation aid program
(FAR Part 171, Navigational
Facilities). The FPB also au­
thorizes special procedures for
use by a specific individual or
group. Additionally, the FPB
becomes involved with and is
Page 1-70 8/11/94
instrumental in the successful
introduction of new procedural
concepts, navigation systems,
and landing technologies such
as simultaneous converging in­
strument approaches, closely
spaced parallel runway ap­
proaches, curved approaches,
long range navigation
(LORAN-C), microwave landing
system (MLS), CAT III ILS Sur­
face Movement Guidance and Con­
trol System ( SMGCS), and global
positioning system (GPS).
(2) Procedure Main­
tenance. Once a terminal or en
route procedure is published, it is the responsibility of the
FPB to maintain the safety and
integrity of that procedure.
The Obstruction Evaluation and
Airport Airspace Analysis Pro­
grams (OE/AAA) have a major
impact on the maintenance and
modification of all procedures.
OE/AAA analyses are conducted
by the FPB in response to the
dynamic growth present in to­
day's commerce and aviation
sectors. Through these pro­
grams, Flight Standards along
with Air Traffic, Airway Facil­
ities, and Airports administer
the safe and efficient growth
of the NAS. Airport studies
are conducted by the FPB in
support of these programs and
cover a wide variety of airport
proposals including environmen­
tal reviews, airport/heliport
design and construction, and
airport capacity. Other input,
such as users complaints, pro­
grammed facility shutdown, and
industry recommendations are
analyzed by the FPB in a con­
tinuing effort to maintain or
enhance the NAS.
Par 69

8/11/94
( 3) Efficiency Eval­
uations. Maintenance of termi­
nal procedures includes the
responsibility to determine the
efficiency of terminal opera­
tions; that is, the cost to the
government cannot exceed the
benefit of the service. The
FPB is responsible for making
many of these technical deter­
minations and authorizing can­
cellation of instrument proce­
dures as necessary.
c. Other Related Respon­
sibilities. Additional FPB
program responsibilities in­
clude, but are not limited to
the following tasks:
(1) Conducts en
route evaluations of the air­
space system. 8200.34
( 2 ) Responds to a
legal request for deposition or
appearance in court trials or
formal hearings.
( 3) Responds to a
freedom of information act re­
quests.
( 4) Conducts presen­
tations at accident prevention
seminars.
( 5) Responds to pub­
lic inquiries.
(6) Conducts an en­
vironmental assessment.
( 7) Initiates flight
procedures waivers.
( 8) Reviews proposed
changes to orders, notices, or
advisory circulars.
70.-199. RESERVED.
Par 69 Page 1-71 (and 1-72)

8/11/94 8200.34
CHAPTER 2. FACILITIES A1ID EQUIPMEB'r PROGRAM
SECTIOB 1.
200. PURPOSE. In support of
the regional flight procedures
program, this chapter provides
flight procedures inspectors
with a consistent planning,
coordination, and implementa­
tion process for all Facilities
and Equipment ( F&E) programs
and projects that are the re­
sponsibility of the regional
Flight Standards Division.
201. BACKGROUND. The Federal
Aviation Act of 1958 legislates
the FAA responsibility for es­
tablishing and maintaining a
safe and efficient National
Airspace System ( NAS) • In com­
pliance with this mandate, the
FAA establishes policy and pub­
lishes directives/guidance to
provide for the establishment
of federal terminal navigation
aids or the takeover of pri­
vately owned aids. The FAA
budgets, purchases, installs,
owns, and operates facilities
and equipment based on congres­
sional appropriations using
funds from the Airport and Air­
way Trust Fund. Prior to this
directive, there were no exist­
ing national directives provid­
ing detailed guidance for
Flight Standards to execute
their portion of the F&E pro­
gram at the regional level.
Within each region, the Flight
Standards Division's Flight
Procedures Branch (FPB) is as­
signed the responsibility for
planning, prioritizing, and
evaluating activities governing
the location of terminal air
navigation equipment (except
Par 200 GEBERAL
terminal radar) and visual
landing aides. Through long­
standing informal procedures,
the individual FPB F&E programs
worked well and delivered ac­
ceptable finished products.
This chapter will provide stan­
dardized guidance for the re­
gional Flight Standards portion
of the F&E program and empha­
size the cooperative F&E plan­
ning required in a complex NAS
environment to improve the
Flight Standards F&E product.
202. THE BUDGET PROCESS. The
congressionally mandated FAA
budget process is ongoing and a
complex mechanism where work
may begin on a given annual
budget as early as 4 years pri­
or to the beginning of the fis­
cal year (October 1 ) and can
continue after the end of the
fiscal year. Consequently,
responsible offices may be
planning, beginning, correct­
ing, spending, or closing out
as many as five or more differ­
ent budgets. As an example
only, the remainder of this
chapter will be using fiscal
year 1990 as a base year for
the 1991, 1992, and 1993 bud­
gets.
a. FAA Budget. The FAA
budget is primarily divided
into four portions which are
generally administered sep­
arately. Occasionally, a smal­
ler, separate budget is added
to the four listed.
Page 2-1

8200.34
(1) Operations Budget
-wages, etc.
(2) Facilities and
Equipment Budget.
(3) Grants-In-Aid Bud­
get -Airport Improvement Pro­
gram (AIP).
(4) Research, Engi-
neering, and Development Bud­
get.
b. Budget Responsibili­ties. Individual FAA services
or offices are responsible for
completing different portions
of the total budget. Submis­
sion is then made to the Office
of Budget (ABU) which is re­
sponsible for the entire FAA
budget. Individual branches in
ABU handle the completion and
processing of the four separate
budgets.
c. Fiscal Year 1990 (FY90)
FAA Budget. For comparative
value purposes, the following
is the FY90 FAA budget approved
by the United States Congress
(funds in million$):
Operations
Facilities and
Equipment
Grants-In-Aid
Research,
Engineering, and
Development
Total FY90 Budget 3,824
1,721
1,651
170
7,366
d. Tracking a FY Budget.
A given FY budget leaves the
FAA for the Office of the Sec­
retary of Transportation (OST)
approximately 14 months before it will become effective. This
means that the FY91 budget,
Page 2-2 8/11/94
which became effective on Octo­
ber 1, 1990, was sent to OST in
June 1989. Around September,
1989, the FY91 FAA budget was
added to the Department of
Transportation (DOT) budget and
was sent by OST to the Office
of Management and Budget ( OMB) •
OMB finalized the DOT and other
government FY91 budgets for the
President by the end of calen­
dar year 1989. The President
then presented the government's
budget to Congress. Congress,
in turn, had 7 or 8 months to
evaluate, hold hearings, nego­tiate, and act on the total
FY91 budget with hearings be­
ginning in the spring of 1990.
e. Coordination of a Bud­
get. Both formal and informal
meetings, briefings, discus­
sions, and telephone conversa­
tions occur throughout the en­
tire budget process. This hap­
pens in planning meetings, dur­
ing the original completion of
a budget by the appropriate
offices and regions, while it
is being reviewed and analyzed
at FAA Headquarters offices,
and while at OST, OMB, and the
U. S. Congress. Offices may be
called upon to justify items
submitted in their budgets by
the current reviewing authori­
ties. This coordination is
important because in the final
steps of the budget process,
smaller budgets are being con­
solidated into larger budgets.
There is only a certain amount
of money available for each of
the smaller budgets and many
times this total dollar amount
or proportion may change due to
prioritizing, costing, and con­
solidating. Coordination by
the affected offices is criti-
Par 202

8/11/94
cal for an effective budget
process.
203. THE F&E BUDGET. In the
region, the Airway Facilities
Division is responsible for
compiling the F&E budget. Be­
sides Airway Facilities, other
regional divisions, especially
Air Traffic and Flight Stan­
dards, have direct input to the
budget. The F&E budget is com­
pleted and forwarded to Wash­
ington prior to the established
due-date. The regional F&E
budget submissions for the FY92
budget were sent to Washington
at the end of January, 1990.
NOTE: The document
specifying the annual
F&E project items is
Order 2500.55, Call
for Estimates Facili­
ties and Equipment
(F&E). This order is
referred to as the
"Call for Estimates",
the "National Call",
or just the "Call" and
is explained in detail
in section 3 of this
chapter. A specific
fiscal year's pub­
lished Call may be
issued after the re­
gional submissions are
due in washington. An
earlier DRAFT Call for
Estimates is made
available the prior
August or September to
enable the regions to
complete their F&E
submissions on a time­
ly basis.
Par 202 8200.34
a. FPB F&E Budget Han­
dling. 'rhe FPB F&E budget pro­
gram is ongoing throughout the
entire calendar year, but the
actual work on the specific FY
submissions is started a few
months before they are due in
Airway Facilities. Regions may
set different submission due­
dates to Airway Facilities
based upon local orders or
practices. The submissions
procedure is also determined by
the regions and as specified in
the Call, with automation such
as the Resource Tracking Pro­
gram ( RTP) becoming more preva­
lent. A typical calendar year
in an FPB and chronological
events for F&E budgets ( 1990
chosen) follows:
January 1990:
FY92 Budget sent from
regions to FAA Headquarters
based on the draft Call.
-Feedback is received in
regions on FY91 Budget items as
submitted by OMB to Congress.
Spring 1990:
-FY92 published Call re­
ceived by regions.
-Began work on FY9 3 Flight
Standards submissions (varies
based on regional due-date).
-Ongoing discussions with
Planning and Program Management
Branch, AFS-12, regarding the
FY92 submissions.
-Possible AFS-12 meeting
in Washington to finalize FY92
Flight Standards F&E budget
items (FPB's send representa­
tives).
Page 2-3

8200.34
June 1990:
Feedback
regions on FY92
submitted by FAA received in
Budget i terns
to OST.
Summer or Fall 1990:
-Submitted FY93 items to
Airway Facilities based on lo­
cal due-date. (Utilizing FY92
published Call and FY93 draft
Call.)
September and October 1990:
-Received FY93 draft Call.
An FAA Headquarters meeting may
have been held to discuss the
draft Call. (FPB invited.)
Feedback to region on
FY92 Budget items as submitted
by OST to OMB.
-Congress approved and the
President signed the FY91 F&E
budget.
End of Year 1990:
Region finalized FY93
submission (using draft Call,
feedback on FY92 submissions,
and the FY91 approved budget).
-Regional Facilities Re­
view Committee and the Regional
Administrator approved the FY9 3
budget to be submitted to Wash­
ington.
b. Headquarters Handling.
The regional submissions are
sent to ABU where all the bud­
gets are consolidated and for­
warded to the appropriate of­
fices for review.
(1) ABU forwards a
copy to the Flight Standards
Service (AFS) and specifically,
the Planning and Program Man­
agement Branch, AFS-12. AFS-
12's major responsibilities at
this point of the budget pro­
cess is to review and validate
Page 2-4 8/11/94
the submissions. Clarifica­
tions and questions about indi­
vidual submissions may be dis­
cussed with the regional FPB
F&E inspector.
(-2 ) The F&E budget
then is forwarded to Headquar­
ters Airway Facilities person­
nel for costing and validating,
then to APO for application of
benefit/cost analysis pre­
scribed in APS-1, returned to
ABU for consolidation, and di­
rected to AFS-12 for final pri­
oritizing based on allotted
moneys and costing.
( 3) Again coordination
may be required between AFS-12
and the FPB concerning individ­
ual problem areas for the fi­
nalized budget submission.
AFS-12 will have a meeting in
Washington to prioritize and
finalize Flight Standards bud­
get items. Regional F&E in­
spectors will attend. Discus­
sions may include facility re­
quirements for future F&E bud­
gets.
(4) The budget is com­
pleted, consolidated, and ap­
proved by the different offices
within the FAA. By the middle
of May 1990, the appropriate
executive directors have agreed
to the FY92 F&E budget.
Through the remainder of the
budget process (reviews by OST,
OMB, and Congress), AFS-12 may
be called upon to justify the
finalized F&E budget determined
from the FPB submitted lists
and written justifications.
c. Specific AFS Roles and
Responsibilities. The Flight
Standard Service is responsible
Par 203

8/11/94
for providing technical guid­
ance on F&E i terns that they
sponsor or co-sponsor, review­
ing and validating submissions
to the annual Call For Esti­
mates, providing guidance to
the regions for the annual
draft Call for Estimates, serv­
ing as technical representa­
tives of joint budget and pro­
gram office sponsored F&E work­
ing groups, preparing and de­
fending budget justification
material in support of Flight
Standards F&E requests, and
submitting new initiatives and
their supporting mission need
statements to the Aviation Sys­
tem Capital Investment Plan
( CIP) • 8200.34
d. OST, OMB, and Congres­
sional Handling. The FAA's F&E
budget is reviewed by OST and
OMB and submitted to the U. S.
Congress. Congress reviews and
legislates the final FAA F&E
budget. The final budget
amount and, in some cases, spe­
cific facilities and locations
are established by Congress
based upon the submitted recom­
mendations, the current nation­
al economic priorities, and the
desires of Congress.
e. Active F&E Budget Pro­
posals. During the calendar
year 1990, Congress was primar­
ily working on the FY91 budget;
FAA Headquarters, OST, and OMB
were working on the FY92 bud­
get; and the regions were work­
ing on the FY93 budget.
204.-219. RESERVED.
Par 203 Page 2-5 (and 2-6)

8/11/94 8200.34
SECTIOR 2. THE FPB F&E RESPORSIBILITIES
220. GENERAL. Order 1100.5,
FAA Organization -Field, para­
graph 250, describes the Flight
Standards Division mission,
structure and functions. In­
cluded in these mission state­
ments is the requirement to
determine regional needs for
new visual landing aids and
terminal air navigation aids
(except radar), including jus­
tification, priorities, and
place names for all items to be
included in the region's F&E
annual budget submission. Each
region's Flight Procedures
Branch (FPB) is responsible for
this task. This section dis­
cusses the regional FPB F&E
responsibilities and the meth­
ods, documents, and job aids
the inspector can use to manage
the Flight Standards portion of
this program.
221. LIBRARY OF REFERENCES.
Guidance, data, and a record­
keeping system are required in
order to have an effective FPB
F&E program. The following
subparagraphs contain lists of
recommended references needed
to manage this program. Most
of the documents are subscrip­
tions or are available through
normal regional distribution
channels, but the office of
primary responsibility is in­
cluded in case copies cannot be
obtained normally.
a. Major FAA Orders.
Besides this handbook, the fol­
lowing are the two major orders
used to determine the bene­
fit/cost ratio required to list
candidate locations for termi-
Par 220 nal facilities. (The next two
sections of this handbook are
dedicated to the explanation
and use of these two orders.)
(1) Order 2500.55,
Call for Estimates Facilities
and Equipment ( F&E) ( RIS BU-
2500-4). Yearly, the Call for
estimates is published and pro­
vides program guidance and in­
structions for the development
and preparation of a fiscal
year budget estimates for the
F&E (Airport and Airway Trust
Fund) appropriation. This bud­
geting order will apply to a
fiscal year beginning more
than 2 years in the future.
Earlier, a draft of this order
is released to the regions,
normally late summer or early
fall. This draft is used to
complete regional budgeting
submissions. The order is is­
sued by the Office of Budget,
Capital Division, ABU-300.
(2) Order 7031.2, Air­
way Planning Standard Number
One -Terminal Air Navigation
Facilities and Air Traffic Con­
trol Services. Referred to as
APS-1, this order contains the
policy and criteria used in
establishing the eligibility of
locations for terminal air nav­
igation facilities and air
traffic control services. This
order will be the primary
source used in determining ben­
efit/cost qualifications for
installing and maintaining fa­cilities and equipment. Al­
though primarily used by the
inspector for F&E submissions,
APS-1 criteria also apply to
Page 2-7

8200.34
FAA takeover of nonfederally­
funded facilities. (While APS-
1 does not formally apply to
AIP expenditures, it is some­
times used internally to evalu­
ate proposed AIP projects.)
APS-1 also contains facility
discontinuance criteria. This
order is issued by the Office
of Aviation Policy, Plans, and
Management Analysis, Systems
Analysis Division, Economic
Analysis Branch, AP0-220.
b. Other Reference Materi­
al. Additional reference docu­
ments that should be part of
the F&E inspector's library
are:
(1) Capital Investment
Plan (CIP). The Aviation Sys­
tem Capital Investment Plan
replaced the National Airspace
System (NAS) Plan and describes
the aviation system capital
planning programs and infra­
structure improvements for sys­
tem enhancement and moderniza­
tion. The annual F&E Call for
Estimates enables funding of
the FAA's plans for capital
investments. The CIP is a Con­
gressional mandate and is up­
dated annually by the NAS Plan­
ning Division, APM-300.
( 2
) The FAA Adminis­trator's Precision Approach
Landing System Policy. This
policy was published in the
Federal Register, Vol 54, No.
24 7, dated December 27, 1989.
The policy limits eligibility
for both the Microwave Landing
System (MLS) and Instrument
Landing System (ILS) installa­
tions during the MLS transition
and implementation period.
Also included is FAA's takeover
Page 2-8 8/11/94
policy of ILS systems privately
purchased under FAR Part 171
and purchased using Airport
Improvement Program (AIP)
funds. Copies are available
from the Associate Administra­
tor for NAS Development, MLS
Program Office, AND-30.
(3) Report FAA-AP0-83-
10, Establishment and Discon­
tinuance Criteria for Precision
Landing Systems. This report
describes the development of
establishment criteria for MLS
with approach lights. The doc­
ument contains a model (Appen­
dix C) to estimate actual in­
strument approach (AIA) counts
from counts of total opera­
tions. This model is useful in
the absence of AIA counts or
when AIA counts are suspected
of being in error. This report
is issued by AP0-220, Economic
Analysis Branch and is avail­
able from the National Techni­
cal Information Service,
Springfield, Virginia, 22161.
(4) Order 7210.3, Fa­cility Operation and Adminis­
tration. This order contains
direction and guidance for the
day to day operation of Air
Traffic facilities. Chapter
14, Section 4, contains the
definition of Actual Instrument
Approach (AIA) and procedures
for reporting of AIA count.
This order is issued by the Air
Traffic Rules and Procedures
Service, Procedures Division,
ATP-100.
(5) Order 8260.18,
Eligibility Requirements for
Visual Approach Aids. This
order provides procedures for
establishing requirements for
Par 221

8/11/94
visual approach aids, selection
of the appropriate type facili­
ty, and priority for planning
purposes. The Technical Pro­
grams Division, AFS-400, is
responsible for this order and it is available from the Flight
Standards Service, Administra­
tive Management Branch, AFS-13.
(6) Federal Register.
The Federal Register contains
general and permanent rules by
the executive departments and
agencies of the federal govern­
ment. Occasionally, policy and
information concerning FAA's
F&E budget program is contained
in the Federal Register.
c. Data Documents. Data
is required to complete a bene­
fit/cost ratio and to determine
eligible runways and airports
for terminal aids. The common­
ly used data sources are:
(1) The National Plan
of Integrated Airport Systems
(NPIAS). Section 504a of the
Airport and Airway Improvement
Act of 1982 (Public Law 97-248)
required the Secretary of
Transportation to publish a
national plan for the develop­
ment of public-use airports in
the United States. This FAA
plan is limited to those air­
ports that are potentially eli­
gible for federal funding. The
NPIAS is available through re­
gional distribution or the re­
gional Airports Division.
(2) Aviation Data and
Analysis System (ADA) • The ADA
computer program provides ac­
cess to official FAA activity
reported during each FY and the
approved benefit/cost method-
Par 221 8200.34
ology for airports reported by
the system. The program was
developed by Office of Aviation
Policy, Plans, and Management
Analysis (APO). Access to the
program, maintained in Washing­
ton, D.C., can be obtained from
APO. An International Business
Machine (IBM) compatible, per­
sonal computer program has been
developed for use at each re­
gion. The program may be ob­
tained from AP0-130, Informa­
tion Systems Branch, by using
the request form in Figure 2-1.
The program requires about 10
to 4 0 megabytes of hard disk
space, depending on the number
of regions contained in the
data base requested, and runs
under Microsoft Disk Operating
System (MS-DOS). In August of
each year, the Programs and
Planning Branch, AFS-12, re­
quests from AP0-130 the previ­
ous fiscal year's activity data
which includes airport actual
instrument approaches, aircraft
operations, and passenger en­
planements. When the data disk
is received, AFS-12 forwards a
copy to each FPB. This current
data can then be used in calcu­
lations for the F&E submissions
and for queries throughout the
year. The disk saves consider­
able time in loading data for
use in automated candidate re­
view programs.
(3) FAA or Federal Air
Traffic Activity. This FAA
publication is issued annually
(for the past fiscal year) and
contains terminal and en route
air traffic activity informa­
tion of the National Airspace
System (NAS). This document is
normally available in August
and is issued by the Management
Page 2-9

8200.34
Standards and Statistics Divi­
sion, AMS-400. See Figure 2-2.
(4) DOT-FA75WAI-547,
Ceiling-Visibility Climatologi­
cal Study and Systems Enhance­
ment Factors. This report,
published June 1975, gives
ceiling/visibility data for
major airports based on hourly
reports for 5 to 15 years. The
percentage of time for VFR,
IFR, VOR, and ILS weather con­
ditions are shown by hour
groups and by months. This
report is available from the
National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia
22151. Advice in using this
report in benefit/cost analysis
is provided by the Office of
Aviation Policy, Plans, and
Management Analysis (APO) • See
Figure 2-3.
d. Airport Information.
The FPB F&E inspector must be
aware of the existing facili­
ties on the region's airports
to be able to recommend addi­
tional facilities. Also, other
information like runway width
and length, existing instrument
approaches, weather reporting
facilities, etc. , are important
for the F&E evaluation. The
following are some of the in­
formation sources used by the
FPB.
(1) Order 5010.4, Air­
port Safety Data Program and
FAA Form 5010-1, FAA Airport
Master Record. The order es­
tablishes requirements for the
collection, maintenance, and
dissemination of airport data.
The FAA Form 5010-1 lists all
the facilities and equipment
installed at an specific air-
Page 2-10 8/11/94
port as well as much additional
information. The order is is­
sued by AAS-330, Airport Safety
Data Branch, and completion of
the form is the responsibility
of the Airport District Offices
(ADO), or in some cases, within
the Airports Division in the
regions.
(2) Airport/Facility
Directory (AFD). These books
are published by the u.s. De­
partment of Commerce, National
Ocean Service (NOS) . They con­
tain communications data, navi­
gational facilities, and list
special notices and procedures
of all airports, seaplane bases
and heliports open to the pub­
lic. The data source is FAA's
National Flight Data Center
(NFDC). These books are avail­
able through subscription.
(3) U.S. Terminal Pro­
cedures Publication (TPP).
These books are also published
by the NOS and contain the in­
strument approach procedures
authorized for use by the pub­
lic. A pictorial air­
port/heliport sketch with run­
way and lighting information is
handy for visualizing current
facilities. The data source is
also NFDC. These books are
available through subscription.
( 4) National Flight
Data Digest (NFDD). The NFDD is issued by NFDC as a means of
rapidly disseminating informa­
tion on changes to the NAS in­
cluding navaids, Flight Service
Stations, Airports, etc.
222. TRACKING CANDIDATE LOCA­
TIONS. A recommended method of
data record keeping for the F&E
Par 221

8/11/94
inspector is to use the two
airport data job aids included
at the end of this section.
See Figure 2-4, Airport Datal­
Activity, and Figure 2-5, Air­
port Data/Facilities. Having
this information readily avail­
able before starting an F&E
candidate listing will make the
job much easier. Then, all the
needed information does not
have to be researched to com­
plete a benefit/cost ratio.
a. Determining What Air­
ports to Track. Obviously, not all the airports in the region
need to have airport data forms
completed. Candidate airports
would be ones with a high level
of activity, high actual in­
strument approaches (AIA), or
numerous scheduled annual pas­
senger originations. Public
instrument flight rules ( IFR)
airports that may be eligible
for government F&E funding are
definitely candidates. All
public IFR airports may be
tracked, but a more reasonable
suggestion is to track those
airports having an average of
200 AlA's for the past 3 years.
Even this list would contain
airports not normally consid­
ered for F&E funding. Public
visual flight rules (VFR) air­
ports with activity amounts
that produce 200 or more pre­
dicted instrument approaches
(using model in FAA-AP0-83-10)
are possible candidates. APS-1
contains other considerations
that may produce candidates
such as remote locations, re­
liever airports, and airports
with unique community economic
status.
Par 222 8200.34
b. Completing the Airport
Data Form. Figures 2-6 and 2-7
explain a standardized format
for competing the forms and
where the data may be found.
Figures 2-8 and 2-9 show a com­
plete set of airport data. The
reason for a standardized for­
mat is that entries can easily
be programmed for computeriza­
tion. The airport data includ­
ed on the form is most of the
information the Call or APS-1
require for computation and
criteria purposes for the fa­
cilities and equipment for
which Flight Standards is re­
sponsible.
c. Updating Airport Data
Forms. Accumulation of infor­
mation is not nearly as hard as
keeping a data base updated.
The FPB F&E inspector is
responsible for maintaining the
accuracy and currency of the
airport data.
(1) During the reviews
of the regional F&E budget sub­
mission by higher authorities,
information will be received on
items that have been validated
and forwarded for the next lev­
el of review. Some may be val­
idated but deferred (dropped
out) and some may be non-vali­
dated (also dropped out). If
an item drops out, the inspec­
tor should revise the data
sheet to reflect that the item
is no longer in process. Sim­
ply change the "P##" and put in
"N". If the item was validated
but deferred, put a note in the
F&E budget folder as a reminder
to consider it next fiscal year
for resubmission.
Page 2-11

8200.34
(2) If an item is non­
validated, attempt to determine
why it was non-validated. The
AFS-12 contact will be the in­
spector's primary source of
information for items dropped
out. Reasons for non-valida­
tion may be that the facility
has already been installed un­
der FAR Part 171 (non fed) or
AIP, or it is no longer valid
due to a decrease in activity.
( 3) A review of the
NFDD will aid in keeping the
airport data records current.
If a facility is added, the
NFDD will list the airport,
runway, and other information
associated with the addition.
If the added facility was not
installed as an F&E project but
is funded in an F&E budget
(noted on the airport data
sheet) , contact Airways Facili­
ties and advise them that the
F&E proposed facility is no
longer required. Be prepared
to recommend reprogramming to
an alternate location which
meets benefit/cost criteria.
See Section 6 for an explana­
tion of reprogramming.
223. FILES AND RECORDS. This
handbook will not dictate ex­
actly how regional files and
records must be set up by the
FPB. But, an F&E budget filing
system must be maintained and
this handbook does require spe­
cific tracking of information.
The filing system may be kept
at the F&E inspector's desk or
may be a branch file. The fol­
lowing are files and records
that, through experience, are
recommended systems that aid
the inspector in accomplishing
Page 2-12 8/11/94
the branch's F&E responsibili­
ties.
a. Airport Record Files
(Airport Data Forms). These
may be kept in a single binder,
state binders, or individual
folders. Copies of the instru­
ment approach procedures
(SIAP's) can be added as a
quick visual reference of ex­
isting procedures and for de­
termining future needs.
b. Previous Calls. Some
prior fiscal year's Call for
Estimates must be retained,
especially the preceding year.
These will be used for begin­
ning analysis of a fiscal
year's budget submissions.
c. Previous Submissions.
The past 3 FY F&E budget sub­
missions must be known to begin
a new fiscal year's submission list. Also, the worksheets and
supporting information should
be retained for 3 years and can
be utilized for the new budget.
d. Facility Lists. In
many cases, a complete list of
eligible candidates for a spe­
cific facility (REIL or PAPI,
for instance) may be used for
future submissions or shared
with Ai~ays Facilities for
possible reprogramming actions.
224. MAINTAINING F&E RECORDS.
The F&E budgeting process is
ongoing throughout the calendar
year. The F&E inspector must
have appropriate reference ma­
terial and maintain an up-to­
date filing system for planned
submissions, to calculate cur­
rent benefit/cost ratios, to
track the fiscal year submis-
Par 222

8/11/94
sions already forwarded, and be
aware of procedures and policy
changes.
a. "To Do" File or "Next
Year's Budget" File. Through­
out the calendar year the F&E
inspector will receive queries
or requests for facilities to
be installed at various loca­
tions within the region. At­
tendance at Airport Joint Plan­
ning Conferences and other ga­
therings will also reveal pos­
sible requirements for needed facilities. A file should be
maintained by the branch or F&E
inspector for these requests.
This file could be as simple as
jotting down the locations,
items requested, source of the
request, and any information
providing justification. The
file may be 1 folder or as com­
plex as having many folders for
different F&E projects or using
airport data files with F&E
notations. Whatever type of
filing system that serves the
need of the individual FPB is
the one that should be main­
tained. Copies of written re­
quests and responses committing
the FAA to considering a candi­
date must be included. This
file or set of files can then
be reviewed at the start of the
next budget cycle in order to
consider all i terns and loca­
tions for which a request or
need has been identified.
b. Tracking F&E Projects.
The F&E budget is submitted to
the FAA Headquarters by the
regions by the end of January
of each year. The FAA, OST,
and OMB must all pass on the
items submitted before they are
presented to Congress for fund-
Par 224 8200.34
ing. Items can be expected to
drop out at each of the above
offices or new i terns may be
inserted. Finally, Congress
will determine which of the
remaining budget items will be
funded. Feedback will be re­
ceived regarding the status of
budget items at each step of
the process. This will normal­
ly be in the form of spread
sheets indicating which items
have been approved and which
have been deferred or dropped
out at each level of review.
Although various offices in FAA
Headquarters may forward feed­
back data to the region, the
primary FPB source is AFS-12.
The F&E inspector shall estab­
lish a system to track the sta­
tus of budget items. This
tracking system will facilitate
answers to queries as to the
status of various projects and
determine what items to submit
or resubmit in subsequent bud­
get years. Inspectors should
utilize the AF F&E coordinators
and their computer system to
maintain the tracking system.
c. Changes to Policy. The
FAA may issue policy guidance
or changes to policy in the
form of published items in the
Federal Register. The Federal
Register should be reviewed
specifically for items listed
under the DOT/FAA. The inspec­
tor should make copies of the
policies for reference in dis­
cussing these issues with the
public or other government en­
tities. In addition, policy
will be received from various
interrelated offices at FAA
Headquarters which should be
reviewed and used for guidance.
Policy changes must be part of
Page 2-13

8200.34
the inspector's F&E record­
keeping procedure.
d. File Policies. Good
F&E files are required. Al­
though the primary task dis­
cussed in this chapter is the
process for Flight Standards
F&E submissions, FPB responsi­bilities extend beyond just
annually submitting a list and
justifications. Tracking indi­
vidual projects is required as
stated in subparagraph b above.
In addition to answering inqui­
ries, the F&E files may be in­
spected by different offices
within the FAA or other govern­
ment review organizations. The
FPB F&E files shall be complete
Page 2-14 8/11/94
enough to answer individual
site submission questions.
Establishing a minimum file
retention time is difficult
because individual site infor­
mation will normally be a part
of a list; for instance, sub­
mission list, facility instal­
lation list, etc. However, the
Flight Standards policy is that
individual site F&E files need
not be retained beyond facility
commissioning. The inspector
shall periodically review the
F&E files and discard outdated
records.
225.-229. RESERVED.
Par 224

l:tj
1-'·
I.Q
"' I
……
I'd
PI
I.Q
(!)
"' I
……
U1 ADA PACKAGE REQUEST FORM
Forward to
Carlton Wine
Federal Aviation Administration
AP0-130, Room 936-B
800 Independence Avenue. S . W .
Washington. D . C . 20591 From
Name:
Title:
Organization:
Phone:
–-~-~–-
Address:
Please forward a copy of the ADA manual and the ADA software
including data for the fonowing State(s): .. i
N
I … •
~
= ~ rn
loS
Note: Circle which -. 0
floppy disk density I
you prefer.
DSDD (320 K), or
High Capacity ( 1 . 2 M) (X)
……..
……
……
……..
\.0
~
(X)
"' 0
0 .
w
~

8200.34
Page 2-16 FIGURE 2-2. FAA AIR TRAFFIC ACTIVITY
TA!IL..E 12 ·FISCAL YEAR 1989
….. …. Foe Foe Loc
• zu: . ..,., • ztr;
' …
' … • we • … s ….. • Z><U • b<C
l><C
'"" 0•0
0.0
TOL
"'' coc …
I.EX • w • • • . w . . •
N • • • s s • ' s • • s • • • $ • • ' w
• • N • • • • • • • • • • • • ' ' • N • "" Total ea…..
3 • 31
IU7 …. ..
1110
15$0
"' •
' ""
11S~
I , ..
' ..
22 …
US De;:>or~rrent
Ot't0.'1S;:>Ot I CIOn
FederCil Aviation
Administration 0
0 • 1017 • • 0
""' 0
0 ..,, ,..,
0
0
0
"' .,
0 ,,, -0 0
0
"" 1,= -3 • • ~
" • '" " … • " " ''" ' … " " " 3 ' 0
""
FAA
Air Traffic
Activity 8/11/94
Fiscal Year 1989
C''.:e o~ '.'a"'·=~~:-;–:-:-.: ~1~:.:::-:
f/a:–.:;~-:-e"';~ S:3-;:a·:s 3"':
S:a~ s: :.s 01\nS!:-1
\'.os"" .. i;::"":, DC. 2:.:;~
Fig 2-2

8/11/94
FIGURE 2-3.
CE: .,IN; ,.~. v:sa:~!'TY CL IIIIA'!:l.OC iC.toL. S'TUOY
SUT!:t.,_•I;Hl9 IN: ll"'APO~ Is, l "itl 'Nt.
H:lU~ JroiC.O~ CF::. I-.C~VISI e! l.lTY cne~o~as "' GR:Ji.i~ CBS (j,) <2) 'l) ,. ) IS> ,. )
J'" .,l 1Zb3'" 70. s H.5 22.'7 … j,) J,C
FE! ! ;, 5~ 3 74.. i 2L3 ! ~ ,9 ;.s 1,0 o ••
"'·""" lH2~ ILO 17.0 15.7 2.2 c.• o.e … l2"' !i.lf 12·1 llo4 o.o 0.! o.'
"" 12~" ~ 9~.e 9.2 l.4 o •• O.l o.! .w-.. 1223: 9).) •• 7 •• z O.l o. 0 0.!
.!!,;~' lZCH lfl_,lo 7 •• … c .• 0.2 Ool
.l;JC. lH25 92.5 i .5 •. o c. 7 0 .; o.• s:: l222S 92.2 7.! •. e c. 7 c .2 0. 2
OCT l2C3l ·~. ~ 1! .o •• 2 o.• c.z c.o
N:v 12 23 ~ 12.'9 l7 .I 14 ·' 1.S c.• o. 7
DEC. 1203-. , … ., zs .) 19. a ;.z 1.2 1· 2
AN\ C7-!3 43 .. 2 ~ e ~ • '9 18.1 15,4 1.6 c.• Cd
1 "'-~ ~ 49bH e;. 5 ! ~.' 9.;;: l.O c .l c .1
22-:~ !SELZ 8;. 9 ::.: l2 • .,. 1.9 c •• Co! .. . l .. e:o: .. 0. 2 , … s ~' • 2 : .. c.s c.~
SH":"!:~·:•en ~jPT )I!A'V!'IIE, l Nf': .6.1\A
~:.n.:;; N;;.oe c:: 1. !t•:.-v: s: e::… I"'Y C.t.~~::;:~: !S tl)
c~o: …. ~ cas r:: ~ 2 : t )I ,. ) lSJ '"'
J~N '·' lZO'"' n.z 27.! 2;,.! 3. 7 ).2 lol J:c !l53t: ., ~ . e .(4. 2 ~ 9. ~ :; .c c ,10 o.o .. , !2~ .. : 7ll. 9 z:. ~ i.; .l 2.1 C,5 o. s … 12230 eo·" ~ ~. 6 l2 .~ :.2 c. 2 o.2 … !2b"::: ~ ~. z t.a ':',1!1 c .• c .2 o.2
JU' 1223: 9). 3 •• 7 • • o o.• c. ~ 0·2
J\..;. lZb'-" 93 .o … •• a '·' c .I 0.1
Al-i¥ l2b•5 9L ~ •· a s.• C.5 '. ~ O·•
SEP 12233 92.2 1 .a •• 5 o •• :. 2 c ·' OCT l2:b4t2 I! ,q 11·1 .. ) o. 7 c.l o.•
N~Y l2:2H 12. ':' 1'1.3 14 … I.S c.• o ••
OEC 1Zb)'9 73.9 Z~.l 2C, 7 ).) 0 •• ! ,)
ANN Q7- ~ 3 4)44t 12 ,) }7,7 l5.l J,S 0,4 0·' to.-z: 4o9b~~ u. 9 l ~.:. .. ' l.l 0.3 o.2
22·=~ 556•9 1'<,5 l5.' 12.2 1 •• 0,0 o.•
J.:.;,. 11r11'9!., ·~.) l4o1' i. ~. z :.s c •• C•O
t ~ ) • ;.:~:: F:C ~ "0 fto': l I. ~ So
<21 ( 1 ~..: :r ~ E ~ • AJ\Ot:ll: ) "~l ~ E S
tll ( ~ , O!"l J:H1 &"'0/JI ) "'lL E $, !:•'T' > •"' FH~ … ..,: 1 ,..!;.E
'., ( .. ,.: J:: A-,0 •J; ,.. : ~ e, ft.;'l' > 2':'"' FEP A'<~ l/2 "1!\.E
151 ( 2 ~= FH• !o~Ot'JR tt: ,.. :I.:, r:,: }:c.-. 'E ~' &"i; II• ,..ll.t
(Ol ( 1:-: &Ef' '.':.':JP :11. I>':H~
Fig 2-3 I
I
I 8200.34
CLIMATOLOGICAL STUDY
CEILING-VISIBILITY CLIMATOLOGICAL STUDY
and
S.,..S"'E•
…. ::.
78.4
1!1 ~ • ' 1'<,1!1 ee.:
ea ·•
·~.4 •c.o 1).: ••.3 e:;.t;
8),4
79.2
1t.4
85 ••
7tl,4
tl.~ SYSTEMS ENHANCEMENT FACTORS
E .., .. L..,~ ~ … :: '• ..
'~ ~ l c,,-:-z
• 1).4 …
lZ ,4 3 .a
lC ,5 2. ~
a. 7 ),0
"! .z z. 2 ' .. 2ol
7.1 1.0
'7,! ). 7
7.) 2 •• s •• 2·5 •• 7 2 ••
:2.5 ). )
… 2·) . .. 2.)
12.0 •• 0
lC·2 l.o a"'"··· . . z ':.. ' ' . . \ .
ll.o.li>'-" •
JUNE 1975
FINAL REPORT
Document is ava:!a~:e to the pu~!ic thrco..;'". ::-.e
National Technical Information Servr:e.
Spr;t'l;"'·eiC, VLrg1n1a 221 Sl
Prepared lor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Systems Requirement Division
Office of Aviation System Plans
Washington. D.C. 20591
r .:.: ":;,s 111 .. ::-.•
).! ,,,
2·• 1·' :.!
). : …
'· .
c.:
7 ••
~.? s.:
2 ••
2.: s. 7
l. a
SYS~E"'S £lrrrllo!.&N:~"'t.,.• F:.~'!':=s
tc:J~!o.;; v:s:a:o.!'~'r ~~'::·::'s
v::~•HE~ 13) /Flt: ( Z)
CloT! 1d•FFI£C t•ltH::; t 21 ,, … , lt.S•HE;I' ;IFR.;.:::!
•!= .. :::-_.JNlMW,..S•FH; .~; c: ~::' .
Page 2-17

8200.34 8/11/94
Page 2-18 FIGURE 2-4. AIRPORT DATA/ACTIVITY
II i I I
II~ l I I
!i ~~ i i
il : I 'I II
II
•! [n-l-lTJI
!I ~I I ! I '· i! 1: 1 : ! : 11
(() 1fi.(• I II l I Ill'
::::1 ~ I I I I i– . I
(•:< lj' a I I :; -·:::: I , !,·
1-I –< . . I . • ,… I __~-l I 'I
.= t I 'I f.(•'l 1.1 H, – I·
~II I li
-1–.
1:…:1 …… II (·~· ;c..
il ·=· ., ,,
II
I I lr
'I~ l I a: I I I ' I
I
I~
a: I I I 'I
i!
I
~_Jj 1
I == I -~ 1- L.I.J -;=I rJ: I".:J ::
I I I I I I
Fig 2-4

8/11/94 8200.34
I~
'I ~I ' ….. ' h 0 I 'I-: .. ' . …__.
II I
jll 1 I :
li \
;! I I I
f !
' I
I I
ll ll
ijj 1:
~ i t ~ rHl ·~·) ; ; ~ i rj-
' I I-ll::;: I …~
lj :r i w . c:: I 'l:
~~;
il l 'l:
:1 l a
I, I ;;:
dl 1 :t
il '-
11 r ~
rl .
!I I
it t !t !,
II :'
! !
Fig 2-5 FIGURE 2-5. AIRPORT DATA/FACILITIES
'.l: ;: I
I~ ~~,~ I ! I I' I.;..;. –
j, : I
!,j' ~::.::~ l \
' 0:.:: r.I: 1-'
11 ~ I
.::.::
I c.:: 'I l ~ '
! ,:_;, l (/) ,_1
I~ ~.
jj…~l:l
I c.: I UJ ~.~… l
I~!)
II :r-~~. r-;-~–+-~~–tr–r~r-~~–+-~~~~-4~1
;:.
:X:
1-
0
Page 2-19

8200.34 8/11/94
FIGURE 2-6. FORM COMPLETIOB-AIRPORT DATA/ACTIVITY
Airport Data/Activity
State -Two letter state identifier
City -Copy from "U.S. Terminal Procedures" book, or AFD
Ident -Copy from "U.S. Terminal Procedures" book, or AFD
Site Number -Copy from FAA Form 5010-1
Airport Name -Copy from FAA Form 5010-1
Reliever -Copy from "ADA" Program -under reliever, or NPIAS
Tower Code -Copy from "ADA" Program
Hub Type -Copy from "19XX-FAA Air Traffic Activity" book,
Table 12
AWOS -Ai~port/Facility Directory -Weather Data Sources
LLWAS -Airport/Facility Directory -Weather Data Sources
VOR Receiver Check Point -Airport/Facility Directory -listed
under VOR Receiver Check Points and VOR Test Facilities (VOT)
Nearest Weather Reporting Airport -Use the nearest FAA towered
airport that takes and reports the weather -or the nearest
National Weather Service reporting station. An additional
reference is the -Ceiling -Visibility Climatological study
and System Enhancement Factors- Report (DOT-FA75WAI-547),
which contains historical ceiling and visibility data.
Nearest Weather Reporting Airport Distance -To be computed
Congressional District -Airway Facilities Division -Usually
the Airways Facilities Division has a list of congressional
districts associated with each airport. This item is not
required for F&E computations but is used as reference
information only
AIA Counts -FAA Air Traffic Activity or ADA Program
Operations -ADA Program or possibly, FAA Form 5010-1
Landings -Operations divided by 2
AEP -Annual enplaned passengers -FAA Air Traffic Activity or
ADA Program.
Page 2-20 Fig 2-6

8/11/94 8200.34
FI:GURE 2-7. FORM COMPLETI:OB-AI:RPORT DATA/FACI:LI:TI:ES
Airport Data/Facilities
State -Copy from Fig 2-1
City -Same as previous
Airport -Same as previous
!dent -Same as previous
Rwy No. -u.s. Terminal Procedures book or Airport Facility
Directory. For Runway 1 thru 9 use 01 thru 09. If runway is right, left or center use 09R or 22L
Length -u.s. Terminal Procedures book or Airport Facility
Directory
Width -Same as above
% Use -TOT (Total) For towered airports, it is suggested
you request Air Traffic write a letter to each tower re
questing their best estimate. For non-towered airports
use wind rose information contained on airport layout plan
(ALP) or your best estimate -suggest you use APS-1 runway
utilization contained on page 36 and/or 40
% Use -IFR (When weather is lower than VFR) same as above
except highest use will be on instrumented runways. For
non-instrumented runways, the use would be very low but
may have some use during circling conditions
LIGHTS. The following light information can be obtained
from the Airport/Facility Directory and/or the U.S. Termi­
nal Procedures book. Additional information may be ob­
tained from the ALP or FAA Form 5010-1
Fig 2-7 Lights – R (Runway)
H = High Intensity (HIRLS)
M = Medium Intensity (MIRLS)
L = Low Intensity (LIRLS)
N = None
Lights -APP (Approach) ALSFl, ALSF2, MALSR, MALSF,
SALSR, MALS, ODALS, LDIN, etc. _If you have submit­
ted the runway for F&E lights, use P92 for planned –
92 F&E submission
Page 2-21

8200.34 8/11/94
FIGURE 2-7. FORM COMPLETIOR-AIRPORT DATA/FACILITIES (Cont 'd.)
L~ghts – T (Touchdown) Y (Yes) or N (No) normally CAT
II or CAT III runways will have touchdown zone lights
Lights – C (Centerline) Y (Yes) or N (No)
RVR -U.S. Terminal Procedures Book – Y (Yes) if visibility
is listed as a 2 digit number. N (No) if visibility is
not listed as a 2 digit number. Also obtainable from FAA
Form 5010-1
PXX -programmed -XX F&E year
REIL -u.s. Terminal Procedures Book or Airport Facility
Directory
Y (Yes) installed
N (No) not installed
P## -programmed -## -F&E year
DMEL -U.S. Terminal Procedures Book
Y (Yes) if localizer frequency box has channel listed
N (No) if localizer frequency box does not have channel
listed
VASI or PAP! -U.S. Terminal Procedures Book or Airport
Facility Directory
N (No) not installed
V4L = 4 box VAS! installed on left side
P4L = 4 box PAP! installed on left side
PXX -P -Programmed, XX -F&E year
Runway APP Type (Runway Approach Type)
P = Precision -Precision approach to the runway
NP = Non-Precision -Non-Precision approach to the runway
V = Visual Flight Rules (VFR) -No approach published to
the runway
Ceiling & visibility data is used to obtain estimated AIA
counts using airport operations and weather data
CAT A -Mins (Ceiling) -U.S. Terminal Procedures Book,
HAT not MSL
CAT A -Vis (Visibility) -Whole number and decimal of
statute miles
CAT B -Mins -Same as above
CAT B -Vis -Same as above
Largest -Mins -Same as above, list for largest category
of approach
Largest -Vis -if only CAT B authorized, input CAT "B"
info again
Page 2-22 Fig 2-7

l"lj ……
10
N
I
(X)
"d
Pl
10
(I)
N
I
N w -. –~–··- ____ ,
STATE I IN C lTV l Fori
AIRPORT NAME Fort Wayne M•
HLIB TYPE I s AliOS l p NW;
HERREST WEATHER REPORTING
1987 ACTIVITY SHHISTICS
AlA OF'S Li'INO lllG:O: –
2376 ftC 29384 14692
937 AT 10975 5488 ––-
2829 GEl I 77460 38730
393 UIL 7074 3537 ..
6535 TOT 124893 62447 . .:0563,4
1989ACTI\IITY STfHISTICS – _ .. _-: =~..::::.=–=
AlA OPS Li1UO lUGS FtEP
2003 f\C 28577 14289
1288 AT 16035 8018
2421 GEU 61788 30894
256 UIL 5498 2749
5968 TOT 111898 555949 325773
·-(X)
' 1-'
1-'
' IJ)
~
.. ….
ChE Cl: PO lilT i
N
j•:_ms ftCliVIl'{ :::TRTI:::rtc-:: I co ·-. -.. – -· ··- – •
1\ Jfl OPS LAIILIIIJGS REP –14110
8740 –
1296 f1C 28219 –
804 tiT 17479 n
~
~
1573 GEil 74114
128 UIL 6537
3801 TOT 126349 . -… ==== 37057
I
326~–1- -·-/1
-··–~~175 ___ __iE815_? -~ t1 tl
1111 ….
ig
19 ACTIVITY STATISTICS ~
! Ill' ……
~
"' …. <
Ull
:: ·–1–––….
H
~
TOT
00
1\.)
0
0 .
w .;..

I'd
ll>
I.Q m
N
I
N
,&::>.
t'%j
!-'·
I.Q
N
I \0 AIRPORT DATA I FACILITIES
: .. ; u::;E LICHT::; '•lAS I FillY Cf\T fl CAT B LRF;GEST
F;tlY LE!lGTH IIIDTH '–-J––r––r·-,- fPlF: REIL DUEL ~IPF'
110. TO~..,_IFR R ~~-~-! C _ . ~~PI !Y~E !·II!IS '•:'IS l.lltlS VJr:; MillS lll:::l:
05 12000 150 5QJ 5.Q __ !I .J~JSf1._ _Y Y Y N N N P 200 .375 200 .375 200 .3751
23 " 20~0 H N N Y N N N V4l NP 360 1 360 1 360 1.25;
t4 ssoo 1so __
1 __ .!__; -,; ~=';- ~~ ~ ~ [;==;~;;~"';;='";;;., .75 2oo .75 2oo ·"'
32 _ "-·-·= =20 lO H ~~F~ N Y _! __ -~' N ~~ ~23 1.0 423 1 423 1.~,
––.. ~~–·· =t t-· –t- I I I I I II
–––"'-t~-="~- I I I_ I • 1 3L·=·==c-:= =,.,.b:
–L ___ j – I I I ~
1––– ·–' ..
:=" ·4:=–='-'- =:=-"" "''·"'=· r•c=.• =-~
·–f–~–– … I I Jl
'· •. "' ·;:; "" '-·' ""·'"''" ;:: !:" -·–'-·· ··-· .• –·-·- ·=·= 00
N
0
0 .
w
"""
….. …
a
N
I
\0 •
n i
~ = 0
1111 …
1:1 0
i3
~
~ …..
…..
~ …
t'4 1-t
Jot
1-t w rn
00
…….
……
……
…….
\0
"""

8/11/94 8200.34
SECTIOR 3. CALL FOR ESTI.MA.TES ARD APS-1
230. GENERAL. The two major
documents used by the inspector
for F&E submissions are: Order
2500.55, Call for Estimates
Facilities and Equipment ( F&E) 1 and Order 7031.2, Airway Plan­
ning Standard Number One -Ter­
minal Air Navigation Facilities
and Air Traffic Control Servic­
es. This section discusses
these documents and provides
guidance to the inspector con­
cerning what portions of the
orders apply to Flight Stan­
dards.
231. THE CALL-ORDER 2500.55.
Order 2500.55 is the basic gui­
dance for implementing the an­
nual submission of the facil­
ities and equipment requests of
the regions. This order is
published annually to cover a
specified fiscal year (FY) of
funding authorization.
a. The Document. The
October 16, 1992 order for
FY-95 consists of a standard
FAA Order cover sheet, four
appendixes, and a table of con­
tents. It is initiated by the
Capital Division, ABU-300,
signed by the Director of Bud­
get, ABU-1, and distributed
under the list ZBU-250. The
document contains over 160 pag­
es.
b. Order Cover Sheet. The
order cover sheet contains the
standard purpose, distribution 1 cancellation, etc. Except for
distribution, the following are
included:
Par 230 (1) Purpose. The or­
der provides program guidance
and instructions for the devel­
opment and preparation of a
single specific fiscal year
budget estimate for the F&E
(Airport and Airway Trust Fund)
appropriation by Congress.
(2) Cancellation. The
prior fiscal year Order 2500.55 is canceled annually by publi­
cation of the current order.
(3) Explanation of
Changes. The current Order
2500.55 revises the program
guidance dollar amounts and
instructions for the develop­
ment and preparation of budget
estimates for the specified
fiscal year F&E appropriation.
( 4 ) Formulation Re-
quirements. F&E submissions
for the specified budget FY
shall be based on the Call,
Airway Planning Standard Number
One (APS-1/0rder 7031.2), sta­tistical data, and FAA policies
currently in effect.
c. Appendix 1, Objectives
and Formulation of Programs.
This is a 16-page appendix
which lays out the "ground
rules" for the submissions and
contains background informa­
tion.
(1) Development of
Program Estimates. This first
paragraph explains the process
of developing program esti­
mates. The process consists of
the three following phases:
Page 2-25

8200.34
(a) Planning.
Planning is conducted through
the Aviation System Capital
Investment Plan (CIP) mission
need process.
(b) Programming.
Progranuning is matching dollars
available against the most critical needs and priorities
established in the planning
process (in the CIP).
(c) Budgeting.
Budgeting involves the refine­
ment of detailed costs and con­
version of program structured
data into budget structured
data. The result is an actual
budget submission.
(2) Submission Re-
quirements. The regions (along
with the headquarters offices,
services, and centers) are re­
quired to submit detailed nar­
rative justifications, cost
estimates and project material lists for each candidate loca­
tion submitted in response to
individual program i terns within
the Call for Estimates. An
explanation of congressionally
mandated changes to the FAA's
F&E program is included.
(3) Budget Year Ceil­
ings. An estimated level of
F&E funding for
the specified fiscal year will
be stated (FY-95 level is $2.8
billion).
(4) Relationship of
CIP to Budget Process. The
relationship of the CIP and the
F&E budget is explained as well
as recent changes to the CIP
process. Mission need state­
ments were required to "revali-
Page 2-26 8/11/94
date" existing CIP programs and
for any new programs. New CIP
programs must compete against all other existing CIP programs
for funding.
( 5) Due Dates. The
Regions are required to submit
their consolidated F&E budget
input under a cover letter from
the Regional Administrator to
the Office of Budget, ABU-1
(Attn: ABU-310).
(a) Regional bud­
gets are also submitted elec­
tronically on the Resource
Tracking Program.
(b) An extensive list of dates for the CIP and
F&E programs are included in
the Call.
(c) Submissions
are due in the FAA's Office of
Budget on the first Monday in
February, 2-1/2 years prior to
the start of the FY being acted
upon. To meet this date, a
regional Order normally speci­
fies target dates for the lat­
est submission of candidates to
the Airway Facilities Division
in order to apply cost esti­
mates, develop material lists,
consolidate the submission,
coordinate the final priori­
ties, brief division managers
and the Regional Administrator,
and publication. It is not
unusual for this divisional
submission target date to be
prior to or in September.
( 6) Revisions to F&E
Budget Submissions. Revisions
submitted by the regions after
the init_ial due date require
special handling and will slow
Par 231

8/11/94
down the Washington office re­
view and pricing processes, as
well as budget updating and
reports processes. If revi­
sions are necessary, they
should be forwarded to the
sponsor and ABU-310 WITHIN TWO
WEEKS after the due-date of the
budget submission, with a cover letter summarizing why they
were submitted.
(7) Definitions. A list of definitions is includ­
ed.
d. Appendix 2, National
Program/Criteria Items. This
section of the Call provides
the actual national program
Call items identified for the
fiscal year national program,
their specified FY funding lev­
els, a description of each
item, instructions, specific
criteria and guidance, detailed
justifications required, and
the office symbol, name, and
FTS telephone number of Head­
quarters contacts if explana­
tions are needed. This appen­
dix provides the detailed in­
formation necessary for the
decisions involved in formula­
tion of the F&E candidate lists
and prioritization of candi­
dates submitted to the Airway
Facilities Division. The be­
ginning of this appendix should
be read in its entirety in or­
der to understand the overall
F&E program.
e. Appendix 3 , Regional
Originated Within-Ceiling Pro­
jects. Appendix 3 of the Call
for Estimates provides the def­
initions and descriptions of
regional originated moderniza­
tion or improvement projects
Par 231 8200.34
and the dollar ceiling amounts
(broken down by region) of the
specific fiscal year submis­
sion. Any required priority
project not listed as a nation­
al program in Appendix 2 must
be submitted as a regional­
originated project within es­
tablished dollar ceilings.
Individual project submissions
depend upon regional priori­ties. The guidelines within
Appendix 3 provide assistance
in developing justification for
individual submissions, and
also, provide program direc­
tion. Since the priorities are
set within the region, the FPB
F&E inspector may be required
to vigorously defend the prior­
ity of the safety related
Flight Standards projects sub­
mitted under Appendix 3. If
not, these projects may not
survive the regional competi­
tion for the F&E dollars avail­
able for that fiscal year.
f. Appendix 4, Submission
Format and Reguired Exhibits.
Appendix 4 provides detailed
information on the format of
the regional F&E submission.
This includes explanation of
the organization, format, ar­
rangement, and preparation of
regional cost estimates and
required figures. Examples of
figures, tables, and forms are
provided. The majority of this
information applies to Airway
Facilities Division which corn­
piles, formats, and publishes
the submission. However, the
Flight Standards F&E inspector
should be aware that when com­
pleting their F&E submissions,
selected information or exam­
ples in this appendix may be
helpful.
Page 2-27

8200.34
232. APPLICABLE FLIGHT STAN­
DARDS PORTIONS OF THE CALL.
Although the entire Call has
Flight Standards applicable
portions, Appendix 2, National
Program/Criteria Items, is the
section requiring extensive FPB
input for the regional F&E sub­
missions. These Items may
change from year-to-year.
Therefore, the Call must be
referenced annually to identify
changes which are applicable to
Flight Standards.
a. Items Flight Standards
is Responsible for Submitting.
Within Appendix 2 of the Call,
budget activity group 2D, Land­
ing and Navigational Aids Pro­
grams, contains i terns which may
require Flight Standards input
and submission of prioritized
candidates and their justifica­
tion. The other activity
groups are not normally Flight
Standards' responsibility. The
items under 2D include terminal
navaids (other than radar) and
visual landing aids. The
Flight Standards F&E inspector
must screen the items within
group 2D and determine which
are their responsibility, de­
termine i terns which other di vi­
sions might have greater vested
interest, and determine which
items are definitely the re­
sponsibility of other divi­
slons.
b. Defer Notification.
Once inspectors make the deter­
mination as to which items in
area 2D they do not intend to
submit as candidates, they
should notify in writing their
counterpart representatives
within the Airway Facilities
Division (with copies to the
Page 2-28 8/11/94
Air Traffic Division and Air­
ports Division). This will
clearly inform the other divi­
sions that Flight Standards
does not intend to make inputs
on the specified items and
clearly make these the respon­sibility of other divisions. A
combined notification listing
should be developed and sent to
the appropriate F&E office
within those divisions. The
listing should identify the FY,
and clearly state that Flight
Standards is deferring to those
offices for submission of the
appropriate items. Issuance of
this notification will free the
inspector to concentrate on
Call items which are the sole
responsibility of Flight Stan­
dards. See Figure 2-10.
c. Examples of Items Which
Might Be Deferred. The inspec­
tor may determine that Flight
Standard's submission for a
particular FY should exclude
the following items:
( 1) VOR/DME/TACAN Net­
work Plan. The VOR/DME/TACAN
Network Plan, dated August
1986, identifies facilities to
be relocated, converted, up­
graded, combined, established,
replaced, or deleted to meet
the requirements of the Nation­
al Airspace System ( NAS) . With
Flight Standards input, the
majority of these locations are
already identified for support
of the en route airway struc­
ture and are of prime interest
to Air Traffic and Airway Fa­
cilities. An exception is a
terminal VOR ( TVOR) • Field
input requesting a TVOR normal­
ly comes from an Air Traffic
Control Tower (ATCT). Flight
Par 232

8/11/94
Standards accomplishes the ben­
efit/cost analysis and includes
the TVOR in their list of sub­
missions.
(2) Replace/Sustain
VOR and Other Equipment. Since
these items are a replacement
or general maintenance of ex­
isting facilities, Air Traffic
and Airway Facilities have
prime interest.
(3) Approach Lighting
System Improvement Program
(ALSIP). Flight Standards is
primarily concerned with in­
stallation of new ALS systems,
but is also a joint sponsor of
ALSIP because of the frangibil­
ity safety issue. The FPB must
also be involved when existing
ALS are due reconstruction and
are upgraded at the same time.
For example, it may be desired
to upgrade a MALS to a MALSR,
or a MALSR to an ALSF-2 at the
same time that frangibility is
provided. Therefore, the in­
spector must work closely with
Airway Facilities personnel to
ensure Flight Standards re­
quirements are being met and
upgrades are properly coordi­
nated. However, the Airway
Facilities Division is the re­
pository for information re­
garding existing ALS. They
know which location's runway
approach ends already have
frangible support systems and
which do not. Also, they are
aware where power cables need
replacement and rust or corro­
sion is extensive. Therefore,
Airway Facilities should be
"primary" for specifying loca­
tions for frangibility/cost
reduction and for working this
budget item. ALSIP submissions
Par 232 8200.34
may require activity informa­
tion to be provided by the F&E
inspector in support of the AF
submission.
d. Significance of Draft
Call. There is a fundamental
administrative problem in re­
gard to -working the F&E pro­
gram. That problem is the un­
timely publication and receipt
of the annual Call for Esti­
mates within the region. It is
a factor which must be dealt
with and overcome in order to
produce a timely Flight Stan­
dards and regional F&E budget
submission. For example, the
FY-92 F&E submission was for­
warded by the regions January
1990 and the published FY-92
Call for Estimates was not re­
ceived in the regions until
late March 1990.
(1) This deficiency is
overcome by using the FY-91
(previous fiscal year) Call
during the initial stages of
working up the FY-92 submis­
sion. This can be done because
most program items are multi­
year in nature and the submis­
sion criteria do not change
significantly for multi-year
items.
( 2 ) The draft of the
FY-92 Call was received in the
regions for comments in Septem­
ber 1989. The draft gave the
FY-92 changes to the Call
items, criteria, and dollar
amounts (or in some cases, num­
ber of locations). Using the
draft Call, all regional F&E
representatives must rapidly
determine the Call changes and
concentrate on finalizing
Page 2-29

8200.34
the FY-92 candidate lists and
priorities.
( 3 ) The Flight Stan­
dards F&E inspector must submit
the lists (or in some regions,
updated lists) to the Airway
Facilities F&E office as soon
as possible. Consequently, the
late receipt of the FY-92 Call
can be overcome by using the
FY-91 Call and the draft FY-92
Call. Delay in receiving the
draft Call greatly compresses
the time allotted to complete
the regional submission.
(4) Not having a pub­
lished Call, or even the draft
Call, before starting the can­
didate lists is inconvenient
but not impossible to overcome.
233. APS-1 AND THE BENEFIT/­
COST PROCESS. The FAA Adminis­
trator is empowered to provide
air navigation facilities and
air traffic control services to
ensure efficient utilization of
the navigable airspace (includ­
ing that required for takeoff
and landing) and the safe and
expeditious flow of air traf­
fic. To discharge this respon­
sibility, the FAA provides ter­
minal facilities and services
at airports to assist aircraft
in starting and terminating
their flights. The policy and
criteria used in establishing
the eligibility of terminal
locations for terminal air nav­
igation facilities are con­
tained in Order 7031.2, Airway
Planning Standard Number One –
Terminal Air Navigation Facili­
ties and Air Traffic Control
Services (APS-1).
Page 2-30 8/11/94
a. Philosophy. The safety
and efficiency of air traffic
operational requirements deter­
mine the need for air naviga­
tional facilities and air traf­
fic control services, but these
facilities and services should
only be established at loca­
tions where the benefits of
service exceed the cost to the
government. Economic consid­
eration of benefits and costs
for both new establishments and
improvements to existing facil­ities or service are related to
air traffic activity levels and
other parameters such as capac­
ity, etc. Since the FAA oper­
ates within defined budgetary
limitations, the facilities and
services must be allocated to
locations where the greatest
benefit will be derived from
their cost. Therefore, APS-1
specifies minimum activity lev­
els for airports to become can­
didates for, to qualify for, or
to retain primary terminal air
navigation facilities and air
traffic control services. Gen­
erally, the total present value
of the benefits over the life
cycle of an improvement or ser­
vice must exceed the total
present value of the life cycle
costs for establishment and
maintenance of the facility or
service.
b. Disclaimer. Satisfying
criteria specified in APS-1
DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A COMMIT­
MENT by the FAA to provide,
modify, or discontinue eligible
facilities or services. Eligi­
ble candidates are evaluated
and prioritized based on known
aircraft traffic conditions,
national capacity requirements,
numbers and funding in each
Par 232

8/11/94
Call, and regional priorities.
Also, inclusion into the CIP as
part of a national program is
generally required and a
lengthy review process occurs.
Ultimately, the U.S. Congress
acts to approve and fund those
facilities and services which
survive a fiscal year's F&E
budget process.
c. Evaluation Phases.
There may be two phases to some
facilities and equipment analy­
sis. Phase I is accomplished
in the region using the APS-1
criteria and any special param­
eters included in the Call.
For certain types of facili­
ties, APS-1 also establishes
requirements for a final bene­
fit/cost analysis (Phase II).
In this case, Phase I lS a
qualifications ratio. Phase II
calculations are applied at FAA
Headquarters, normally using
more than the data supplied by
the region and required by the
Call. Phase II evaluation nor­
mally involves a site specific,
complex formula established by
a report from the Office of
Aviation Policy, Plans, Manage­
ment Analysis (APO). There­
ports may be specified in
APS-1. Any facilities and
equipment submitted by the re­
gions that do not meet these
Phase II requirements are de­
leted from the budget submis­
sion by FAA Headquarters.
d. Responsibility. The
FAA shall determine the eligi­
bility of candidates and their
qualification for submission
for F&E funding consideration
by the U.S. Congress. For ter­
minal navaids and visual aids,
this responsibility falls upon
Par 233 8200.34
the F&E inspector within the
Regional Flight Procedures
Branch. The following APS-1
guidance_ pertain specifically
to Flight Standards responsi­bilities to the F&E budget pro­
cess.
(1) Establishing Can­
didacy. An airport/runway that
meets the criteria specified in
APS-1 for one or more air navi­
gation facilities becomes a
candidate location for the par­
ticular facilities.
(2) Establishing Qual­
ification. A candidate facili­
ty or service becomes qualified
for establishment when:
(a) It meets the
criteria specified in APS-1 for
three consecutive FAA annual
counts (An FAA annual count is
a fiscal year or a calendar
year activity summary. Where
actual traffic counts are un­
available or not recorded, ade­
quately documented estimates of
the demand for the facility or
service may be used; for exam­
ple, an Air Traffic Control
Tower or consultant study. ) ,
and/or
(b) It meets the
criteria specified in APS-1,
Chapter 1, paragraph 7, refer­
ence to remote locations, new
airports, or the "new communi­
ties" program, or the excep­
tions as specified in APS-1,
paragraph 8, (also see para­
graph e below), and
(c) It is recom­
mended by a Regional Adminis­
trator as necessary to satisfy
an operational requirement and
Page 2-31

8200.34
is economically justified by a
benefit/cost study, and
(d) The recommen­
dation of the Regional Adminis­
trator is concurred with by the
FAA Administrator.
(3) Discontinuance of
Facilities or Services. When­
ever the activity level of an air navigation facility falls
to or below the discontinuance
criteria specified within APS-
1, or if factors other than ac­
tivity level were used to jus­
tify establishment and these
cease to exist or change sig­
nificantly, the facility or
service is a candidate for de­
commissioning. If the activity
level remains at or goes below
the discontinuance level for
three consecutive FAA annual
counts, the facility or service
shall be discontinued unless its retention can be specifi­
cally justified.
e. APS-1 Criteria and
Variations Within the Criteria.
APS-1 contains screening crite­
ria for the establishment of
the various terminal facilities
and air traffic control servic­
es. Criteria for other than
terminal air navigation facili­
ties and air traffic control
services are contained in the
appropriate airway planning
standard or agency directive.
(1) The criteria con­
tained in APS-1 are primarily
based on air traffic demand
(count) since volume of traffic
is a tangible and measurable
indication of the need for air
navigation facilities and air
traffic control services.
Page 2-32 8/11/94
These criteria do not however,
cover all situations which may
arise and shall not be used as
a sole determination in denying
a location a terminal facility
or service for which there is a
demonstrated operational re­
quirement or air traffic con­
trol requirement. Similarly,
air traffic demand does not by
itself always constitute a re­
quirement for an air navigation
facility or air traffic control
service.
(2) A true aeronauti­
cal requirement may exist for
facilities and/or services that
cannot be measured with refer­
ence to the volume of air traf­
fic activity alone. Other fac­
tors (wherein a fixed count re­
quirement cannot be estab­
lished) which must also be con­
sidered are the general terrain
features in the vicinity of the
airport, the nature of the op­
eration, the frequent and pre­
dictable occurrence of severe
climatological phenomena such
as heavy fog, snow or ice, or
other local conditions that can
adversely affect aircraft oper­
ations or the safety of the
flying public.
234. APPLICABLE FLIGHT STAN­
DARDS PORTIONS OF APS-1. The
following subparagraphs of APS-
1 are applicable for reviews
and calculations by the Flight
Standards F&E inspector.
a. Chapter 2. Navigation
Aids; Section 1. Air Naviga­
tion Radio Aids. Provides ben­
efit/cost establishment crite­
ria and discontinuance criteria
for:
Par 233

8/11/94
( 1 ) 2 0. Microwave
Landing System (MLS) with ap­
proach lights (The same crite­
ria apply toILS).
(2) 20.d. Supplemental
criteria for MLS/ILS establish­
ment at commercial service air­
ports.
(3) 20.e. Supplemental
MLS Criteria for Reliever Air­
ports.
(4) 21.c.(1) Runway
Visual Range (RVR) with MLS/­
ILS.
( 5 ) 2 2 • a. ( 1 ) Non-pre­
cision Localizer and 75 MHZ
Marker Beacon.
( 6 ) 2 2 • a. ( 2 ) Terminal
Very High Frequency Omni Range
(TVOR).
( 7) 22. a. ( 3) Distance
Measuring Equipment (DME) with
Localizer/Marker Beacon.
(8) 22.a.(4) Visual
Approach Slope Indicator
(VAS!), for straight-in non­
precision approach procedure.
(The same criteria apply to
Precision Approach Path Indica­
tor, PAP!).
(9) 22.a.(5)(a)/(b)
Establish MALSR or ODALS (Non­
precision Approach).
( 10) 2 2. a. ( 6) Runway
Visual Range (RVR) for non-pre­
cision runway.
(11) 23. VOR Test Sig­
nal (VOT). 8200.34
b. Chapter 3. Aeronauti­
cal Lighting and Airport Mark­
ing Aids-. Provides benefit/­
cost establishment criteria and
discontinuance criteria for:
(1) 30.
Identification
and Omni-REIL. Runway End
Lights (REIL)
(2) 31. Visual Ap-
proach Slope Indicator (VAS!)
for VFR only (the same criteria
apply to Precision Approach
Path Indicator, PAP!.)
(3) 32. Retrofit of
Runway Approach Lighting System
(ALS). Involves retrofitting
of rigid light support struc­
tures with low impact resistant
support. This is also referred
to as the Approach Lighting
Systems Improvement Program
(ALSIP). Various types of ap­
proach lighting systems are
replaced or upgraded under the
ALSIP program.
c. Chapter 4. Air Traffic
Control; Paragraph 46, Automat­
ed Weather Observing System
(AWOS); subparagraph c. Non­
Towered and Non-Federal Towered
Airports. This is the only
subject i tern in this chapter
for which the Flight Standards
F&E inspector has partial re­
sponsibility. Establishment
and discontinuance Phase 1 ben­
efit/cost criteria are provided
for in 46.c, AWOS at airports
with no tower. Air Traffic has
responsibility for federal tow­
er and non-federal tower loca­
tions.
Par 234 Page 2-33

8200.34
d. Appendix 2. Summary of
Establishment and Discontinu­
ance Criteria.
(1) Figure 1 -Criteria
Summary for Chapter 2, Naviga­
tion Aids Section 1 . -Air Nav­
igation Radio Aids. By indi­
vidual subject facilities, this
figure summarizes establishment
and discontinuance criteria for
each subject item.
Page 2-34 8/11/94
(2) Figure 2 -Summary
of Establishment and Discon­
tinuance Criteria for Chapter
3. Aeronautical Lighting and
Airport Marking Aids. By indi­
vidual subject facilities, this
figure summarizes establishment
and discontinuance criteria for
each item.
235.-239. RESERVED.
Par 234

8/11/94
FIGURE 2-10.
U 5 Deportment
of li'O'lSPOftOtiCI1
f.cSeraiiMotlon
Administration 8200.34
SAMPLE DEFER MEMO
Memorandum
Sub)eCI INP'ORMATIOfl: P'Y-1994 P'U Budget Dale
From Manager, Plight Procedures Branch,
AS0–220 Reply IO
A\ln ol. Mitchell: x/455
To Manager, Resource and Planning Branch, AS0–420
Fig 2-10 We are not yet in receipt of the PY-94 Draft PU: call for Estimates. We
normally receive that in september. In the interest of furthering the
PY-94 PaE coordination process, we are informing you that if the following
items appear in the forthcoming draft P'Y-94 F'E Call for Estimates, ASQ-220
does not at this time intend to submit candidates for any of the following
items. we defer to AS0–514 and ASo-424. We will provide inforaation to
assist tha. as it is requested.
VOR/TACAH Hetworlt Plan
Sustain VOR/VORTAC
Replace TACAH Antennas
LORAN-e, Monitor Enhanca.enta
MLS
ILS GRR-21 Replaca.enta
Replace ILS (Mark IA, IB, IC)
ALSIP
ASOS
Upgrade LLWl\.S
Retrofit MALSR with Threshold Lights
Retrofit Visual Facilities with Remote Radio Control
Replace Traveling Wave Antenna
we do intend to make candidates submissions to ASQ-424 for the following
items by not later than October 1, 1991. This allows for receipt of the
Draft F'E Call for Estimates (FY-94) in September.
ILS/MALSR/ALSF2
RVR
NDB at OM (LOM)
DKE at Localizer
PAPI
REIL
If you have questions contact Merle Mitchell of our office.
Dale c. Anderson
CC: ASQ-510, ASo-530, ASQ-610, ATL-ADO, JAN-ADO, HEM-ADO, ORL-ADO
Pare 2-35 (thru 2-38)

8/11/94 8200.34
SECTIOR 4. APS-1 APPLICATIOR ARD CALCULATIORS
240. GENERAL. This section
will step through the proce­
dures for applying the criteria
in APS-1 and the Call in order
to establish eligibility for
candidates for the F&E submis­
Slons. Other orders and docu­
ments are included that contain
supporting criteria. Call ex­
amples and job aids are includ­
ed. The job aids at the end of
this section can be copied for
office use. Because APS-1 cal­
culations are simple mathemat­
ics, they are easily programma­
ble and most FPB's have usable
programs already established.
241. EXPLANATION OF CALL
ITEMS. Call items are not hard
to read and understand. Two
examples from a recent Call are
included in this handbook for
the purpose of showing what
Section 3 described. These are
examples only. Future Calls
will contain changes and dif­
ferent requirements. Numbering
conventions for Call items may
also change. The first example
contains a detailed explanation
of a Call item. The second
example shows the complex ILS
Call item.
a. RVR Call Item Example.
In Appendix 2 of the Call, un­
der Budget Activity 2, Air
Traffic Control Facilities and
Equipment, and under 2D., Land­
ing and Navigational Aids Pro­
gram, is 2D07, Runway Visual
Range ( RVR) •
Par 240 (1) This system is
listed under project number 34-
08 of the Capital Investment
Plan ( CIP) • The programmed
total dollar amount is 3 mil­
lion for various locations.
The full coding is the Call
numbers, followed by the title,
and ending with the code num­
bers. The program sponsors are
both Flight Standards and the
Program Director for Navigation
and Landing (ANN) . A headquar­
ters organizational contact list is included at the end of
the item.
(2) This Call item is
for RVR with ILS/MLS for Cate­
gory I systems. Also, criteria
are included for RVR installa­
tions on a non-precision
instrumented runway. Note that
APS-1 criteria apply and these
calculations must be submitted.
The criteria define minimum
number of low visibility obser­
vations required at the airport
for eligibility.
Page 2-39

8200.34 8/11/94
2007 NP FIGURE 2-11. SAMPLE RVR CALL ITEM
Runway Visual Range (RVR) -Establish
CIP No: 34-08 Amount:
Coding: 3471-0-119 Locations
Sponsor: AFS/ANN $3,000,000
Various
This item establishes a touchdown zone RVR measuring system on
Category I ILS/MLS runways at towered airports. This item also
establishes RVR systems on non-precision runways for takeoff or
capacity enhancement in accordance with Airway Planning Standard
Number One (APS #1) criteria, Order 7031.2C. This system will
provide a standardized, instantaneous, and accurate method of
measuring actual meteorological visibility of an ILS/MLS equipped
runway. Significant changes in runway visibility will be immedi­
ately discernible and can be given to the pilot of an aircraft
prior to reaching a condition that could be potentially hazardous
for completion of the approach and landing.
This item is only for Category I ILS/MLS with approach lights and
high intensity runway lights (HIRL's) because RVR systems are
integral components of Category II and III systems. Candidate
locations shall be determined in accordance with APS No. 1,
paragraph 21c(1).
Any towered airport with less than 15 annual hourly observations
of visibility of one-half of a mile or less will not qualify for
an RVR system regardless of the RVR installation index value.
A non-precision instrumented runway (i.e., not equipped with an
Instrument Landing System or Microwave Landing System) qualifies
as a candidate for establishment of an RVR provided: (1) the
airport has one or more RVR-equipped precision instrumented
runway; (2) the provisions of Order 6560.10B, Runway Visual
Range, and the siting and installation standards of FAA-STD-008
can be met; and (3) the ratio of life-cycle benefits to life
cycle cost equals or exceeds 1.0.
In order to achieve reduction of takeoff visibility minima
authorized under provisions of Order 6560.10B, Air Carrier
runways are eligible as candidates for RVR funding even in the
absence of a precision or non-precision instrument approach
procedure to that runway. High intensity runway edge lighting
(HIRL), runway centerline lighting, and a means of reporting
current RVR readings must be available or committed to be avail­
able prior to the RVR installation. Achievement of this RVR
capability will reduce takeoff minima from 1/2 statute mile to as
low as RVR 600 feet visibility for both ends of that runway.
This is a significant operational benefit and capacity enhance-
Page 2-40 Fig 2-11

8/11/94 8200.34
FIGURE 2-11. SAMPLE RVR CALL ITEM (Cont'd.)
ment. Regions will use APS-1, RVR for a non-precision instrument
runway for a ratio of life-cycle benefits to life cycle costs and
shall equal or exceed a ratio of 1.0.
Regions will submit their calculations in accordance with the
methodology contained in APS No. 1, paragraph 21c(1), for each
location.
New generation RVR systems will be procured in support of this
program. This equipment will be based on the use of single point
sensors, data processing unit, ambient light sensor, runway light
intensity monitor, and displays. New generation RVR's are based
on technology other than the transmissometer, so no baseline
considerations are required. The new RVR sensor will be capable
of being mounted on a single concrete pad approximately five feet
square. One display per controller position and one display
where a touchdown recorder is authorized for NWS use. APS-400
letter of August 28, 1985 to all regional airway facilities
divisions, subject RVR's, describes the technical aspects of the
new generation RVR systems and the procurement strategy.
"Budget Item Summary" and FAA Forms 2500-40 (regional cost) and
4650-1 {PML) are required. Regions are requested to prioritize
their locations.
FAA Program Manager: Gary Skillicorn, ANN-200, (202) 267-6675
ANN Contact: John Saledas, ANN-140, (202) 267-6529
ATR Contact: Andy Oltmanns, ATR-120, (202) 267-9179
AFS Contact: Marcia Bisenius/Joe Tintera, AFS-12, (202)
267-3820/7773
Fig 2-11 Page 2-41

8200.34
b. ILS Call Item. This
item is of prime importance to
the FPB F&E inspector. An ILS
requires extensive work to ap­
ply criteria, determine eligi­bility and qualification, and
justify the submission with a
written staff study.
(1) Note that the eli­
gibility criteria are extensive
but well presented. Some of
the criteria are explicit while
some allows flexibility.
Page 2-42 8/11/94
(2) Category II/III
systems require special crite­
ria. These will also require a
phase II benefit/cost analysis
by headquarters. Documentation
with the staff study is re­
quired for the airport authori­
ty agreements and to assure
carriers can provide Category II/III approved crews and
equipment.
(3) The additional
facilities and equipment for
ILS systems are listed under
separate code numbers.
Par 241

8/11/94 8200.34
FIGURE 2-12. SAMPLE ILS CALL ITEM
2004 NP Instrument Landing System (ILS) -Establish/Upgrade
CIP No: 34-06 Amount: $45,000,000
Coding: See Below Locations: Various
Sponsor: See Below
Cross Reference Airport name and Runway Number for all below:
2D04A
2D04B
2D04C
2D04D
2D04E
2D04F
2D04G
2D04H
Fig 2-12 NP ILS -CAT
CIP No:
Coding:
Sponsor:
NP ILS -CAT
CIP No:
Coding:
Sponsor:
NP ILS -CAT
CIP No:
Coding:
Sponsor: !-Establish
34-06
3131-0-101
AFS
II-Establish
34-06
3131-0-138
AFS
III-Establish
34-06
3131-0-139
AFS Amount:
Locations:
Amount:
Locations:
Amount:
Locations:
NP RVR -Establish for CAT I ILS
CIP No: 34-06 Amount:
Coding: 3471-0-137 Locations:
Sponsor: AFS/ANN
NP RVR -Establish for CAT II/III ILS
CIP No: 34-06 Amount:
Coding: 3471-0-138 Locations:
Sponsor: AFS/ANN
NP DME -Establish for CAT I ILS
CIP No: 34-06 Amount:
Coding: 3124-0-137 Locations:
Sponsor: AFS/ANN
NP DME -Establish for CAT II/III ILS
CIP No: 34-06 Amount:
Coding: 3124-0-138 Locations:
Sponsor: AFS/ANN
NP LOM -Establish for CAT I ILS
CIP No: 34-06 Amount:
Coding: 3224-0-137 Locations:
Sponsor: AFS/ANN TBD
Various
TBD
Various
TBD
Various
TBD
Various
TBD
Various
TBD
Various
TBD
Various
TBD
Various
Page 2-43

8200.34 8/11/94
FIGURE 2-12. SAMPLE ILS CALL ITEM (Cont'd.)
Items 2D04H and 2D04I establish non-directional beacons in
conjunction with either ILS/LOC or MLS to provide navigational
guidance to the final approach course or area or azimuth coverage
(MLS). Certain ILS/MLS runways are not in an area of VOR cover­
age sufficient to provide necessary non-radar pilot navigation to
the final approach fix or to provide missed approach holding.
Depending upon the individual site requirements, more than one
NDB could be provided if a special statement of justification is
provided by the Regional Flight Procedures Branch. These items
also support non-precision navigation guidance for airports in
need of IFR approach guidance where a VOR or Localizer installa­
tion is not justified or otherwise practical. These items are
intended to be a stopgap measure to permit needed IFR approach
service until sufficient aircraft are equipped with a future
authorized means of area navigation (LORAN-e, GPS, etc.). As a
minimum for qualification, an airport, or specific runway should
be expected to support at least 50 actual instrument approaches
annually as a result of the NDB installation.
2D04J
2D04K
2D04L NP ALSF-2 –
CIP No:
Coding:
Sponsor:
NP MALSR –
CIP No:
Coding:
Sponsor: Establish
34-06
3317-0-101
AFS
Establish
34-06
3326-0-101
AFS/ANN Amount:
Locations:
Amount:
Locations:
NP ILS -Upgrade Partial to Full ILS
CIP No: 34-06 Amount:
Coding: 3132-0-536 Locations:
Sponsor: AFS/ANN TBD
Various
TBD
Various
TBD
Various
2D04M NP Engine Generators -Establish for CAT II/III ILS
CIP No:
Coding:
Sponsor: 34-06
3131-0-185
AFS/ANN Amount:
Locations: TBD
Various
The Precision Approach Landing System Policy dated December 27,
1989, permits the establishment of ILS on a basis of the follow­
ing eligibility criteria:
a. Meet MLS establishment criteria contained in "Airway
Planning Standard Number One" (APS #1), Order 7031.2C, and must
have a current benefit/cost ratio of 1.0 or greater.
Page 2-44 Fig 2-12

8/11/94 8200.34
FIGURE 2-12. SAMPLE ILS CALL ITEM (Cont 'd. )
b. Meet a documented critical safety requirement.
c. Have an immediate and critical requirement for prec1s1on
approach that cannot be delayed until MLS becomes available;
e.g., storm damage systems, immediate capacity needs, new run­
ways, etc.
d. Be documented by a complete staff study.
e. Have their operational need validated by the Associate
Administrator for Regulation and Certification.
Include the total project requirements within this budget item
(e.g., CAT III ILS with ALSF II, engine generator, or CAT I ILS
with MALSR, DME, Wide Aperture Antenna). Do not budget for these
items/subitems elsewhere within your response to the Call. We
must have a clear definition of project including all necessary
equipment, benefit/cost ratio, project material lists (PML), etc.
Do not buy Sub-line item equipment in your PML. Identify the
requirement by responding to each budget sub-line item.
"Staff Study Guide," "ILS Data Worksheet," "ILS Checklist",
"Budget Item Summary," and FAA Forms 2500-40 (regional cost) and
4650-1 (PML) are required.
FAA Program Manager: Gary Skillicorn, ANN-200, (202) 267-6675
AFS Contact: Marcia Bisenius/Joe Tintera, AFS-12, (202)
267-3820/7773
ANN Contact (CAT I): Mike Rivers, ANN-120, (202) 267-6543
ANN Contact (CAT II/III): William McPartland, ANN-120, (202)
267-6554
ATR Contact: Andy Oltmanns, ATR-120, (202) 267-9179
Fig 2-12 Page 2-45

8200.34 8/11/94
FIGURE 2-12. SAMPLE ILS CALL ITEM (Cont'd.)
ILS CATEGORY II/III ESTABLISHMENT/UPGRADE CRITERIA
The following requirements must be met for an Category II/III
establishment or upgrade of an existing ILS.
a. The candidate runway must meet all appropriate FAA technical
standards and requirements.
b. The airport authority must agree to install and maintain the
required facilities and equipment (i.e., centerline lights,
touchdown zone lights, etc.). Documentation to this effect must
be provided with the staff study.
c. The air carrier(s) which will utilize tbe Category II/III
facilities must be able to provide Category II/III approved crews
and equipment. Written assurance of this requirement must
accompany the staff study. This documentation should be request­
ed through the regional flight standards district office which
has certificate responsibility for the carrier.
d. The Airport must have reached 2500 air carrier annual instru­
ment approaches (AIA's) for the past three fiscal years.
e. Category II/III systems to be procured under F&E for runways
meeting conditions a through d must be validated by a benefit/­
cost analysis by the Office of Aviation Policy, Plans, and
Management Analysis.
f. Requests by sponsors for FAA assumption of ownership, opera­
tions, and maintenance of Category II/III systems acquired under
part 171 must meet requirement e.
The format on the following pages is to be used in preparing the
individual staff studies for candidate locations:
NOTE: The Call then has a Staff Study Guide, a 2
page ILS Data Worksheet, and Instructions For ILS
Data Worksheet. These will be discussed in Sec­
tion 5, F&E Submissions. Also, an ILS Project
Checklist is included in the Call which is com­
pleted by Airway Facilities.
Page 2-46 Fig 2-12

8/11/94
d. Submission Reauire-
ments. Examples of the "Budget
Item Summary" and the FAA Form
2500-40 "F&E Cost Estimate Sum­
mary" (regional cost) that were
mentioned in the Call items
samples are included in the
Call, Appendix 4. The form
4650-1 is the "Project Material
List" ( PML) • These are accom­
plished by Airway Facilities.
242. SPECIFIC EXPLANATION OF
APS-1 CRITERIA. The APS-1 job
aids at the end of this section
are listed in the order estab­
lished in APS-1. They are in a
full page format and abbreviat­
ed format. Although the Call
items above are fairly explic­it, the APS-1 criteria are more
complicated to read through and
apply. An attempt is made in
this section to list the sig­
nificant criteria items for
each facility type and add
these to the full page job
aids. These significant crite­
ria will normally appear in the
general data portion of the job
aid. The calculations portion
follows the general data on the
full page job aids and are the
only portion of abbreviated job
aids. APS-1 and the Call must
be used concurrently when be­
ginning the F&E analysis pro­
cess because the requirements
and criteria in both compliment
each other. In some cases, the
APS-1 criteria are very specif­
ic and rigid; in other cases,
judgment determinations can be
made if sufficiently justified
through detailed documentation.
The purpose of this section of
the chapter is to discuss the
criteria, but not to quantify
all options nor set uncompro­
mising standards that were not
Par 241 8200.34
included nor intended. But,
where additional guidance is
needed and not presently avail­
able, this section includes
that guidance. Each airport
situation is unique with spe­
cial problems that must be con­
sidered. Using good judgment
and the criteria guidelines,
the FPB F&E inspector can sub­
stantiate, in writing, the can­
didate facility installation
sites that will enhance the NAS
and produce a safer environment
for the flying public.
243. MLS OR ILS, APS-1 PARA­
GRAPH 20, AND HANDBOOK FIGURE
2-13. APS-1 lists the require­
ments for establishing an MLS
and the Call specifies that to
establish an ILS, APS-1 MLS
criteria apply. There is no
separate ILS establishment gui­
dance in APS-1.
a. Establishment. To be
a candidate for Category I MLS­
/ILS with an approach light
system, a runway must have
scheduled turbojet operations
conducted on a sustained basis
(and expected to continue unin­
terrupted), or a runway or he­
liport must meet the annual
instrument approach criteria.
Also, a comprehensive runway or
heliport evaluation is required
to determine if applicable FAA
airport design and operational
standards are met and that the
operations to be conducted will
be safe. Airport sponsor pro­
tection of the electronic fa­cilities' critical areas must
be technically feasible and
practical. A minimum runway
length of 4200 feet and width
of 75 feet are required. Run-
Page 2-47

8200.34
way or heliport lights are also
required.
b. Annual Instrument Ap­
proach (AlA) Criteria. APS-1,
paragraph 20b, has a table from
which is obtained the "qualify­
ing AlA's" for insertion in the
calculation formula. To use
this table, determine if the
airport is an air carrier hub
or non-hub because different
calculation numbers apply.
(Hub information is located in
the current FAA or Federal Air
Traffic Activity.) Also, de­
termine the lowest non-preci­
sion approach minimums current­
ly authorized for the largest
aircraft to the candidate run­
way end in order to enter the
proper column of the minimums
table in APS-1. The table is
designed so that the higher the
existing non-precision mini­
mums, the lower the required
"qualifying AlA's". The table
is also designed to achieve
precision minimums of 200-1/2.
If achievable minimums will be
higher, the Office of Aviation
Policy, Plans, and Management
Analysis (APO) will be consult­
ed to determine the applicable
criteria. APS-1 also gives
information on determining the
percentage of IFR runway use
for insertion in the formula.
A resulting benefit/cost ratio
of 1.0 or greater qualifies the
candidate.
c. Benefit/Cost Screening.
Screening of the candidate
MLS/ILS will be accomplished in
Washington for all candidates.
APS-1 and the Call lists addi­
tional justification and ex­
pected benefits that may be
used in the staff study. The
Page 2-48 8/11/94
Call requires the staff study
to be submitted for each candi­
date location.
d. Additional Guidance.
The following are situations
where MLS/ILS guidance is not
available or explicit.
( 1 ) Applying Airport
and Safety Standards. APS-1
implies that all applicable
runway safety standards have to
be met before a runway can be a
candidate. This is not always
true. A candidate can be sub­
mitted before a runway is ex­
tended or before a heliport is
even built. Because of the
long lead time required for F&E
budgeting, regional planning
and coordination must be accom­
plished for construction and
upgrading. Required facilities
should be submitted in the FY
budget based on the planned
construction schedule. The
intent of the criteria are to
demand safety; the intent is
not to restrict candidacy until
all construction is complete.
This explanation is substanti­
ated in the Call, which specif­
ically states, "new runways".
(2 ) Determining Cur­
rent Minimums and Table Refer­
ence. For ceilings, use the
minimums on the approach chart
for entering the table. When
the ceiling is 700 feet, use
the 800-1 column. High visi­
bilities are very restrictive
for aircraft utilizing an ap­
proach. When the ceiling is
300 feet but the visibility is
1 mile, use the 400-1 column.
For visibilities in excess of 1
mile, use the least qualifying
Par 243

8/11/94
AlA's regardless of the ceiling
( 800-1 column).
( 3 ) New Runways or
Runways without Approaches.
The APS-1 table requires exist­
ing minimums to enter the ta­
ble. With no approaches, mini­
mums are not available. Use
the HIGHEST circling minimums
(for largest aircraft expected
to use the runway) required at
that airport. Because of TERPS
Table 11, rarely will this cir­
cling visibility not exceed 1
mile. Consequently, the 800-1
column is normally used. The
800-1 column should also be
used when circling is not au­
thorized (published) at that
airport.
( 4 ) New Airports.
Again, there are published min-
1mums. Use VFR minimums
(1000-3/ which equates to the
highest minimums in the table:
800-1. AlA counts will not be
available and must be estimat­
ed.
(5) Cat II/III. APS-1
has no criteria for Cat II/III
ILS or MLS. However, AP0-220
is able to provide some inde­
pendent estimates of B/C ratios
for such systems on the basis
of guidance contained in Estab­
lishment and Discontinuance
Criteria for Precision Landing
Systems, FAA-AP0-83-10. In
addition, the Call example has
some criteria. Normally, Cat II/III systems are well planned
and well thought-out installa­
tions. The Airport Master Plan
(AMP) will show when these sys­
tems are planned, the airport
authority begins installation
of required taxiway and light-
Par 243 8200.34
ing systems, etc. (usually with
AlP assistance), the four re­
gional operational divisions
have discussed and studied all
factors of the installation and
agree to dates, and the carri­
ers have made plans for the
systems and may have made major
economic decisions based on the
installation. Rarely will a
Cat II/III request from a zeal­
ous airport authority or carri­
er occur and be a surprise to
the F&E inspector. The prob­
lems come from the F&E process
itself where the system must be
submitted years in advance of
target dates and all of the
problems associated with the
installation may not have been
solved. The burdens that fall
on the F&E inspector are to
determine the need for the Cat
II/III system, determine if the
runway/airport will meet Cat II
special obstacle clearance sur­
face requirements, determine
whether it will qualify, and
justify the F&E submission by a
staff study. In the absence of
formal guidance, the following
criteria can be used.
NOTE: Although this
subparagraph will dis­
cuss some Call crite­
ria contained in the
previous samples,
these criteria may
change with the issu­
ance of the current
annual FY Call.
(a) Determining
Need. The purpose of Cat III­
III systems is to allow air
carrier operations during low
weather conditions (less than
200-1/2). Consequently, low
weather conditions and air car-
Page 2-49

8200.34
rier AIA's are the major fac­
tors for determining need. To
even qualify for a Cat I RVR
system, the Call example re­
quires 15 or more annual hourly
observations where visibilities
are 1/2 mile or less. For a
Cat II/III system, this annual
observation count should be
higher than the 15. The ILS
Call example requires 2500 an­
nual air carrier AIA's to the
airport for each of the past 3
years. (The 2500 AIA re­
quirement was established in
FAA-ASP-76-1, Establishment
Criteria for Category II In­
strument Landing System (ILS),
completed by APO. ) The 2 50 0
air carrier AIA's and 15 annual
hourly observations shall be
the absolute minimum for deter­
mining need.
(b) Determining
Qualification. The primary
qualification factor is that
the runway meets current ILS
Cat I criteria. This means it
meets APS-1 Phase I ratio of
1.0 or higher or other special
criteria specified in APS-1 or
the Call. Most Cat II/III sys­
tems are upgrades from a Cat I
system and will meet this cri­
teria. Where a runway is newly
constructed and an original Cat
II/III system will be in­
stalled, this evaluation will
have to be made. Assure Cat II
special obstruction clearance
areas can and will be protect­
ed, and that airport design
criteria are met. The airport
must have a control tower. The
candidate runway must meet all
appropriate FAA technical stan­
dards and requirements. The
airport authority must agree to
install and maintain the re-
Page 2-50 8/11/94
quired signs, lighting, and
marking. The air carrier ( s)
must be able to provide ap­
proved crews and equipment as
specified in AC 120-28, Crite­ria for Approval of Category
III Landing Weather Minima. If
CAT III is to be established,
the airport must be capable of
establishing a low visibility
Surface Movement Guidance and
Control System plan in accor­
dance with AC 120-57.
(c) Justification.
Justification for a Cat II/III
submission is contained in the
staff study. Use the staff
study guide discussed in the
next section of this handbook.
Include all information and
documentation required in the
Call and discussed in this Cat II/III subparagraph.
244. SUPPLEMENTAL CRITERIA FOR
MLS/ILS ESTABLISHMENT AT COM­
MERCIAL SERVICE AIRPORTS, APS-1
PARAGRAPH 20d, AND HANDBOOK
FIGURE 2-14. Commercial ser­
vice airports are defined as a
public airport which is deter­
mined by the FAA to enplane
annually 2,500 or more passen­
gers and receive scheduled pas­
senger service by aircraft.
This definition is from the
Airport and Airway Improvement
Act of 1982. The procedure is
relatively simple. Complete an
ILS/MLS benefit/cost ratio
(BCR) on the candidate runway.
If the BCR is less than 1.0 and
the following conditions exist,
the supplemental criteria can
apply: if this airport has con­
necting scheduled passenger
service to an associated hub
airport which is expected to
continue; if the total sched-
Par 243

8/11/94
uled/non-scheduled annual en­
planed passengers are not ex­
pected to fall below 2,500; and if the airport does not have a
precision landing system and is
not programmed for one. The
next step is to complete a BCR
on the PRIMARY runway of the
associated hub airport. The
two combined BCR1s divided by 2 is the combined ratio. This
combined ratio must be 1.0 or
greater to qualify for candida­
cy. The staff study should
thoroughly explain the thought
processes for the commercial
airport submission and specify
that the above criteria have
been met.
245. SUPPLEMENTAL ILS/MLS CRI­
TERIA FOR RELIEVER AIRPORTS 1
APS-1 PARAGRAPH 20e. Although
not included as a job aid, APS-
1 addresses reliever airport
criteria. The value of reduced
congestion and improved safety
at the relieved major airport
can be considered an additional
benefit to determine if benefit
exceeds the cost. Although no
numbers (specific criteria for­
mula) are stated, the support­
ing documentation required is a
thorough staff study based upon
quantitative and qualitative
analyses. These analyses
should include the number of
operations, AIA 1 s 1 and/ or land­
ings at the primary airport and
the congestion reduction esti­
mates the new system at the re­
liever airport could provide.
Additional information that may
be appropriate like air traffic
control planning, training pre­
cision approach numbers, noise
problems, military training
flights, etc., should also be
included.
Par 244 8200.34
246. RVR WITH ILS OR MLS 1
APS-1 PARAGRAPH 20h, AND HAND­
BOOK FIGURE 2-15. APS-1 lists
the criteria for establishing
an RVR with these precision
systems. The RVR Call example
expands upon the requirements
and is only for touchdown RVR
associated with Category I sys­
tems. Note that establishing
midpoint and rollout RVR with
Category II/III systems is un­
der the Establish Instrument
Landing System (ILS) Call item.
Category II/III systems have
special facilities and equip­
ment requirements which include
RVR. The F&E inspector must be
familiar with these require­
ments. Also, the RVR Call item
for Category I systems states
that approach lights and HIRL 1 s
are required. Inspectors must
be aware that TERPS Chapter 3
levies additional requirements.
To chart RVR approach and take­
off minimums, HIRL and preci­
sion runway markings (or touch­
down zone and centerline light­
ing) are required. To obtain
the lower approach minimums
authorized with RVR in TERPS
Table 9, full approach lights
(with RAIL) are required. For
RVR approach minimums of 1800
feet, a full approach lighting
system and touchdown zone and
centerline lights are required.
a. Establishment. A Cate­
gory I precision instrumented
runway qualifies as a candidate
for establishment of a Touch­
down RVR System provided: an
acceptable method is available
for immediate dissemination of
RVR value data to pilots; the
provisions of Order 6560.10,
Runway Visual Range, and the
siting and installation stan-
Page 2-51

8200.34
dards of FAA-STD-008 can be
met; and finally, the Phase I
value BCR equals or exceeds
1.0. The Call example for RVR
requires an Air Traffic Control
Tower (ATCT), which is the
standard method for immediate
dissemination of RVR values to
the pilot. Because of this
requirement, an ATCT is includ­
ed in the job aid.
b. Benefit/Cost Parame­
ters. The benefit/cost calcu­
lations use both air carrier
and air taxi AlA's and opera­
tions. The system design fac­
tor (SDF) is a variable based
upon whether this is the first
RVR system at the airport or
not. APS-1 also gives a third
factor for a system that is not
11 new generation 11
• Because of
the RVR equipment policy ex­
plained in the Call, this sys­
tem design factor was not even
added to the job aid. The job
aid does have an entry for type
of system and number of RVR's.
The formula has runway use-IFR
percentage and a job aid entry
is included. APS-1 gives a
default runway use-IFR table if
a site specific value is un­
available or cannot be estimat­
ed.
c. Benefit/Cost Screening.
Headquarters will screen all
candidates for RVR. APS-1 does
state special consideration may
be given for unique, site spe­
cific operational factors like
troublesome terrain, signifi­
cant remoteness of the runway
from the tower, etc. In these
cases, a narrative and explana­
tory reference should be in­
cluded with the RVR submission.
Page 2-52 8/11/94
247. LOCALIZER AND MARKER BEA­
CON, APS-1 PARAGRAPH 22a(1),
AND HANDBOOK FIGURE 2-16. The first of_ 6 facility types ( 3
navigational and 3 not naviga­
tional) under APS-1, Paragraph
22, Non-precision Instrument
Approach Systems, is a localiz­
er and associated marker. The
APS-1 qualifiers are AlA's or
AEP's. Other requirements are
that existing published mini­
mums are greater than 400-1 and
an existing VHF navigation aid
can be used for transition to
the localizer. These are list­
ed on the job aid as is an ex­
planation of when DME can be a
candidate in lieu of the outer
marker. The inspector must
keep in mind that the localizer
may be upgraded to a full ILS
in the future (see Call item on
ILS), therefore minimum runway
length of 4,200 feet and width
of 7 5 feet will be required
before upgrade. When using the
calculations for AIP funding
and takeover requirements (see
Section 6) , the runway width
and length become important and
the sponsor should be made
aware of this requirement. For
this reason, the runway
length/width requirement is
listed on the LOC job aid.
248. TVOR, APS-1 PARAGRAPH
22a(2), AND HANDBOOK FIGURE 2-
17. The TVOR requirements are
similar to localizer. A TVOR
may be installed when an in­
strument approach procedure is
not possible from an adjacent
VHF navigation aid or the ex­
isting instrument approach pro­
cedure is based on an L/MF nav­
igation aid (an NDB) • APS-1
states that a 7 5MHz marker bea­
con may be considered to
Par 246

8/11/94
achieve 400/1 minimums, but
"fan marker" installations with
VOR' s haven't been in a Call
for some time and was not added
to the job aid. APS-1 provides
for including DME at the TVOR
with proper justification.
Establishing TVOR and DME falls
under the Call item VOR/DME/­
TACAN Network Plan. More de­tail on this Plan is provided
in Section 5.
249. DME WITH LOCALIZER, APS-1
PARAGRAPH 22a(3), AND HAND-
BOOK FIGURE 2-18. DME with
localizer is not included in
the recent Call i terns except
when needed to establish a Vi­
sual Descent Point (VDP). The
requirements are more compli­
cated for determining the qual­
ifying AIA's to insert in the
formula because they come from
the large, 2 page APS-1 Table
22a(3). The table's variables
are the hub size for air carri­
ers, air taxi, combined general
aviation and military, the cur­
rent minimums of the largest
user aircraft, and the project­
ed LOC/DME minimums for the
largest user aircraft. These
have been included on the job
aid for easy reference. The
only other qualifier is no
glide· slope.
250. VASI/PAPI WITH NON-PRECI­
SION APPROACH PROCEDURE, APS-1
PARAGRAPH 22a(4), AND HANDBOOK
FIGURE 2-19. In this paragraph
of APS-1, only VASI criteria
are included. The PAPI Call
i tern for straight-in non-preci­
sion approaches states that the
APS-1 VASI criteria shall apply
until PAPI criteria can be de­
veloped. For this reason, the
job aid states both VASI/PAPI.
Par 248 8200.34
This is the first time that
landings are qualifiers rather
than AIA' s, AEP' s, or opera­
tions. Since landing data are
not always available, opera­
tions divided by 2 can be used.
Note that the landings and
AIA's are for that runway only.
Either actual runway utiliza­
tion or the table following
APS-1 paragraph 3lc(4) can be
used.
251. MALS OR ODALS WITH NON­
PRECISION APPROACH PROCEDURE,
APS-1 PARAGRAPH 22a(S), AND
HANDBOOK FIGURE 2-20. Al-
though APS-1 specifically
states MALS rather than MALSR,
local conditions and safety
concerns_as well as future op­
erational plans for that runway
should be considered when eval­
uating whether MALS or MALSR
would be appropriate. The same
criteria apply to both types of
approach light systems.
a. Criteria. Approach
light system qualifiers are a
specified number of airport
AIA's or AEP's. Additionally,
a non-precision approach must
exist or be planned and the
system must reduce landing vis­
ibility minimums. ODALS rather
than MALS may be installed un­
der certain conditions. ( Re­
cently, MALS and ODALS systems
for non-precision approach run­
ways have not been a Call item.
Check the current Call for
their possible inclusion, since
the CIP includes this item.)
b. Possible Conflicts in
Criteria. Anyone that has ap­
plied TERPS criteria knows that
to receive visibility reduction
credit for approach lights, a
Page 2-53

8200.34
straight-in procedure is re­
quired. Yet, APS-1 requires
landing visibility minimums
reduction for MALS and ODALS,
but then allows ODALS in lieu
of MALS when the procedure does
not permit a straight-in ap­
proach. This can be interpret­
ed as conflicting criteria.
For guidance, the F&E inspector
must consider the safety as­
pects of the approach and actu­
al or planned final approach
alignment before determining
the need for ODALS • If the
need is substantiated for pro­
cedures not permitting
straight-in, the visibility
minimums reduction requirement
does not apply, but the safety
aspects of installing ODALS
rather than omni-directional
REIL's must be considered.
These factors are also true for
FAA takeover of ODALS.
c. Other TERPS Consider­
ations. When considering sub­
missions for these approach
lighting systems, specific
paragraphs in TERPS Chapter 3
referring to visibility reduc­
tions must be understood. For
example, TERPS paragraph 332
requires a clear 20:1 slope for
visibilities below 1 mile and a
clear 34:1 slope for visibili­
ties below 3/4 mile. Also,
TERPS paragraph 343 requires
proper runway markings and the
final approach course must
place the aircraft within the
operational coverage of the
lights.
252. RVR FOR NON-PRECISION
INSTRUMENTED RUNWAY, APS-1
PARAGRAPH 22a(6). APS-1 states
that to be a candidate for RVR:
the runway must be non-preci-
Page 2-54 8/11/94
sion instrumented (not equipped
with ILS or MLS); the airport
has one or more RVR equipped
precision instrumented runways
(and all Category I runways
must already be RVR equipped
and satisfy criteria for RVR at
Category I runways) ; the provi­
sions of Order 6560.10 and sit­
ing and installation standards
of FAA-STD-008 can be met; and
the benefit/cost methodology
outlined in FAA-AP0-88-14 is
1. 0 or greater. Report FAA­
AP0-88-14, dated November,
1988, contains very complex
benefit/cost criteria. The
criteria were applied to a list
of 106 prospective candidate
airports (most major airports)
and 43 qualified with a B/C
ratio of 1.0 or more. The re­
port also lists more than 300
non-prospective candidate air­
ports (no B/C ratio completed)
and lists the reasons for non­
candidacy. No job aid has been
included for RVR for non-preci­
sion runways at this time.
Note that this item is included
in the recent Call and is in
the first sample Call item.
253. REIL, APS-1 PARAGRAPH 30,
AND HANDBOOK FIGURE 2-21. REIL
installation may be funded un­
der either F&E or AIP. Close
coordination with Airports is
necessary when submitting for
REIL. The Call usually in­
cludes both establishing REIL
and converting to omnidirec­
tional REIL. The qualifiers
are: landings; the runway is
not currently equipped with or
programmed for an approach
light system; the runway has
approved edge lights for night
operations; and a runway end
identification problem exists.
Par 251

8/11/94
Runway end identification prob­
lems are detailed in Order
8260.18. Exceptional safety
requirements may dictate estab­
lishing a REIL when not meeting
these qualifications. This
determination will be made in
Washington based upon the re­
gion's written recommendation
and justification. The actual
runway utilization percentage
or the table on page 36 is the
final formula requirement to
determine the runway ratio
value.
254. VASI/PAPI (VFR ONLY),
APS-1 PARAGRAPH 31, AND HAND­
BOOK FIGURE 2-22. VASI/PAPI
installations may be funded
under AIP or F&E. Close coor­
dination with Airports is nec­
essary when submitting for
VASI/PAPI. Order 8260.18 dis­
cusses requirements for visual
approach aids and should to be
part of F&E evaluations for
PAPI candidate runways. The
Call usually provides for
PAPI's on non-precision ap­
proach runways (see paragraph
250) and for other runways.
Caution must be taken to use
the correct criteria when mak­
ing submissions under these
Call i terns. The Call just
states, without paragraph ref­
erence, that APS-1 criteria
apply until PAPI criteria can
be developed. APS-1 requires
Par 253 8200.34
that an electronic glide slope
not be installed or programmed
to qualify for SOME VASI's.
The latest Call states that
priority consideration will be
given to air carrier runways
not equipped with vertical gui­
dance devices and lists differ­
ent priori ties. APS-1 requires
that every candidate runway
submission include: number of
airport operations; number of
runways; whether an ILS is in­
stalled or programmed for the
runway; number and type of
VASI's already installed or
programmed for other runways;
and runway utilization percent­
age. Note that these are all
on the job aid. The criteria
used in the formula are based
on landings, and both non-ILS
OR ILS qualifying landing num­
bers are available. APS-1
paragraph 3le states that loca­
tions can be nominated to sat­
isfy a special safety require­
ment, but a specific staff
study must be submitted at the
time of nomination.
255. CRITERIA FOR OTHER SYS-
TEMS. APS-1 contains other
criteria for systems the F&E
inspector may occasionally need
to use, for instance, VOT.
These criteria may be referred
to when needed.
256.-259. RESERVED.
Page 2-55

8200.34 8/11/94
FIGURE 2-13. APS-1 -ILS/MLS
ESTABLISH CATEGORY I MLS OR ILS (WITH MALSR)
(APS-1, Paragraph 20, Pages 11-14) Date ____________ _
General Data
Airport Name~=–––––––––––––-Ident. ___ _
Runway Number __________ _
Data Source: (T) TAF: ___ (F) FAA 5010: __ _ (0) Other Date (Year) of Data: ____________ _
Air Carrier AIA's: ____________ _ Air Taxi AIA's: ____________ __
Gen. Aviation AIA's: ––––Military AIA's: ____________ __
Runway Length (in Feet) ___________ (at least 4,200 feet required)
Runway Width (in Feet) (at least 75 feet required)
Is this a HUB? ____ (Yes); __ (No)
Enter Percent of Runway Use-IFR. ________ _
Lowest Ceiling Published for Largest Aircraft~––-
Lowest Visibility Published for Largest Aircraft __________ _
Benefit/Cost Calculations (Paragraph 20b)
(Recorded AIA's)
Air Carrier (Qualifying AIA's)
Air Taxi (Recorded AIA's)
(Qualifying AIA's)
Gen. Aviation (Recorded AIA's)
(Qualifying AIA's)
Military (Recorded AIA's)
(Qualifying AIA's) =
=
=
=
Percent of Runway Use-IFR. _______ _ X –––– =
QUALIFIED -1.0 or Greater Total Ratio
*UNQUALIFIED -Less than 1.0 Total Ratio. (Total) +
+
+
*(See Supplemental Criteria -Commercial Service Air­
ports/Reliever Airports, paragraph 20d/e.) Total
Total Ratio
Page 2-56 Fig 2-13

8/11/94 8200.34
FIGURE 2-14. APS-1 -SUPPLBMERTAL ILS/HLS
SUPPLEMENTAL CRITERIA FOR MLS/ILS ESTABLISHMENT AT
COMMERCIAL SERVICE AIRPORTS
(APS-1, Paragraph 20d, Page 14)
Date ____________ __
General Data Airport Name: ____________________________________ ___ !dent.: ________ _
Runway Number: ______ _
Benefit/Cost calculations under paragraph 20b resulted in a Total
Ratio of -UNQUALIFIED on its own merit.
This airport has connecting scheduled passenger service to an
associated hub airport which is expected to continue.
Total scheduled/non-scheduled annual enplaned passengers are not
expected to fall below 2,500. This airport does not have a
precision landing system and is not programmed for one.
Benefit/Cost Calculations
Determine the Total Ratio value of the primary runway at the
associated hub airport under paragraph 20b.
Hub Ident.:
The Total Ratio for the hub is
Sum (add) the ratios of the commercial service airport and its
associated hub airport and divide by 2.
Commercial Service Airport Ratio =
+
Hub Primary Runway Total Ratio =
= ––––––2
QUALIFIED -1.0 or greater Combined Total Ratio.
UNQUALIFIED -Less than 1.0 Combined Total Ratio.
Fig 2-14 Combined
Total Ratio
Page 2-57

8200.34 8/11/94
FIGURE 2-15. APS-1 -RVR PRECISIOR
ESTABLISH RVR WITH ILS OR MLS
(APS-1, Paragraph 21.c.(1), Page 16) Date ____________ __
General Data Airport Name: ____________________________________ ___ !dent.: ________ _
Runway Number: ______ __
Data Source: (T) TAF: ____ __ (F) FAA 5010: __ _ (0) Other ________ _
Date (Year) of Data:
Air Carrier AIA's: ____________ __ Air Taxi AIA's: ____________ __
Air Carrier OP's: Air Taxi OP's:
Gen. Aviation AIA's: __________ __ Military AIA's: ____________ __
Enter percent of Runway Use-IFR: ________ __
System type to be installed: (N) for new generation.
Enter number of existing RVR's at airport: ________ __
This airport has an ATCT in operation full or part time.
Benefit/Cost Calculations- Tables 21c(1)(a)/(b)/(c)
Air Carrier (Recorded AlA's)
145
(Recorded O~erations)
6,500
Air Taxi {Recorded AlA's)
10,000
(Recorded O~erations)
73,000
Gen. Aviation (Recorded AlA's)
8,900
Military (Recorded AlA's)
1,900
Subtotal A: x #SDF: ––= 145
+ = 6,500
+ = 10,000
+ = 73,000
+ = 8,900
+ = 1,900
(Subtotal A) = (Subtotal B)
Subtotal B: x Runway Use-IFR =
QUALIFIED -1.0 or greater Phase I Value
UNQUALIFIED -Less than 1.0 Phase I Value Phase I Value
#SDF -System Design Factor for first RVR is 1.0; subsequent RVR is 3.17.
Page 2-58 Fig 2-15

8/11/94 8200.34
FIGURE 2-16. APS-1 -LOCALIZER
ESTABLISH LOCALIZER AND MARKER BEACON
(NON-PRECISION APPROACH)
(APS-1, Paragraph 22a, Page 17)
Date ____________ __
General Data Airport Name: __________________________________ __ Ident.: ________ _
Runway Number: ________ __
Data Source: (T) TAF: _____ (F) FAA 5010: ____ _ (0) Other: ________ __
Date (Year) of Data: ________ __
Air Carrier AIA's:
Air Taxi AIA's:
Gen. Aviation AIA's: ______________ __
Military AIA's:
+
Total AIA's:
Annual Enplaned Passengers (AEP): ________________ __
Lowest Minimums Published:~~~–––­
minimums are greater than 400-1. Existing published
An existing VHF navigation aid can be used for transition to the
localizer.
Benefit/Cost Calculations, Paragraph 22.a
(Total Recorded AIA's)
(Qualifying AlA's 200) = _________ Total Ratio (AlA's)
200
(OR)
(Total Recorded AEP's)
(Qualifying AEP's 1,825) = _________ Total Ratio (AEP's)
1,825
QUALIFIED- 1.0 or greater Total Ratio (AIA), or
1.0 or greater Total Ratio (AEP).
UNQUALIFIED -Less than 1.0 Total Ratio AIA, and
Less than 1.0 Total Ratio AEP
NOTE: A DME may be substituted for the marker beacon provided it
is necessary to achieve 400-1 minimums or to provide a need for
opposite direction approach capability.
Fig 2-16 Page 2-59

8200.34 8/11/94
PXGURB 2-17. APS-1 -~OR
ESTABLISH ~OR (HON-PRECXSION APPROACH)
(APS 1, Paragraph 22a(2), Pages 17-18) Date ____________ __
General Data
Airport Name: ____________________________________ _ !dent.: ________ _
Runway Number: ________ __
Data Source: (T) TAF: _____ (F) FAA 5010: ____ _ (0) Other: ________ _
Date (Year) of Data: ________ __
Air Carrier AIA's:
Air Taxi AIA's:
Gen. Aviation AIA's: ________________ _
Military AIA's:
+
Total AIA's:
Annual Enplaned Passengers (AEP): __________________ _
Lowest Minimums Published: ______________ __ Existing published
minimums are greater than 400-1.
An instrument approach procedure is not possible from an adjacent
VHF navigation aid.
Benefit/Cost Calculations
(Total Recorded AlA's)
(Qualifying AlA's 200)
(OR) = Total Ratio (AlA's)
200
(Total Recorded AEP's)
(Qualifying AEP's 1,825) = Total Ratio (AEP's)
1,825
QUALIFIED- 1.0 or greater Total Ratio (AIA), or
1.0 or greater Total Ratio (AEP).
UNQUALIFIED -Less than 1.0 Total Ratio AIA, and
Less than 1.0 Total Ratio AEP
NOTE: A DME may also be considered for new or existing TVOR
locations provided justification is submitted indicating it would
provide more efficient handling of air traffic, a reduction of
the adverse effect of obstructions on landing minima, or an
otherwise tangible improvement in the IFR capability of the
airport.
Page 2-60 Fig 2-17

8/11/94 8200.34
FIGURE 2-18. APS-1 -DME WITH LOCALIZER
ESTABLISHED DME (WITH LOCALIZER)
(APS-1, Paragraph 22a(3), Pages 18-21) Date ____________ __
General Data
Airport Name: ____________________________________ __ !dent.: ________ _
Runway Number: ________ _
Data Source: (T) TAF: ____ _ (F) FAA 5010: ____ _ (0) Other: ________ __
Date (Year) of Data: ________ __
Air Carrier AlA's:
Air Taxi AlA's:
Gen. Aviation AlA's: ––––––+ Military AlA's:
Total GA & Mil AlA's:
The runway has a localizer and marker beacon, but no glide slope.
Hub size: –––
Lowest minimums published for largest user aircraft: ______________ _
Projected minimums for largest user aircraft: ____________________ ___
Benefit/Cost Calculations
Paragraph 22a(3)(a) and *Table 22a(3)
Air Carrier
Air Taxi
Gen. Aviation &
Military (Recorded AlA's)
*(Qualifying AlA's)
(Recorded AlA's)
*(Qualifying AlA's)
(Recorded AlA's)
*(Qualifying AlA's) *
*
*
Total Ratio Value
QUALIFIED -1.0 or greater Total Ratio Value
UNQUALIFIED -Less than 1.0 Total Ratio Value
Fig 2-18 =
+
=
+
=
Page 2-61

8200.34 8/11/94
FIGURE 2-19. APS-1 -VASI/PAPI ROR-PRECISIOR
ESTABLISH VASI/PAPI (NON-PRECISION APPROACH)
(APS-1, Paragraph 22a(4), Page 22) Date ____________ __
General Data
Airport Name: ____________________________________ _ !dent.: ______ _
Runway Number: ________________ __
Data Source: (T) TAF: ___ _ (F) FAA 5010: ____ (0) Other: ________ _
Date (Year) of Data: ________ __
Air Carrier Landings Air Carrier AlA's
Air Taxi Landings Air Taxi AlA's
Gen. Aviation Landings __________ __ Gen. Aviation AIA's ____________ _
Military Landings Military AlA's
Total Landings Total AlA's
X X
% Runway Use % Runway Use
Total Recorded Landings ________ _ Total Recorded AlA's
This VASI/PAPI is in support of straight-in non-precision opera­
tions.
Benefit/Cost Calculations
Paragraph 22a(4), Page 22 and
Paragraph 31c(3) Table, Page 39
(Total Recorded Landings) = (Qualifying Landings -4,000) 4,000
+
(Total Recorded AlA's) = (Qualifying AlA's -120) 120
_______ Total Ratio
QUALIFIED -1.0 or greater Total Ratio
UNQUALIFIED -Less than 1.0 Total Ratio
Page 2-62 Fig 2-19

8/11/94 8200.34
FIGURE 2-20. APS-1 -MALS/ODALS ROR-PRECISIOR
ESTABLISH MALS OR ODALS (NON-PRECISION APPROACH)
(APS-1, Paragraph 22a(5)(a)/(b), Page 22) Date ____________ __
General Data
Airport Name: ____________________________________ __ !dent.: ________ _
Runway Number: ________ __
System: ________________ __ (M) MALS: __ (0) ODALS __
Data Source: (T) TAF: ____ _ (F) FAA 5010: __ (0) Other: ________ __
Date (Year) of Data: ________ __
Air Carrier AlA's:
Air Taxi AlA's:
Gen. Aviation AlA's:
Military AlA's:
+
Total AlA's:
Annual Enplaned Passengers (AEP): ____________________ __
A non-precision approach exists or is planned to this runway.
This approach light system will reduce landing visibility mini­
mums.
Benefit/Cost Calculations
Paragraph 22a(5)(a) and Paragraph 22a(5)(b)
(Total Recorded AIA's)
(Qualifying AIA's 300)
(OR) = Total Ratio (AIA's)
300
(Total Recorded AEP's)
(Qualifying AEP's 2,725) = Total Ratio (AEP's)
2,725
QUALIFIED- 1.0 or greater Total Ratio (AIA), or
1.0 or greater Total Ratio (AEP).
UNQUALIFIED -Less than 1.0 Total Ratio AIA, and
Less than 1.0 Total Ratio AEP.
NOTE: ODALS may be installed in lieu of MALS if the non-preci­
sion approach aid does not permit a straight-in approach or
operational conditions require a curved flight path to a specific
runway.
Fig 2-20 Page 2-63

8200.34 8/11/94
FIGURE 2-21. APS-1 -REIL
ESTABLISH REIL
(APS-1, Paragraph 30, Pages 35-37)
Date ____________ __
General Data
Airport Name: Ident.:
Runway Number:
Data Source: (T) TAF: (F) FAA 5010: ( 0) Other:
Date (Year) of Data:
Air Carrier Ops. divided by 2 = ACR Landings
Air Taxi Ops. divided by 2 = ATX Landings
Gen. Av. Ops. divided by 2 = GA Landings
+ Military Ops. divided by 2 = .Mil Landings
Total GA & Mil Landings
______ %of landing utilization this runway (Ref. Table, Page 36).
No approach light system is installed or programmed for this
runway end. This runway has approved runway edge lighting.
Runway end identification problem exists. (Reference Order
8260.18)
Benefit/Cost Calculations, Paragraph 30a(4)Ca)
Air Carrier Recorded (AC) Landings = Qualifying (AC) Landings 4,900
+
Air Taxi Recorded {AT) Landings = Qualifying (AT) Landings 1,200
+
Gen. Av. Recorded {GA and MIL) Landings = & Mil. Qualifying (GA and MIL) Landings 7,300
Airport Ratio Value (ARV) =
ARV X Percent Runway Use = ––––Runway Ratio Value
QUALIFIED -1.0 or greater Runway Ratio Value
*UNQUALIFIED -Less than 1.0 Runway Ratio Value
*See Order 8260.18 for safety qualification consideration.
Page 2-64 Fig 2-21

8/11/94 8200.34
FIGURE 2-22. APS-1 -VASI/PAPI VFR
ESTABLISH VASI/PAPI (VFR ONLY)
(APS-1, Paragraph 31, Pages 37-40) Date ____________ __
General Data
Airport Name: Ident.:
Runway Number:
Data Source: ( T) TAF: (F) FAA 5010: ( 0) Other:
Date (Year) of Data:
Air Carrier Ops. divided by 2 = ACR Landings
Air Taxi Ops. divided by 2 = ATX Landings
Gen. Av. Ops. divided by 2 = GA Landings
+
Military Ops. divided by 2 = Mil Landings
Total GA & Mil Landings __________ __
Number of Runways at this Airport: ________ _
No ILS is installed or programmed for this runway. True/False ____ _
Number and type of VASI/PAPI already installed or programmed for other runway ends at this airport. ________________________________ __
% Landing Utilization for this runway (Ref.
Benefit/Cost Calculations {Paragra:Rh
Non-ILS OR
Air Carrier Recorded Ldgs. = Qualifying Ldgs. 6,000
+
Air Taxi Recorded Ldgs. = Qualifying Ldgs. 8,500
+
Gen. Av. Recorded Ldgs. = & Mil. Qualifying Ldgs. 14,000
Total Ldgs X Percent Runway Use =
QUALIFIED -1.0 or greater Net Ratio Value
*UNQUALIFIED -Less than 1.0 Net Ratio Value. Table, Page 4 0) •
31c)
ILS
= 0
0
+ = 28,000
+ = 18,000
Totals
Net Ratio Value
*See Para. 31e, page 40 for special qualifying considerations.
Fig 2-22 Page 2-65

8200.34 8/11/94
FIGURE 2-23. APS-1 -ABBREVIATED ILS/MLS
ESTABLISH CATEGORY I MLS OR ILS (WITH MALSR)
(APS-1, Paragraph 20, Pages 11-14) Date ____________ __
Airport Ident Runway Number
Benefit/Cost Calculations (Paragraph 20b)
(Recorded AlA's) =
Air Carrier (Qualifying AlA's)
Air Taxi (Recorded AlA's)
(Qualifying AlA's)
Gen. Aviation (Recorded AlA's)
(Qualifying AlA's)
Military (Recorded AlA's)
(Qualifying AIA's)
Percent of Runway Use-IFR X
QUALIFIED -1.0 or Greater Total Ratio
*UNQUALIFIED -Less than 1.0 Total Ratio. (Total)
*(See Supplemental Criteria -Commercial Service
Airports/Reliever Airports, paragraph 20d/e.) =
=
= +
+
+
Total
=
Total Ratio
FIGURE 2-24. APS-1 -ABBREVIATED SUPPLEMENTAL ILS/MLS
SUPPLEMENTAL CRITERIA FOR MLS/ILS ESTABLISHMENT AT
COMMERCIAL SERVICE AIRPORTS
(APS-1, Paragraph 20d, Page 14) Date ____________ __
Airport Ident Runway Number
Benefit/Cost Calculations
Determine the Total Ratio value of the primary runway at the
associated hub airport under paragraph 20b.
Hub Ident.:
The Total Ratio for the hub is
Commercial Service Airport Ratio =
Hub Primary Runway Total Ratio = +
2
QUALIFIED -1.0 or greater Combined Total Ratio.
UNQUALIFIED -Less than 1.0 Combined Total Ratio.
Page 2-66 = Combined
Total Ratio
Fig 2-23

8/11/94 8200.34
FIGURE 2-25. APS-1 -ABBREVIATED RVR PRECISION
ESTABLISH RVR WITH ILS OR MLS
(APS-1, Paragraph 21.c.(1), Page 16) Date ____________ _
Airport !dent Runway Number
Benefit/Cost Calculations -Tables 2lc(1)(a)/(b)/(c)
Air Carrier (Recorded AlA's) = 145 145 +
(Recorded 0Rerations) = 6,500 6,500 +
Air Taxi (Recorded AlA's) = 10,000 10,000 +
(Recorded Oeerations) = 73,000 73,000 +
Gen. Aviation (Recorded AlA's) = 8,900 8,900 +
Military (Recorded AlA's) = 1,900 1,900
(Subtotal A)
Subtotal A: –––X #SDF: = (Subtotal B)
Subtotal B: –––x Runway Use-IFR = Phase I Value
QUALIFIED -1.0 or greater Phase I Value
UNQUALIFIED -Less than 1.0 Phase I Value
#SDF-System Design Factor for first RVR 1.0; subsequent RVR 3.17.
FIGURE 2-26. APS-1 -ABBREVIATED LOCALIZER
ESTABLISH LOCALIZER AND MARKER BEACON
(Non-Precision Aeeroach)
(APS-1, Paragraph 22a, Page 17) Date ____________ _
Airport !dent Runway Number
Benefit/Cost Calculations, Paraqraeh 22.a
(Total Recorded AlA's) = Total Ratio (AlA's)
(Qualifying AlA's 200) 200
(OR)
(Total Recorded AEP's) = Total Ratio (AEP's)
(Qualifying AEP's 1,825) 1,825
QUALIFIED- 1.0 or greater Total Ratio (AIA), or
1.0 or greater Total Ratio (AEP).
UNQUALIFIED -Less than 1.0 Total Ratio AIA, and
Less than 1.0 Total Ratio AEP
NOTE: A DME may be substituted for the marker beacon if it ~s
necessary to achieve 400-1 minimums or to provide opposite
direction approach capability.
Fig 2-25 Page 2-67

8200.34 8/11/94
FIGURE 2-27. APS-1 -ABBREVIATED TVOR
ESTABLISH TVOR (NON-PRECISION APPROACH)
(APS 1, Paragraph 22a(2), Pages 17-18) Date ____________ __
Airport Ident Runway Number
Benefit/Cost Calculations
(Total Recorded AlA's)
(Qualifying AlA's 200)
(OR) _________ = ____________ Total Ratio (AlA's)
200
(Total Recorded AEP's)
(Qualifying AEP's 1,825) _________ = ____________ Total Ratio (AEP's)
1,825
QUALIFIED- 1.0 or greater Total Ratio (AIA), or
1.0 or greater Total Ratio (AEP).
UNQUALIFIED -Less than 1.0 Total Ratio AIA, and
Less than 1.0 Total Ratio AEP
NOTE: A DME may also be considered for new or existing TVOR
locations provided justification is submitted indicating it would
provide more efficient handling of air traffic, a reduction of
the adverse effect of obstructions on landing minima, or an
otherwise tangible improvement in the IFR capability of the
airport.
FIGURE 2-28. APS-1 -ABBREVIATED DME WITH LOCALIZER
ESTABLISHED DME (WITH LOCALIZER)
(APS-1, Paragraph 22a(3), Pages 18-21) Date ____________ __
Airport Ident
Air Carrier
Air Taxi
Gen. Aviation
Military Runway Number
Benefit/Cost Calculations
Paragraph 22a(J)(a) and *Table 22a(3)
(Recorded AlA's) =
*(Qualifying AlA's) * +
(Recorded AlA's) =
*(Qualifying AlA's) * +
& (Recorded AlA's) =
*(Qualifying AlA's) *
Total Ratio Value
QUALIFIED -1.0 or greater Total Ratio Value
UNQUALIFIED -Less than 1.0 Total Ratio Value
Page 2-68 Fig 2-27

8/11/94 8200.34
FIGURE 2-29. APS-1 -ABBREVIATED VASI/PAPI ROR-PRECISIOR
ESTABLISH VASI/PAPI (NON-PRECISION APPROACH)
(APS-1, Paragraph 22a(4), Page 22) Date __________ _
Airport !dent ––––– Runway Number
Benefit/Cost Calculations
Paragraph 22a(4), Page 22 and Paragraph 3lc(3) Table, Page 39
(Total Recorded Landings)
(Qualifying Landings -4,000)
(Total Recorded AlA's)
(Qualifying AlA's -120) 4,000
–––120 =
+
=
____________ Total Ratio
QUALIFIED -1.0 or greater Total Ratio
UNQUALIFIED -Less than 1.0 Total Ratio
FIGURE 2-30. APS-1 -ABBREVIATED .MALS/ODALS ROR-PRECISIOR
ESTABLISH MALS OR ODALS (NON-PRECISION APPROACH)
(APS-1, Paragraph 22a(5)(a)/(b), Page 22) Date ____________ _
Airport !dent Runway Number ________ _
Benefit/Cost Calculations
Paragraph 22a(5)(a) and Paragraph 22a(5)(b)
(Total Recorded AlA's)
(Qualifying AlA's 300)
(OR) –~~–=– __________ Total Ratio (AlA's)
300
(Total Recorded AEP's)
(Qualifying AEP's 2,725) –~~~= ____________ Total Ratio (AEP's)
2,725
QUALIFIED- 1.0 or greater Total Ratio (AIA), or
1.0 or greater Total Ratio (AEP).
UNQUALIFIED -Less than 1.0 Total Ratio AIA, and
Less than 1.0 Total Ratio AEP.
NOTE: ODALS may be installed in lieu of MALS if the non-preci­
sion approach aid does not permit a straight-in approach or
operational conditions require a curved flight path to a specific
runway.
Fig 2-29 Page 2-69

8200.34 8/11/94
FIGURE 2-31. APS-1 -ABBREVIATED REIL
ESTABLISH REIL
(APS-1, Paragraph 30, Pages 35-37) Date ____________ __
Airport !dent Runway Number
Benefit/Cost Calculations, Paragraph 30a(4)(a)
Air Carrier Recorded (AC} Landings = Qualifying (AC) Landings 4,900 +
Air Taxi Recorded (AT} Landings = Qualifying (AT) Landings 1,200 +
Gen. Av. Recorded (GA and MIL} Landings = & Mil. Qualifying (GA and MIL) Landings 7,300
Airport Ratio Value (ARV) =
ARV ________ x Percent Runway Use _______ = ________ Runway Ratio Value
QUALIFIED -1.0 or greater Runway Ratio Value
*UNQUALIFIED -Less than 1.0 Runway Ratio Value
*See Order 8260.18 for safety qualification consideration.
FIGURE 2-32. APS-1 -ABBREVIATED VASI/PAPI VFR
ESTABLISH VASI/PAPI (VFR ONLY)
(APS-1, Paragraph 31, Pages 37-40) Date ____________ __
Airport !dent Runway Number
Benefit/Cost Calculations (Paragraph 31c}
Non-ILS OR ILS
Air Carrier Recorded Ldgs. = Qualifying Ldgs. 6,000 + 0
Air Taxi Recorded Ldgs. = Qualifying Ldgs. 8,500 + 28,000
Gen. Av. Recorded Ldgs. = & Mil. Qualifying Ldgs. 14,000 18,000
Totals
Net Ratio Total Ldgs X Percent Runway Use –––
QUALIFIED -1.0 or greater Net Ratio Value
*UNQUALIFIED -Less than 1.0 Net Ratio Value. =
=
=
*See Paragraph 3le, page 40 for special qualifying consider-
ations. 0
Value
Page 2-70 Fig 2-31

8/11/94
SECTIOlf 5.
260. GENERAL. This section
will detail the thought pro­
cesses for determining candi­
dates for yearly F&E submis­
sions and provide guidance for
actual submissions. Numerous
job aids and examples are in­
cluded. Although the intent of
this handbook is to standardize
FPB operations, regions may
have different established pro­
cedures and directives for the
F&E process and for submission
requirements. This section
should be used to supplement
regional procedures and to
standardize operations where no
guidance is provided.
261. CANDIDATE DECISIONS.
During normal day-to-day opera­
tions throughout the calendar
year, the F&E inspector will
become aware of numerous possi­
ble candidates for terminal
navaids and lighting systems.
Unsolicited proposals will be
randomly received from various
sources by letters, telephone
calls, and meetings. In some
cases, an APS-1 BCR may already
have been required. A good FPB
record-keeping system is a ne­
cessity.
a. Old Candidates. A key
input for candidate lists is
feedback received on prior FY
F&E submissions. The inspector
should review and evaluate
these candidates based on which
were validated and funded,
which were deferred, and which
were non-validated. This eval­
uation is normally the first
step in the FPB F&E candidate
identification process.
Par 260 8200.34
F&E SUBMISSIOlfS
b. New Candidate Input.
Beside using a day-to-day re­
cord keeping system, new candi­
date input should be solicited
by one regional directive/let­ter or operational divisions
letters. Most regions use one
of these methods. Input is
particularly important from FAA
field offices and organizations
outside the agency such as
state aviation directors and
Air Transport Association of
America ( ATA) •
( 1) Timely candidate
solicitation is important so
the F&E inspector has suf­
ficient time to perform re­
quired analysis, identify qual­
ified candidates, complete re­
quired justifications, estab­
lish priorities, and format,
type, and finalize the submis­
sion.
(2) The solicitations
should be sent no later than
the end of May or as directed
in regional F&E guidance. A
May date will normally allow
sufficient time for the re­
sponses to be sent to the re­
gion and for the F&E inspector
to complete the analysis and
submission.
c. Candidate Priority.
Regional priorities are impor­
tant because the higher the
priority attached to the candi­
date location, the better the
chance exists for the candidate
to survive the review process
and to achieve funding approval
by Congress. For the submitted
lists, the F&E inspector nor-
Page 2-71

8200.34
mally establishes the priority
of qualified candidates, but in
some cases, priorities may be
dictated by the Call. The sub­
mission list figures at the end
of this section illustrate pri­
ority listings.
( 1) The list priori­
ties may be arranged in de­
scending numerical values based
on the individual candidate's
BCR' s. Some Call i terns may
require this priority.
( 2 ) Some Call i terns
specify a priority based on
specific criteria with designa­
tions of 1a, 1b, etc. Submis­
sions shall specify these pri­
orities.
( 3) When the F&E in­
spector is aware of other over­
riding concerns, the numerical
priorities within some listings
may be adjusted to reflect ur­
gencies and practical reali­
ties. Situations leading to
priority adjustments other than
by BCR could include critical
operational or safety needs,
known regional objectives, ur­
gent time-frames, aviation user
group interest, etc.
(4) The F&E inspector
may wish to consult individuals
within the branch or other of­
fices before finalizing the
priority lists. Unknown fac­
tors may surface that may
change the list.
( 5) The final lists
will be reviewed by the appro­
priate regional committees and
approved by the Regional Admin­
istrator.
Page 2-72 8/11/94
d. Candidate Quantity.
Determining the number of can­
didates to submit for each Call
item can be a difficult task.
If the list of qualifying can­
didates is very long, hard de­
cisions have to be made to se­
lect how many should be includ­
ed and how many to submit in
later fiscal years. Typically,
less money is available than is
desired, -but occasionally, some
regions have few or no candi­
dates for certain Call items.
(1) Submitting there­
gion's fair share of a Call
item is the most commonly used
method of determining submis­
sions numbers.
(a) Each of the
Call items has a dollar amount
and, in some cases, the number
of locations. Although these
numbers are not always what are
eventually appropriated by Con­
gress, they are the indicators
as to the number of locations
that each region should submit.
(b) Each reg ion
has a percentage of the total
aviation activity and public
use airports. With this per­
centage, the F&E inspector can
determine the fair share for
the region. If this percentage
is not known, the percentage of
the dollar amount from the re­
gional originated within-ceil­
ing projects, in appendix 3 of
the Call, can be used.
(c) If location
numbers are included in the
Call, the regional percentage
of that number is the region's
fair share. If location num­
bers are not included, the re-
Par 261

8/11/94
gional percentage of the dollar
amount ~s the region's fair
share. Airway Facilities per­
sonnel can provide average in­
stallation costs for that Call
item to equate dollars to loca­
tion numbers.
(d) The F&E in­
spector should submit the re­
gion's fair share plus a rea­
sonable additional number. The
reason for the additional num­
ber are many. Some candidates
will be "dropped out" anyway
and having too many is not a
detriment. Some regions may
not submit their fair share
allowing the additional loca­
tions to be funded. Also,
safety or congressional inter­
ests may produce over estimate
funding. Even though this is a
rare occurrence, candidate lo­
cations will be available in
Washington to quickly add to a
budget.
(e) An excessive
number of candidates should not
be submitted. Unreasonably
excessive lists create an enor­
mous workload for Airway Facil­
ities for site studies, cost
estimates, and equipment lists.
An added workload is also
placed on headquarters review
personnel if the full list is
submitted by the region.
(2) Rather than using
the fair share method of deter­
mining submission numbers, past
appropriations may be used. If
the region is typically funded
for two systems, the system list should be three or four.
If a list of 10 is normally
submitted, numbers should be
decreased. However, Call word-
Par 261 8200.34
ing and region or headquarters
submission policies may require
an extensive list and should
not be decreased.
(3) The above guidance
cannot account for every situa­
tion. The most important con­
sideration for submission num­
bers is NEED. If the region
needs five ILS' s that fiscal
year and one ILS is the
region's fair share, then sub­
mit for the five ILS's, rather
than one fair share and one
extra. Not all candidates may
pass the headquarter's review
process, but F&E inspectors
determine and submit the loca­
tion numbers needed. Converse­
ly, if no ILS's are really
needed that fiscal year, do not
submit for that budget item.
This action will increase the
possibly of funding for regions
having a greater need.
262. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
IN THE CALL AND APS-1. The
National Call for Estimates and
APS-1 may require specific doc­
umentation to be included in
the regional submission. This
paragraph contains an explana­
tion of these requirements and
examples for which the F&E in­
spector is responsible.
a. Reason for Special
Documentation. After the re­
gion submits an FY F&E budget,
an extensive review process is
necessary before actual appro­
priation. Many individuals
scrutinize the lists. When
determining which candidates to
forward to higher levels of
review, more information is
needed besides regional priori­
ties and BCR' s. Information
Page 2-73

8200.34
such as proposed runway con­
struction, unique safety is­
sues, figures in the BCR calcu­
lation, capacity issues, and
proposed traffic increases are
important points when consider­
ing which candidates should be
forwarded and which should be
"dropped out". Also, in some
cases, the APS-1 calculation
methodology is required to com­
plete the review or phase II
study in Washington.
b. When to Complete Addi­
tional Documentation. The best
time to complete these special
requirements is at the time the
BCR is completed and the deci­
sion is made to possibly in­
clude that facility in the
Flight Standards submission.
At that time, all the data and
specifics are known about the
airport or runway. Waiting
until the total submission is
put together can lead to perti­
nent information not being in­
cluded in the justification or
an added review of all data
would be required. Even if the
facility does not make the re­
gional list, the additional
documentation can serve as a
reminder for upcoming fiscal
years and small changes can
bring the information up-to­
date.
c. ILS Staff Study and
Data Sheet. The Call currently
requires a staff study and data
sheet to be completed for all
ILS candidates. Figures 2-33,
2-34, and 2-35 contain the ILS
Staff Study Guide, ILS Data
Worksheet, and Instructions for
ILS Data Worksheet. The next
three figures are completed
examples of a BCR, staff study,
Page 2-74 8/11/94
and data worksheet. When the
BCR is completed, much of the
information is needed for the
staff study and worksheet.
This is why all should be com­
pleted at the same time. Note
that the sample staff study has
more information than the mini­
mum required in the staff study
guide. A concerted effort
should be made to include all
pertinent information in the
staff study. Part of the study
should include results of a
coordinated ILS study, includ­
ing input from Airway Facili­
ties, Air Traffic, and Air­
ports.
d. Other Staff Study Re­
quirements. Throughout the
Call, and especially in APS-1,
references are made to "justi­
fication" or "additional justi­
fication" that is required when
the Call or APS-1 criteria were
not met or submissions were
made under appendix 3 of the
Call for regional within-ceil­
ing and overceiling projects.
These justifications for Flight
Standards submissions shall be
in a staff study format.
( 1) The simple staff
study format of three headings
(problem, solution, and re­
marks, if required) is normally
sufficient for these justifica­
tions.
( 2)
studies are
ples. See
2-40. Two sample staff
included as exam­
Figures 2-39 and
263. ASSOCIATED PROBLEMS AND
CONSIDERATIONS FOR SUBMISSIONS.
This chapter has described the
processes and procedures for
Par 262

8/11/94
evaluating sites to be included
in FPB F&E budget submissions.
Guidance is provided so that
the inspector understands the
F&E process, knows how to use
the appropriate directives and
job aids, and can accurately
and confidently submit a list
of needed facilities. This
process is work intensive and
has been simplified as much as
possible. However, there ex­ists problems and considera­
tions that the inspector must
understand which may complicate
the oversimplified processes
previously described.
a. The Draft Call. The
items and dollar amounts in­
cluded in the draft Call por­
tray the programs and policies
of the FAA at the time the
draft was being completed. The
draft Call supports the FAA's
CIP. 'Iihe dollar amounts are
only "best guess" because the
draft is put together nearly 3
years before Congress will leg­
islate this budget. During the
long lead time, programs and
policies may change.
(1) The FAA is part of
the executive branch of govern­
ment and many of the FAA's pro­
grams and policies may change
based on the emphasis and di­
rection of governmental policy
makers. The state of the econ­
omy and overall budget consid­
erations effect these deci­
sions. The President, OMB,
DOT, and even the FAA may de­
termine changes in direction or
spending are required. Conse­
quently, the budget submitted
to Congress may be considerably
different from the contents of
the draft Call.
Par 263 8200.34
( 2) Congress, as the
legislative branch of govern­
ment, legislates and appropri­
ates the F&E budget. Again,
based on the law passed by Con­
gress, changes to programs and
policies may occur. Congress
may delete a specific program
or even legislate facilities to
be installed at specific named
sites.
(3) The F&E inspector
may become frustrated to see
deserving candidates not being
funded. Candidate airport A
may not even be forwarded to
DOT for consideration, while
airport B may be funded for a
facility when it was not even
submitted. Inspectors must be
aware that decisions are made
that are beyond their control
and that programs and policies
can change or be changed as a
given FY budget progresses
through the budget process.
The draft Call is only the
original guide. The inspector
should not be discouraged and
deserving candidates must be
tracked and resubmitted, if not
approved.
b. Phase II Evaluations.
Many of the facility candidates
require a Phase II evaluation.
These are required by APS-1 or
the Call and are accomplished
in Washington.
(1) The simplified
criteria contained in APS-1 are
Phase I criteria. Its purpose
is to provide minimum qualifi­
cation standards for a given
facility and site. A full ben­
efit/cost comparison is a much
more complicated process.
Page 2-75

8200.34
(2) The Phase II eval­
uations take into consideration
many more variables than just
traffic or passenger count.
Based on the specific facility
type, these computer programs
may evaluate actual dollar
amounts for installation and
maintenance over the expected
life of the facility. Type of
terrain may be considered.
Actual weather conditions, fre­
quency of bad weather, etc. may
be evaluated. Actual air traf­
fic conditions, count, and fre­
quency of congestion (in rela­
tion to weather) may be consid­
ered. The traffic count data
used is supplied by the inspec­
tor in the staff study. Fore­
cast data may be from the ADA
data base. Extremely complex
mathematical formulas are used
to complete the Phase II evalu­
ations and they portray a more
complete benefit over cost re­
lationship.
(3) The F&E inspector
should be aware that the Phase
II evaluations do not disquali­
fy a candidate that meets Phase
I criteria. However, Phase II
numerical ratios may result in
a candidate not being forwarded
to the next review level.
c. Feedback. A critical
element for the F&E inspector
is tracking the previously sub­
mitted candidates. Feedback on
the progress of a specific fis­
cal year's budget, especially
in relation to the submitted
candidates, is the only way the
inspector will know that sites
have dropped out. The inspec­
tor may want to resubmit these
sites.
Page 2-76 8/11/94
( 1) AFS is making a
concerted effort to assure
timely feedback on a given bud­
get. The inspector's main
point of contact is AFS-12.
(2) The inspector must
realize that if a site was sent
to Congress and not funded, an
immediate effort is needed to
re-insert that site location
(if desired) in the budget that is still at the region. If
this can not be accomplished,
funding may be delayed yet an­
other year while the budget in
the region is already for 2
years in the future.
(3) Sometimes, budget
feedback 1s received in the
region, especially at Airway
Facilities, before similar in­
formation is available from
AFS. A good working relation­
ship with F&E counterparts in
the other regional operational
divisions is essential for
timely exchange of budget in­
formation.
d. Data. Airport opera­
tions and AIA counts are pro­
portionally the critical data
for determining candidacy for
facilities. The inspector must
be aware that this data is
mostly from air traffic con­
trollers logging these opera­
tions as they happen or later
from the progress strips. The
controller's main responsibili­
ty is controlling air traffic
and these required counts are
only an additional duty. The
controller must also determine if the aircraft carries more
that 30 passengers which sepa­
rates air carrier from air taxi
counts. For AIA counts, the
Par 263

8/11/94
weather conditions at the time
of the approach applies, as
stated in the AIA definition in
Order 7 210. 3. Taking all these
factors into consideration, the
inspector will understand why
the data may not be absolutely
accurate.
(1) Operations for
airports without air traffic
control towers are normally
taken from the Form SOlO's for
that airport. Data from the
Form 5010 are normally con­
tracted to the state aviation
organization with reimbursement
from the FAA. The states regu­
larly update Form 5010 data
every 2 years by surveys and
site inspections. Obviously,
the traffic counts are not as
accurate as those taken by air
traffic controllers.
( 2) Even though the
data may not be accurate, it is
official FAA data and can be
used for applying APS-1 crite­
ria. This data is part of the
ADA system.
(3) The inspector does
have some data accuracy op­
tions. Report FAA-AP0-83-10,
listed as a recommended library
reference, contains a model to
estimate AlA's from total oper­
ations counts. Also, working
with Air Traffic and Airports,
the inspector may be able to
acquire more accurate data.
APO issued Report FAA-AP0-85-7,
Statistical Sampling of Air­
craft Operations at Non-Towered
Airports, which contains proce­
dures for obtaining more accu­
rate counts.
Par 263 8200.34
e. Submissions for TVOR' s.
VOR's, whether terminal or en
route, are a part of the VOR/­
DME/TACAN Network Plan. The
VOR/DME/TACAN Network Plan
identifies those facilities, by
name, to be relocated, convert­
ed, upgraded, combined, estab­
lished, replaced, or deleted to
meet the requirements of the
NAS. New equipment procurement
will be accomplished by head­
quarters.
( 1) The Network Plan
was put together from regional
input. Critical decisions were
mostly made by AF personnel, in
relation to facilities, and by
AT personnel, in relation to
facilities needed to support
aircraft traffic. Flight Stan­
dards personnel attended these
regional meetings and added
input concerning instrument
procedures. Occasionally, re­
gional requirements change and
the VOR/DME/TACAN Network Plan
must be updated.
(2) The F&E inspector
must be aware that submission
for a new TVOR does not auto­
matically change this Network
Plan. Changing the Network
Plan is a separate procedure
which must be initiated by the
regional Airway Facilities Di­
vision. -If the inspector plans
to submit for a new TVOR, take
steps ahead of time to initiate
a change to the VOR/DME/TACAN
Network Plan by contacting the
AF Network Plan representative.
Agreement by the regional Net­
work Plan members will be need­
ed before a change is forwarded
to Washington. The VOR/DME/­
TACAN Network Plan must contain
the new facility name before it
Page 2-77

8200.34
will be considered for the FAA
F&E budget.
264. THE SUBMISSION. Each
Flight Standards 200 division is responsible for preparing a
detailed submission for each FY
F&E Call for Estimates. The
submission is accomplished by
the FPB in accordance with gui­
dance provided in the annual
Call order and specific region­
al orders and requirements.
Historically, this submission
is in type-written form. How­
ever, due to the proliferation
of electronic data capabili­
ties, a computer file on a main
frame system or a floppy disk
using a common word processing
format is often required and
submitted. Computerized for­
matting allows for easy alter­
ing of candidate lists, easy
combining of all lists for the
final regional budget including
all supporting documentation,
and rapid printout of the bud­
get or individual portions.
a. Submission Copy Re-
quirements. The F&E inspector
may prepare the submission for
the signature of the Flight
Standards Division manager.
The printed package with floppy
disk may be submitted to Airway
Facilities Division and print
copies may be forwarded to Air
Traffic Division and Airports
Division for information. The
FPB F&E inspector should retain
a copy of submissions for work­
ing reference.
b. Cover Letter. A sample
cover letter for the submission
is included in Figure 2-41.
Note the paragraph on release
of budget information.
Page 2-78 8/11/94
c. Individual Facility
Lists. Examples of the facili­
ty lists are provided in Fig­
ures 2-42 through 2-46.
Past experience has shown that
all information on each candi­
date should be included on the list. Adding the information
to the list saves time and ef­
fort for regional questions and
also, the information is avail­
able on one sheet of paper for
questions from higher reviewing
authorities. Some specific
Call items require specific
information that must be list­
ed; for example, PAPI.
d. Justifications and
Special Submission Require­
ments. Include all additional
staff studies, BCR's, etc.,
that are required.
e. Other. A table of
contents or index may be in­
cluded. For easy reference,
the file names on the computer
disk could be part of the table
of contents.
f. Submission Deadlines.
Typically, the Flight Standards
F&E submission should be at the
Airway Facilities Division not
later than October 1. Meeting
this target date will enable AF
to run site specific cost esti­
mates and to finalize the F&E
budget for interdivisional re­
view in December, Regional Ad­
ministrator briefing early in
January,·and printing and for­
warding budget to Washington by
January 30. Draft individual
facility lists may be sent to
the Airway Facilities F&E Sec­
tion before the October 1 date
by mutual agreement and with
the understanding that the for-
Par 263

8/11/94
mal submissions will be forth­
coming from the Flight
Standards division manager.
265.-269. RESERVED. 8200.34
Par 264 Page 2-79

8200.34 8/11/94
FIGURE 2-33. ILS STAFF STUDY GUIDE
STAFF STUDY GUIDE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -(if warranted by complexity of the study and
associated issues).
1. INTRODUCTION
This staff study was completed by
in support of a request for a Category I ILS at
in compliance with the "FAA MLS
Transition Policy." This study examines the proposed ILS to be
purchased under (list option contained in MLS transition policy).
2. FACTS
The City of has completed extensive
construction on Airport which
included the extension of runway which now requires
precision instrument capability. Additionally, the FAA has
received numerous letters from users indicating a need for this
approach. The airport authority agrees with this requirement and
has designed the runway as a precision instrument runway. A
preliminary study indicates no known environmental consider­
ations. (Provide additional supporting information as warranted
to permit in depth analysis of the proposal. Consider at least
the following factors and provide quantifiable data where appro­
priate:
1. Safety
2. Airport and NAS capacity enhancement
3. Regional priority
4. Regional workload
5. User priority
6. Total traffic and instrument approach count
7. Benefit/cost ration
8. Passenger enplanements)
3. ANALYSIS
The Region has completed a "Phase I" fit/cost for runway at
using APS No. 1 with a resulting total ratio of
The airport had enplanements in FY
there has been scheduled turbojet operations for
years.
Page 2-80 bene­
Airport
and
Fig 2-33

8/11/94 8200.34
FIGURE 2-33. ILS STAFF STUDY GUIOE (Cont'd.)
(Sentence/paragraph on each of the applicable ''factors" listed in
the policy statement.)
4. LIST OPTIONS (as applicable)
Consider that ILS's installed under this policy will be operated
and maintained for a minimum of 10 years from the date of commis­
sioning. Why must this site receive ILS versus MLS?
5. CONCLUSIONS
The Region has determined that there is a criti­
cal aeronautical need to provide a precision instrument approach
(ILS) at Airport, runway , with
MALSR. This will fulfill an FAA objective to provide increased
(safety, capacity, traffic flow, user capability, etc.) within
the metropolitan area.
Fig 2-33 Page 2-81

8200.34 8/11/94
FIGURE 2-34. IRSTRUCTIORS FOR ILS DATA WORKSHEET
ILS Worksheet
Item 1, 2, and 3: Self-explanatory.
Item 4: Use identifier listed in Order 7350.5.
Item 5: Self-explanatory.
Item 6: Use existing length and width, if less than 4,200 (per
APS No. 1), justify installation.
Item 7 & 8: As designated in the "National Plan of Integrated
Airport Systems" (NPIAS).
Item 9: Use minima for the largest category of aircraft utiliz­
ing the runway in question.
Item 10: As indicated in Order 7031.2, paragraph 20B.
Item 11: Indicate the number of ILS's currently installed.
(Include in number any ILS that have been approved for installa­
tion but have not been installed.)
Item 12: Best estimate of lowest minima obtainable. If greater
than 200-1/2, explain in staff study.
Item 13, 14, 15: Self explanatory.
Item 16: Indicate up to three air carrier operators by designat­
ed letter identifier.
Item 17: Category II/III submittal only.
Item 18: Indicate total AIA's for the airport by category of
user as indicated.
Item 19, 20, 21: Self-explanatory.
Item 22: Compute total ratio in accordance with Order 7031.2,
paragraph 20b, or for a Category II/III system upgrade use air
carrier AIA's divided by 2500 equals total ratio.
Item 23: Category II/III submittal only.
Page 2-82 Fig 2-34

8/11/94 8200.34
FIGURE 2-34. IBSTRUCTIORS FOR ILS DATA WORKSHEET (Coot'd.)
Item 24: Copy of letter from airport authority (Airport Manager)
that states: 1. A desire for Category II/III; 2. Understands
requirement for center line and touchdown zone lights, etc.
Item 25: For Category II/III only; show columns 5 and 6 cumula­
tive data ("all") from "Ceiling-Visibility Climatological Study
and System Enhancement Factors," DOT-FA75WAI-547.
Item 26 & 27: Self explanatory.
Fig 2-34 Page 2-83

8200.34 8/11/94
FIGURE 2-35. ILS DATA WORKSHEET
ILS DATA WORKSHEET
Proposal for ILS, part 171 –– AIP ––- F&E ––-
1. CITY: 2. STATE:
3. AIRPORT NAME: 4. IDENTIFIER:
5. RUNWAY NUMBER: 6. RUNWAY LENGTH AND WIDTH:
7. RELIEVER (YES/NO): 8. HUB (YES/NO):
9. NON-PRECISION APPROACH MINIMA:
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16. ESTIMATED IFR USE ON CANDIDATE RUNWAY:
TOTAL ILS SYSTEMS:
POTENTIAL LOWEST ILS MINIMA:
CATEGORY ILS REQUESTED: CAT I
ALS: CURRENT REQUIRED
PART 135/121 SCHEDULED PASSENGER SERVICE
SCHEDULED AIR CARRIER IDENTIFIERS (up to
TURBOJET
1.
2.
3. YES/NO YES/NO
YES/NO CAT II/III
(YES/NO):
three): %
17. A PERCENT OF CATEGORY II/III EQUIPPED AIR CARRIERS USING THE
AIRPORT %
18. ACTUAL INSTRUMENT APPROACH DATA
AIR CARRIER AIR TAXI GENERAL AVIATION MILITARY 1. FY __ _
2. FY
3. FY
Page 2-84 Fig 2-35

8/11/94 8200.34
F:IGURE 2-35. :ILS DATA WORKSHEET (Cont'd.)
19. AIA DATA SOURCE:
AIR TRAFFIC ACTIVITY/TAP:
SURVEY:
ESTIMATE:
20. ENPLANEMENT DATA:
TOTAL ENPLANEMENT
1. FY __ _
2. FY
3. FY __ _
21. FORECAST ENPLANEMENTS FOR YEAR OF INSTALLATION:
22. TOTAL RATIO:
23. AIR CARRIER COMMITMENT LETTER (for Category II/III only):
24. AIRPORT SPONSOR COMMITMENT LETTER (for Category II/III
only) :
25. WEATHER DATA FOR CATEGORY II/III QUALIFICATION:
COLUMN 5 "ALL" COLUMN 6 "ALL"
26. SITE PREPARATION AND ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT INFORMATION:
A. WILL AIP FUNDS BE REQUIRED FOR SITE PREPARATION? YES/NO
IF SO, ESTIMATE TOTAL FEDERAL FUNDS REQUIRED
B. FOR CATEGORY II/III, WHAT RVR EQUIPMENT IS REQUIRED
ESTIMATE TOTAL FEDERAL FUNDS REQUIRED ––––––
27. SUMMARY OF EQUIPMENT REQUIRED
Fig 2-35 Page 2-85

8200.34 8/11/94
FIGURE 2-36. SAMPLE ILS BCR
ESTABLISH CATEGORY I MLS OR ILS (WITH MALSR)
(APS-1, Paragraph 20, Pages 11-14)
Date 8/8/90
General Data
Airport Name : Ocean View Airport
Runway Number __ =1~6=L~–!dent. KFOG
Data Source: (T) TAF: X (F) FAA 5010: ____ _ (0) Other __________ _
Date (Year) of Data: 1989
Air Carrier AIA's: 269 ––==–-Air Taxi AIA's: 208 ––=-=–=–
Gen. Aviation AIA's: 122 –==–-Military AIA's: _____ -=8~4 __ __
Runway Length (in Feet) 8200
Runway Width (in Feet) 150 (at least 4,200 feet required)
(at least 75 feet required)
Is this a HUB? X (Yes); __ (No)
Enter Percent of Runway Use-IFR 30%
Lowest Ceiling Published for Largest Aircraft 722 (circling)
Lowest Visibility Published for Largest Aircraft 2 1/2
Benefit/Cost Calculations (Paragraph 20b)
(Recorded AlA's) 269 = Air Carrier (Qualifying AlA's) 50
Air Taxi (Recorded AlA's) 208 =
(Qualifying AlA's) 300
Gen. Aviation (Recorded AlA's) 122 =
(Qualifying AlA's) 900
Military (Recorded AlA's)
(Qualifying AlA's) –=8…::.4 _____ =
450 5.38
+
.69
+
.14
+
.19
6.4
Total
Percent of Runway Use-IFR __ ~·=3~0 ___ X –-~6~·~4 ____ = –––~1=·~9~2~
(Total) Total Ratio
QUALIFIED -1.0 or Greater Total Ratio
*UNQUALIFIED -Less than 1.0 Total Ratio.
*(See Supplemental Criteria -Commercial Service Air­
ports/Reliever Airports, paragraph 20d/e.)
Page 2-86 Fig 2-36

8/11/94 8200.34
FIGURE 2-37 • SAMPLE COMPLETED ILS STAFF STUDY
1. INTRODUCTION STAFF STUDY
ILS, OCEAN VIEW AIRPORT, RWY 16L
FY 93 F&E BUDGET SUBMITTAL
This staff study was completed by the Flight Procedures Branch,
AWP-220, in support of a request for a Category I ILS, runway
16L, at Ocean View Airport, Fog Island, Arizona, in compliance
with the "FAA MLS Transition Policy."
This request meets the following eligibility criteria:
a. MLS establishment criteria contained in APS No. 1 with a
current benefit/cost ratio greater than 1.0.
b. Located at a medium hub airport as defined in the "Na­
tional Plan of Integrated Airport Systems".
c. Due to the nearly completed new runways (16L/34R), the
forecast of increased activity indicates there is an immediate
requirement to install precision approach capability and insti­
tute simultaneous ILS procedures with runway 16R. This capacity
increase necessity cannot be delayed until MLS becomes available.
2. FACTS
Ocean County is completing extensive construction of Runway
16L/34R at Ocean View Airport. In addition, the passenger
terminal has been modernized, new concrete ramps and 15 new gates
were constructed, and the general aviation ramp area was greatly
expanded. The Fixed Base Operator, G. Straight Enterprises, is
also developing ocean front property and advertising nationwide
for fly-in vacation sites.
Air carrier operators have agreed to increase scheduled flights
and hub operations at the airport expecting dual ILS procedures
to separate general aviation traffic from the air carrier traf­
fic. The necessary Air Traffic Control Tower equipment, person­
nel, and training were included in the FY92 and FY93 budgets.
Fog Island has residential and commercial property available, an
excellent beach, deep sea fishing and whale watching excursions
from the 4 marinas, a wilderness area, and a national wildlife
refuge consisting of both semidesert and seashore areas. As
development continues, the FY89 enplanements of 34,670 are
expected to increase to 50,000 in 1996 and the FY89 general
Fig 2-37 Page 2-87

8200.34 8/11/94
FIGURE 2-37. SAMPLE COMPLETED ILS STAFF STUDY (Con't'd.)
aviation annual instrument approaches of 122 should reach 200 in
1996. These forecasts are based on a private, county contracted
study completed in 1986 and was used to justify the extensive
airport construction.
The new runway was needed to service the expected increase in air
traffic for the Fog Island recreation area and now requires
precision instrument capability. The airport authority agrees
with this requirement and has designated the runway as a preci­
sion instrument runway.
An extensive feasibility study was completed prior to runway
construction. The comprehensive evaluation considered safety,
efficiency, and environmental issues such as IFR/VFR traffic
patterns, noise issues, and final approach courses to other
nearby airports. Based on available land, ~acility siting is
feasible and there are no known environmental considerations.
3. ANALYSIS
The Western-Pacific Region has completed a "Phase I" benefit/cost
for runway 16L at Ocean View Airport using APS No. 1 with a
resulting total ratio of 1.92. The airport had 34,670
enplanements in FY89 and there have been scheduled turbojet
operations for at least 20 years.
Because of the air traffic mix of air carrier and general avia­
tion, two runways are required to separate the different aircraft
speed categories. Even in the desert environment, the close
proximity to the ocean produced 50 IFR days (or partial IFR days)
in 1989. To enhance capacity and safety, parallel precision
runways are required and simultaneous ILS approaches are planned
to effectively handle the anticipated increase of air traffic.
The new runway meets or exceeds applicable FAA directives for a
precision approach and simultaneous ILS approaches.
The airport management has effectively planned and coordinated
the construction project to satisfy air traffic growth projec­
tions. In the many past hearings attended by the user groups, all agreed with the construction plans and stressed the priority
need for dual precision runways. The Western-Pacific Region
agrees with the growth projections, even with the current econom­
ic downturn.
Page 2-88 Fig 2-37

8/11/94 8200.34
Fl:GURE 2-37. SAMPLE COMPLBU:D l:LS S~AFF STUDY (Cont' d.)
4. MLS OPTION
Ocean View Airport is in need of a precision approach for the new
runway to effectively handle the forecasted increase in air
carrier and general aviation operations. Very few (if any) of
the users have MLS receivers at this time. This site should
receive an ILS due to the delayed implementation of MLS. MLS
implementation at this airport is doubtful prior to FY 2002.
5. CONCLUSION
The Western-Pacific Region has determined that there is a criti­
cal aeronautical need to provide a precision instrument approach
(ILS) at Ocean View Airport, runway 16L, with MALSR. This will
fulfill an FAA objective to provide increased safety and capacity
within the Fog Island metropolitan area.
Fig 2-37 Page 2-89

8200.34 8/11/94
FXGURE 2-38. SAMPLE COMPLETED XLS DATA WORKSHEET
ILS DATA WORKSHEET
Proposal for ILS, part 171 _________ AIP ––– F&E X
1. CITY: Fog Island 2. STATE: Arizona
3. AIRPORT NAME: Ocean View Airport 4. IDENTIFIER: KFOG
5. RUNWAY NUMBER: 16L 6. RUNWAY LENGTH AND WIDTH: 8200/150
7. RELIEVER (YES/NO): No 8. HUB (YES/NO): Yes
9. NON-PRECISION APPROACH MINIMA: N/A (800-1)
10. ESTIMATED IFR USE ON CANDIDATE RUNWAY: 30 %
11. TOTAL ILS SYSTEMS: 1 Installed
12. POTENTIAL LOWEST ILS MINIMA: 200 -1/2
13. CATEGORY ILS REQUESTED: CAT I X CAT II/III
14.
15.
16. ALS: CURRENT
PART 135/121 SCHEDULED PASSENGER
SCHEDULED AIR CARRIER IDENTIFIERS
1.
2.
3. ID
AA
DL
UA TURBOJET
YES
YES
YES REQUIRED MALSR
SERVICE (YES/NO) : Yes
{up to three):
17. A PERCENT OF CATEGORY II/III EQUIPPED AIR CARRIERS USING THE
AIRPORT N/A %
18. ACTUAL INSTRUMENT APPROACH DATA
AIR CARRIER AIR TAXI GENERAL AVIATION MILITARY
1. FY 89 269 208 122 84
2. FY 88 249 175 120 93
3. FY 87 256 139 105 67
Page 2-90 Fig 2-38

8/11/94 8200.34
FIGURE 2-38. SAMPLE COMPLETED ILS DATA WORKSHEET (Cont'd.)
19. AIA DATA SOURCE:
AIR TRAFFIC ACTIVITY/TAF:
SURVEY:
ESTIMATE:
20. ENPLANEMENT DATA:
1. FY 89
2. FY 88
3. FY 87 TOTAL ENPLANEMENT
34,670
31,419
33,603 X
21. FORECAST ENPLANEMENTS FOR YEAR OF INSTALLATION:
22. TOTAL RATIO: 1.92 45,000
23. AIR CARRIER COMMITMENT LETTER (for Category II/III only):N/A
24. AIRPORT SPONSOR COMMITMENT LETTER (for Category II/III
only): N/A
25. WEATHER DATA FOR CATEGORY II/III QUALIFICATION: N/A
COLUMN 5 "ALL" COLUMN 6 "ALL"
26. SITE PREPARATION AND ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT INFORMATION:
A. WILL AIP FUNDS BE REQUIRED FOR SITE PREPARATION? NO
IF SO, ESTIMATE TOTAL FEDERAL FUNDS REQUIRED
B. FOR CATEGORY II/III, WHAT RVR EQUIPMENT IS REQUIRED
N/A
ESTIMATE TOTAL FEDERAL FUNDS REQUIRED
27. SUMMARY OF EQUIPMENT REQUIRED
MALSR, TOUCHDOWN RVR
Fig 2-38 LOC, GS, MM, LOM OR DME,
Page 2-91

8200.34 8/11/94
FIGURE 2-39. SAMPLE STAFF STUDY 1
NDB Staff Study
Establish Non-directional Beacon Locator at the outer marker, RWY
02, Lovell Field, Chattanooga, Tennessee.
PROBLEM: MORRT intersection/OM for the ILS RWY 02 approach to
Lovell Field, Chattanooga, Tennessee, does not have a collocated
non-directional beacon locator. Instead it is a fan
marker/intersection identified by the RWY 02 localizer course and
the 258 degree radial of Chattanooga VORTAC. Following are
problems as a result of not having a collocated NDB at MORRT
OM/INT:
A. Prevailing winds favor use of RWY 02 approximately 50 per­
cent of the time. In event of ILS inoperative, no backup
approach is available. Installation of NDB at MORRT would
provide a backup NDB RWY 02 approach.
B. Transition from Chattanooga VOR is required to clear air­
craft for the ILS RWY 02 approach. Installation of an NDB
at MORRT would permit direct tracking to MORRT, saving users
time and fuel.
C. Holding altitudes at MORRT are restricted to 5,000 feet.
Installation of NDB at MORRT would enable increased capabil­
ity of holding up to 10,000 feet.
D. Pilots must monitor a cross radial from Chattanooga VORTAC
to identify passage of the final approach fix. Installation
of NDB at MORRT would provide immediate identification of
passage of final approach fix.
E. Existing missed approach procedure for approaches to RWY 20
is a climbing left turn to Chattanooga VORTAC. Installation
of NDB at MORRT would permit a missed approach straight
ahead climb to MORRT.
SOLUTION: Install an NDB (LOM) collocated at MORRT outer marker.
NOTE: Consideration should be given to making this a Region item
to ensure action.
Page 2-92 Fig 2-39

8/11/94 8200.34
FIGURE 2-40. SAMPLE STAFF STUDY 2
DME Staff Study
Establish Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) at the localizer
serving the precision ILS RWY 18R and non-precision localizer RWY
18R instrument approach procedures, Orlando International Air­
port, Florida.
PROBLEM: Inability to automatically provide actual distance from
the runway to aircraft conducting the precision and non-precision
approaches to RWY 18R at Orlando International Airport.
SOLUTION: Installation of DME equipment at the localizer anten­
na, RWY 18R, Orlando International Airport.
REMARKS: 1987 landing usage for RWY 18R was 40 percent. Since
then a third parallel runway has been commissioned, and a fourth
parallel runway is projected to be commissioned September 1993.
At that time landings will be on the outboard runways with
priority given to south operations due to prevailing winds and
noise mitigation. Therefore, RWY 18R is projected to be uti­
lized at least 32 percent for landings. Due to lack of a Non­
directional Beacon (LOM), radar vectoring and positioning is
required for the ILS RWY 28R instrument approach procedure.
Installation of DME at the 18R localizer would substitute for the
lack of a LOM, and would enable use of the instrument approach
procedure without reliance on radar. This would benefit aircraft
operations, relieve controller workload and smooth traffic flow
for landings, increasing efficiency of air traffic movement at
this large hub airport.
AIA Counts
(AC/AT/GA/MIL)
4,426/465/687/55 Priority
1a
NOTE: This is important enough to include as a region funded
item, in order to assure its accomplishment.
Fig 2-40 Page 2-93

8200.34 8/11/94
FIGURE 2-41. SAMPLE FLIGHT STARDARDS COVER LETTER
t~ Memorandum
US. Deportment
Of Transpor1a11on
Federal Aviation
Administration
Subfecl: INFORMATION: FY-93 Facilities and
Equipment NAVAIDS/Visual Aids Budget
Submission Dale: SEP % a 1990
Reply to
From:Manager, Flight Standards Division, AS0-200Ann.ol: Mitchell::x:7455
To:Manager, Airway Facilities Division, AS0-400
In response to the FY-93 Draft Call for Estimates -Facilities and
Equ1pment {F&E), attached are the candidate locations, priorities
and supporting data for terminal area air navigation facilities
(other than radar) and visual landing aids. This information is
for the attention of your Program and Planning Branch, ~acilities
and Equipment Section, AS0-422, so that they may apply cost data.
In addition to this hard copy, a computer disc is attached (Word
Perfect 5.0 is Used).
This budget information is not for release outside the Federal
Aviation Administration, pending final action by the U.S. Congress.
Any questions should be directed to our Flight Procedures Branch,
AS0-220, Merle Mitchell, extension 7455.
Attachments
cc:
AS0-500 {all cc with attachments)
AS0-600
Page 2-94 Fig 2-41

8/11/94 8200.34
FIGURE 2-42. SAMPLE ILS LIST
ILS
Establish precision Instrument Landing System (ILS) at medium and
large hub airports and their reliever airports which meet APS-1
cost/benefit ratio of 1.0 or greater, and have an immediate critical requirement. These are all supported by an individual
staff study (copy attached). If additional information is
needed, contact Merle F. Mitchell (404) 763-7455.
%
Reg. Location AIA Counts NPI RWY B/C
Pty. ( Ident.) RWY HUB AC/AT/GA/MIL MINS Use Ratio
1. Orlando, FL 17L Large 4,426/465/ 1500-3 18 18.2
(MCO) 687/55
(ALSF-2 Required) (Category I/II/~II Required)
2. Orlando, FL 35R Large 4,426/465/ 1500-3 1 1.01
(MCO) 687/55
(MALSR Required) (Future Use 8%=8.1 B/C Ratio)
3. Memphis, TN 35 Large 8,824/2,798/ 1500-3 20 44.2
(MEM) 2,116/353
(ALSF-2 Required) (Category I/II/III Required)
4. Memphis, TN 17 Large 8,824/2,798/ 1500-3 15 33.3
(MEM) 2,116/353
(MALSR Required)
5. Knoxville, TN 23L Med. 1,203/1,141/ 700-2 15 4.6
(TYS) 1,802/459
(MALSR Required)
6. Ft. Myers, FL 24 Med. 1,771/1,160/ 600-2 30 12.0
(RSW) 398/107
(MALSR Required)
7. w. Palm Beach, 27R Large 1,348/643/ 400-1 25 2.2
FL (PBI) 1,477/39
(MALSR Required)
8. Raleigh, NC 23R Med. 8,031/3,467/ 100-1/4 50 12.3
(RDU) 3,536/322
(ALSF-2 Installed) (Category III Upgrade Required)
9. Jacksonville,
FL (JAX)
Fig 2-42 25 Med. 1,973/1,047/
1,132/564
-Last Entry -500 –
1-1/4 25 4.29
Page 2-95

8200.34 8/11/94
FIGURE 2-43. SAMPLE PAPI ROR-PRECISIOR LIST
PAPI-Non-precision
Establish Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) for straight­
in non-precision approaches. Coding 3319-0-101-B.
Total Annual RWY
Reg. Landings Total Use Net
Prty. Location ( Ident.) RWY AC/AT/GA/MIL AIA _%_ Ratio
1. Pascagoula, MS 13 0/86/23,200/ 105 50 3.35
(PGL) 0
Priority 3 -Visual Reference Deficiency
2. New Port Richey, FL 08 0/225/47,405/ 13 70 2.39
(X41) 0
Priority 3 -Visual Reference Deficiency
3. Vicksburg, MS 01 0/0/14,000/250 41 100 1. 36
(VKS)
Priority 3 -Visual Reference Deficiency
4. Cullman, AL 19 0/100/8,000/50 115 70 1. 08
(3A1)
Priority 3 -Visual Reference Deficiency
5. Cleveland, MS 17 0/0/18,425/0 26 70 1. 07
(RNV)
Priority 3 -Visual Reference Deficiency
-Last Item –
Page 2-96 Fig 2-43

8/11/94 8200.34
FIGURE 2-44. SAMPLE PAPI VISUAL LIST
PAPI-Visual
Establish Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) visual ap­
proach equipment in order to provide vertical descent guidance to
the runway. Coding 3319-0-101-A.
Annual %
Reg. Location Landings RWY Net
Pty. (I dent.) RWY AC/AT/GA/MIL Use Ratio ILS Pty.
1. Birmingham, 18 20,817/7,777 15 1.35 N lb
AL (BHM) 56,130/8,600
(Safety Factor -Turbojet)
2. New Port 08 0/275/47,405/0 70 2.39 N 3
Richey, FL
(X41)
(Safety Factor -Visual Reference Deficiency)
3. Evergreen, 18 0/0/2,400/ 70 3.32 N 3
AL (39J) 63,999
(Safety Factor -Visual Reference Deficiency)
4. Tamiami, FL 09L 0/6/148,034/ 20 2.12 N 3
(TMB) 215
(Safety Factor -Visual Reference Deficiency)
5. Fajardo, PR 07 0/24,350/1,250/ 70 2.07 N 3
(X95) 0
(Safety Factor -Visual Reference Deficiency)
6. Tamiami, FL 27L 0/0/146,317/100 15 1.57 N 3
(TMB)
(Safety Factor -Visual Reference Deficiency)
7. Lexington, 26 10,809/9,713/ 25 1.48 N 3
KY, (LEX) 40,105/1,438
(Safety Factor -Visual Reference Deficiency)
8. St. Pete., 09 1,976/566/ 20 1.21 N 3
FL (PIE) 72,786/6,047
(Safety Factor -Visual Reference Deficiency)
-Last Item –
Fig 2-44 Page 2-97

8200.34 8/11/94
FIGURE 2-45. SAMPLE REIL LIST
REIL
Establish Runway End Identification Lights (REIL) on non-preci­
sion, circling or visual runways at primarily commercial service
airports. Coding 4c(11)(a)NP.
Reg.
Prty.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0
6.
7.
8.
9. Location (!dent.) Annual
Landings
RWY AC/AT/GA/MIL
St. Thomas, VI
(STT) 28 3,863/30,344/
11,928/738
(Visual Reference Deficiency)
West Palm Beach, FL 15 0/1,000/
(LNA) 51,450/0
(Overriding Lights)
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 09R 48,606/21,258/
(FLL) 41,140/608
(Overriding Lights)
San Juan, PR 09 0/4,164/
(SIG) 47,236/1,869
(Overriding Lights)
Fajardo, PR
(X95) 25 0/24,350/
1,250/0
(Visual Reference Deficiency) RWY
Use
%
30 Net
Ratio
8.34
20 7.88
20 6.67
70 6.18
30 6.14
Isla de Vieques, PR 09 0/10,000/ 70 6.12
(VQS) 3,000/0
(Visual Reference Deficiency)
West Palm Beach, FL 09R 28,760/13,344/ 20
(PBI) 71,693/1,015
(Overriding Lights)
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 27L 45,606/21,258/ 15
(FLL) 41,140/608
Boca Raton, FL
(BCT) (Overriding Lights)
05 0/500/44,475/
25
(Overriding Lights)
-Last Entry-70 5.39
5.0
4.56
Note: Estimated total remaining requirements -100 REIL.
Page 2-98 Fig 2-45

8/11/94 8200.34
FIGURE 2-46. SAMPLE RVR LIST
RVR
Establish touchdown, RVR for Category I ILS equipped runways
which have HIRL's and approach lights, at towered airports,
Coding 34 71-0-101.
%
Reg. RWY B/C
llY.!. Location ( Ident.) RWY HUB AEP AIA Use Ratio
1. Savannah, GA 36 s 566,215 3,370 25 9.5
(SAV)
2. Nashville, TN 13 M 3,278,132 19,943 15 17.8
(BNA)
3. Asheville, NC 16 s 233,515 2,567 70 2.4
(AVL)
4. Miami, FL 12 L 11,911,364 15,464 10 35.0
(MIA)
5. Columbia, sc 05 s 632,817 4,188 15 6.1
(CAE)
6. Ft. Myers, FL 24 M 1,561,308 3,436 30 8.0
(RSW)
7. Raleigh, NC 23L M 3,185,188 15,356 25 60.6
(RDU)
8. w. Palm Bch, FL 27R L 2,394,115 3,507 25 2.2
(PBI)
9. Knoxville, TN 23L s 608,500 4,605 15 4.61
(TYS)
-Last Item –
Fig 2-46 Page 2-99 (thru 2-104)

8/11/94 8200.34
SECTIOR 6. RELATED F&E REQUIREMERTS
270. GENERAL. There are many
Flight Standards responsibili­
ties relating to the Facilities
and Equipment program that are
not part of the budget submis­
sion process covered in the
previous sections of this chap­
ter. This section will address
these functions and will dis­
cuss the regional working
groups. The Aviation Safety
Inspector assigned to F&E du­
ties is the focal point for
Flight Standards responsibili­
ties regarding Facilities and
Equipment and is expected to
provide technical expertise to
other operating divisions and
to the public.
271. REGIONAL WORKING GROUPS.
With the FAA straightline reor­
ganization in 1988, standard­
ized regional F&E policies and
procedures were recognized as a
requirement to promote effec­
tive coordination. Based on
the revised organizational re­
sponsibility and budgetary role
of the Regional Administrators,
teamwork through interorganiza­
tional working groups was per­
ceived as highly critical in
the F&E process. Some regions
were already using a division
management level Facility Re­
view Board and a working level
Interdivisional Working Group.
Flight Standards supports the
Airway Facilities attempt to
institutionalize these groups
in all regions. Order
1110.117, Regional Facilities
Review Committees and Interdiv­
isional Working Committees,
formally establishes these two
committees in the regions and
Par 270 prescribes the responsibilities
of each. The following are
regional working groups that
may be utilized for the F&E and
related programs.
a. Facilities Review Com­
mittee (FRC).
(1) Membership. The
FRC consists of Managers of the
Airway Facilities, Flight Stan­
dards, Air Traffic, and Air­
ports Divisions, with the Re­
gional Administrator (or his
deputy, if delegated) as the
chairperson. Other members may
be added as the Regional Admin­
istrator-deems necessary, with
the Budget and Logistics Divi­
sions normally participating.
The Airway Facilities Division
Manager serves as executive
secretary, schedules meetings,
and publishes minutes.
(2) Activities. The
major activity of the FRC is
oversight of the F&E staff work
accomplished by the Interdivi­
sional Working Committee
( IDWC) • The FRC approves or
disapproves the recommendations
of the IDWC in procedural mat­
ters relating to the F&E budget
process, the F&E budget to be
submitted to Washington, and
changes in budget submissions.
The FRC approves or disapproves
changes to the current F&E pro­
gram. The FRC also reviews the
Quarterly F&E Fiscal Summary
Review (FSR), together with a
review of the individJial repro­
gramming requests to be submit­
ted to Washington.
Page 2-105

8200.34
b. Interdivisional Working
Committee (IDWC).
(1) Membership. The
IDWC consists of designated
representatives of Airway Fa­
cilities, Flight Standards, Air
Traffic, and Airports, the Re­
gional Administrator, and the
Budget and Logistics Divisions.
The Airway Facilities Division
representative chairs the com­
mittee, schedules meetings, and
publishes minutes.
(2) Activities. Most
of the F&E program is completed
by informal coordination by the
representatives. At meetings,
the IDWC plans and approves the
annual F&E regional budget sub­
mission and also approves re­
gional reprogramming actions.
The IDWC recommends to the FRC
the regional and national F&E
program items in priority or­
der. The IDWC establishes sub­
working groups, such as a Navi­
gation Aids Committee, as nec­
essary. It advises the FRC if
additional regional resources
are needed for the budget pro­
cess. The IDWC assures
adequate project documentation,
airspace acceptability, and
conformance with current air­
port planning, including record
of airspace considerations,
site inspection, and airport
owner coordination, as appro­
priate. In the case of ILS/MLS
components, the IDWC assures
precision instrument runway
(PIR) designation prior to in­
clusion in the budget by devel­
oping the coordination proce­
dures to allow timely PIR des­
ignation.
Page 2-106 8/11/94
c. Regional Facility
Board. A Regional Facility
Board or similarly designated
committee may be organized (or
activated for special projects)
to coordinate commissioning,
decommissioning, and shutdowns
of both federal and nonfederal
facilities within the region.
Although not necessarily estab­
lished by the IDWC for F&E only
projects, this board serves the
important function of coordi­
nating all endeavors required
by the different divisions for
these facility actions.
272. FLIGHT STANDARDS PARTICI­
PATION IN WORKING GROUPS.
Flight Standard representation
is required on all F&E commit­
tees.
a. Facilities Review Com­
mittee (FRC). The Flight Stan­
dards Division Manager is the
member. The Flight Procedures
F&E inspector shall keep the
Manager of the Flight Proce­
dures Branch informed of the
current status of F&E projects.
The branch manager shall keep
the Flight Standards Division
Manager informed on all matters
he will be addressing as a mem­
ber of the FRC.
b. Other Groups. The FPB
F&E inspector normally serves
as the Flight Standards member
of the Interdivisional Working
Committee ( IDWC) and the Re­
gional Facility Committee. The
inspector shall represent the
Flight Standards Division in
all discussions and decisions
made by these committees. The
inspector is responsible for
flight standards input relative
to aviation safety or TERPS
Par 271

8/11/94
criteria and must determine any
necessary flight standards ac­
tions required based upon com­
mittee decisions.
2 7 3 • CHANGES TO AN F &E BUDGET.
After an FY F&E budget leaves
the region, submitted changes
to this budget can be broken
down to two types: changes
before the budget is acted on
by Congress, known as resubmis­
sions, and changes to an ap­
proved budget, known as repro­
gramming.
a. Resubmissions. Occa­
sionally, a revision to a bud­
get submission will be neces­
sary after being forwarded to
headquarters. This action will
require special handling be­
cause of the regional and Wash­
ington offices involved. Based
upon the provisions in the Call
and when revisions are neces­
sary, they should be forwarded
within 3 weeks of the due date
for the budget submission.
They should be enclosed with a
letter summarizing why they
were submitted.
(1) Resubmission Pro­
cess. All formal resubmissions
must be coordinated with the
different regional divisions or
approved by the appropriate
committees and all members.
The resubmissions are routed to
headquarters in the same manner
as the original budget.
(2) Resubmissions Af­ter the Three Week Deadline.
Because different Washington
offices are involved in the
budget review, costing, and
consolidating process, late
resubmissions are not encour-
Par 272 8200.34
aged. If it is absolutely im­
perative that a resubmission is
required after the three week
deadline, the appropriate Wash­
ington offices must be made
aware that late changes will be
forthcoming. Telephone coordi­
nation is required to help
smooth the disruptions the re­
submission will cause.
b. Minor Errors or Chang­
es. Minor errors and the need
for simple changes may be dis­
covered in the region and dur­
ing the review and costing pro­
cess in Washington. These
changes may be made to the bud­
get if they are discovered ear­
ly and are kept to an absolute
minimum. Telephone coordina­
tion with the AFS-12 specialist
is required to incorporate
these minor changes. Coordina­
tion with other headquarters
offices will then be accom­
plished by AFS. If budget
changes must be made, they
should occur while the budget
is at the FAA. Although chang­
es to a FY F&E budget while at
OST, OMB, or Congress are not
impossible, submitting changes
while the budget is at these
reviewing and approving author­
ities is not an action the FAA
desires.
c. Reprogramming Action.
The major difference between
the F&E budget and an FAA oper­
ational budget is that, once
approved and appropriated, the
money for an F&E fiscal year
may be spent anytime within 3
years of the appropriation
date. All appropriated F&E
money is held in escrow by Air­
way Facilities in Washington
until the region is ready to
Page 2-107

8200.34
begin the budgeted project.
Current F&E projects are nor­
mally reviewed by the regional
Interdivisional Working Commit­
tee ( IDWC) quarterly and ad­
justments are made as necessary
to locations or funding. These
adjustments are handled as re­
programming actions, documented
in the Fiscal Summary Review
( FSR) , and submitted to the
Facility Review Committee
( FRC) . The FRC approves the
FSR and forwards it to head­
quarters which permanently
changes the given fiscal year
F&E budget. Approved budget
changes may be made for many
reasons and the following are
prime examples.
( 1) A request by the
airport authority to change the
runway location of a facility.
(2) A determination
that there is no longer a need
for a planned F&E facility pro­
ject due to a commitment for a
nonfederal funded or Airport
Improvement Plan (AIP) funded
installation.
( 3) Lesser
funds required than
for a project. or more
budgeted
(4) A need to add ra­
dio control to lighting pro­
jects.
(5) Nonavailability of
equipment that may require a
project delay or cancellation.
(6) Delays due to the
installation contractors, run­
way/taxiway and other airport
construction, and zoning/­
environmental problems.
Page 2-108 8/11/94
d. Reprogramming for Spe­
cial Projects. Due to an air­
craft accident, accident inves­
tigation, or an unique opera­
tional requirement, a decision
may be made at FAA Headquarters
or in the region that a site
specific facility/equipment
component is needed immediate­
ly. This may simply require
the region to install the sys­
tem from material on hand and
reprogram the budget. On the
other hand, the component may
not be available in the region
and has to be borrowed from
another region or intercepted
during shipment from the manu­
facturer to another region. In
either case, two or more re­
gions are involved in the re­
programming. These are not
unusual situations and compo­
nents may be borrowed from oth­
er regions for various reasons
other than in an "emergency".
The F&E inspector may become
involved in these types of sit­
uations and must be aware that
timely coordination within the
region, with the other region,
and with AFS-12 in Washington
is critical to solving the im­
mediate installation problem
and assuring the appropriate
reprogramming actions are prop­
erly completed.
274. F&E INQUIRIES. The FPB
F&E inspector will often re­
ceive random inquiries from the
public or other government en­
tities regarding establishing
terminal facilities and
equipment for a particular air­
port. The ASI should be pre­
pared to discuss the benefit/­
cost ratio (BCR) for the spe­
cific location, TERPS criteria,
Par 273

8/11/94
and other technical matters
relating to Flight Standards.
a. Airport Improvement
Program (AIP) • This program
provides partial federal funds
to airports for capital im­
provements including funds for
facilities and equipment. The
regional Airports Division or
Airports District Office will
occasionally request Flight
Standards to complete a BCR for
terminal navigation aids based
on APS-1. Flight Standards may
provide assistance to the Air­
ports Division in determining
APS-1 requirements and comput­
ing BCR's, using the methodolo­
gy described in APS-1 and in
Section 4 of this chapter.
Flight Standards may be re­
quested to provide technical
guidance regarding TERPS crite­
ria, flight safety considera­
tions, and any special knowl­
edge they have concerning the
airport, when the regional Air­
ports Division is considering
AIP funded projects.
b. Takeover of Nonfederal
(Nonfed) Facilities. Nonfed
terminal air navigation and
approach facilities are pri­
vately owned facilities (state,
local authority, or private)
which were purchased without
federal funds or partially
funded under the Airport Im­
provement Program (AIP) • If
eligible under the APS-1 crite­
ria, the FAA may then assume
ownership, operation, mainte­
nance, and logistic support of
these facilities and equipment
provided FAA standards and re­
quirements, as outlined in ap­
plicable agency directives, are
met. The regional Airway Fa-
Par 274 8200.34
cilities (AF) Division has the
responsibility to determine if
a facility meets takeover re­
quirements and whether it
should be considered. AF may
request Flight Standards to
compute the BCR using the meth­
odology described in APS-1.
The ASI may provide AF the BCR
results and any requested tech­
nical guidance regarding appli­
cation of TERPS criteria and
possible aviation safety prob­
lems.
c. Discontinuance Inqui­
ries. On rare occasions, the
ASI may be asked by Airways
Facilities or others to conduct
a discontinuance BCR on a fa­
cility. The criteria for dis­
continuing a facility are ap­
proximately one-half that re­
quired to establish the facili­
ty. Specific discontinuance criteria for each navigation
aid are contained in APS-1.
With ever increasing air traf­
fic, the need for such a review
is rarely necessary. Condi­
tions may exist though, when a
facility becomes outmoded and
should be discontinued. If
requested, the F&E inspector
will conduct the BCR and pro­
vide any additional input that
the facility discontinuance may
have on flight procedures and
safety.
d. Congressional Inaui­
ries. Occasionally, the F&E
inspector may receive queries
from congressional sources
(congressional staff, DOT/FAA
congressional liaison, etc.)
indicating congressional inter­
est in facilities for an air­
port in their district. (Un­
less regional guidance speci-
Page 2-109

8200.34
fies a different point-of-con­
tact, inquiries to the FPB di­
rectly from congressional
staffs should be referred to
the regional public affairs
office.)
( 1) To answer these
inquiries, a BCR may have to be
completed. The inquiry may
request an update on the status
of a facility installation.
The ASI must be aware of the
status of all ongoing and pro­
posed F&E projects for which
Flight Standards has budgeting
responsibilities. When appro­
priate, coordinate with AFS-12
and other interested divisions,
especially Airway Facilities.
(2) Congressional in­
quiries are sensitive in nature
and as such, require an accu­
rate and timely response. (Al­
so see f. below.)
e. Other Inquiries. Fa­
cilities and Equipment inqui­
ries can come from any source:
state and local aviation offi­
cials, airport managers or op­
erators, flying clubs, aviation
companies, resident companies
with aircraft, resident mili­
tary organizations, profession­
al organizations, or individual
pilots. To properly discuss
and answer these inquiries, the
FPB F&E inspector must be
knowledgeable about the entire
F&E program, the status of
Flight Standards F&E projects,
possible options for getting
facilities funded and in­
stalled, TERPS, and aviation
safety considerations. A con­
cise and accurate answer must
be provided for all inquiries.
If the query is in regard to
Page 2-110 8/11/94
F&E submissions which are pend­
ing congressional action, the
information on their status
should be deferred until Con­
gress has acted.
f. Sensitivity of Submit­
ted Facilities Lists. The F&E
budget process is long and com­
plicated. Obviously, the en­tire submitted candidate list
for any facility type may not
be included in the final budget
presented to Congress by the
President. Congress, in turn,
is the final authority in de­
termining the candidates to be
funded. Because all regional
candidates will not be funded,
the FAA policy is that candi­
date lists are confidential.
(1) Of course, specif­
ic sites and the candidate lists must be discussed with
FAA regional and headquarters
personnel during the submis­
sion, coordination, and review
processes. The required confi­
dentiality does not apply with­
in the FAA.
( 2) Outside the FAA,
extreme care must be exercised
by FPB personnel answering in­
quiries concerning the specif­
ics of a given candidate list.
Although some of the individu­
als seeking F&E information may
understand our budget process,
most will not. The obvious
misconception is that regional­
ly submitted facility lists
will be appropriated by Con­
gress. The FAA does not want
to imply that installation com­
mitments are made based solely
on meeting APS-1 criteria and
being submitted by the regions.
Par 274

8/11/94
This is the reason for the con­
fidentiality policy.
( 3) Specific discus­
sions that should be avoided
are the candidate site names on
a list, number of candidates on
a list, priorities assigned to
a candidate, and supposition as
to which candidates may be ap­
proved by Congress.
( 4 ) The inspector is
not restricted from discussing
a specific facility candidate
with interested individuals.
The inspector may state that
the site was included in the
"FAA's FY 19XX Facilities &
Equipment Budget Planning Pro­
cess". However, a follow-up
statement may be required
stressing that this is only the
beginning of the "budget plan­
ning process", the adjusted FAA
budget will be submitted to
Congress by the President, Con­
gress has the final authority
over that budget, and rarely
are all the region's candidates
funded by Congress.
(5) No restrictions
apply after Congress has acted
on the FAA F&E budget. The
funded locations for the ap­
proved facilities may be dis­
cussed with all interested par­
ties.
g. Special Studies or
Proposals. Whether initiated
by the FAA or coming from out­
side the FAA, a capacity en­
hancement study which requires
a facility installation is a
specific type of inquiry re­
quiring careful review. Often,
these studies propose nonstan­
dard use or siting of terminal
Par 274 8200.34
navaids that may not meet the
criteria established in APS-1,
TERPS, or facility installation
orders. The F&E inspector
should thoroughly analyze and
comment on the proposal based
upon Flight Standards F&E obli­
gations, current Flight Stan­
dards considerations of "safety
of flight operations", and the
impact the proposal will have
on existing and planned instru­
ment approach procedures.
h. Specific Requests
from AFS-12. Occasionally, a
written request is received in
the region fromAFS-12 concern­
ing facilities related issues.
In these cases, AFS-12 is
acting as a data gathering of­
fice for information not avail­
able in headquarters. AFS-12
will normally be reacting to
requests from Congress, OMB,
OST, or upper management at FAA
Headquarters. Gathering the
requested data may be very work
intensive for the FPB. If the
data is available, the F&E in­
spector should promptly and
accurately respond to these
requests. Questions concerning
the requests can be answered by
a telephone call to AFS-12.
275. CHANGING F&E POLICY. The
FPB F&E inspector is considered
one of the prime Flight Stan­
dards sources of information on
matters pertaining to facili­
ties and equipment. As such,
the ASI has to apply the policy
and guidance provided by Head­
quarters and their region. The
inspector is also the individu­
al in the position to evaluate
the safety needs of airports in
the region. Policies may need
to be changed. If a change is
Page 2-111

8200.34
needed, the inspector should initiate a recommendation for
change through the Flight Stan­
dards Service.
a. Changes to the CIP.
The F&E program supports the
FAA's long range facilities
planning program documented in
the CIP. Consequently, the CIP is the source document for
items in the F&E Call. The F&E
inspector should discuss with
AFS-12 F&E Call changes requir­
ing new CIP initiatives. In
turn, AFS-12 will discuss with
F&E inspectors Flight Standards
policies requiring CIP changes.
( 1) At the same time
the F&E Call for Estimates is
being accomplished in the re­
gions, a similar "Call" for
new CIP initiatives is made.
Prompt regional input is impor­
tant.
(2) The CIP change
process is formal and compli­
cated. Specific forms have to
be completed and numerous Head­
quarters offices are involved.
For Flight Standards, CIP
change initiatives are the re­
sponsibility of the Technical
Analysis and Support Branch,
AFS-450. Flight Standards, and
specifically AFS-12, determine
which new CIP initiatives are
required based on current poli­
cies and regional recommenda­
tions. AFS-450 will then mar­
shal the proposed change
through the appropriate proce­
dural steps.
b. Changes to the Call.
The F&E inspector must be aware
that the draft Call they will
be using for their submissions
Page 2-112 8/11/94
is just that: a draft Call.
Changes will be made before the
Call is finally issued as an
order the following spring.
(1) Normally, small
word changes to the Call can
easily be incorporated during
meetings held to discuss the
draft Call. As an example,
guidance for evaluating candi­
dacy may need refining. AFS-12 is the point of contact.
(2) If the Flight Pro­
cedures Branch believes addi­
tional or new facilities and
equipment should be added to
the National Call for
Estimates, the F&E inspector
should discuss these types of
changes with AFS-12. CIP
change initiatives may be re­
quired to add new facilities
and equipment to the F&E Call.
Timely discussions are impor­
tant to enable completion of
the CIP change initiative pro­
cess.
(3) If CIP changes are
not required, certain Call
items may possibly be added or
incorporated within an item list; for example, a needed
localizer only installation.
(4) The F&E inspector
must be aware that there are
other methods of budgeting a
unique facility for a specific
site instead of changing the
Call to include the facility.
A VOT may be an example. Re­
gional originated within-ceil­
ing projects is one method.
Another is including the facil­
ity/site as a Flight Standards
budget submission and not a
regional submission. Close
Par 275

8/11/94
coordination is required with
AFS-12 to determine the
process and procedures for this
type of situation. This is not
a normal procedure for budget­
ing a facility and extensive
justification may be required.
c. Changes to Other F&E
Guidance. Washington level
changes or Flight Procedure
Branch proposed changes to oth­
er F&E guidance is required
from time to time. The Techni­
cal Programs Division, AFS-400, is the designated office for
receipt and coordination of
these proposals.
(1) APS-1. Certain
policy changes to APS-1 require
public involvement and will be
promulgated by rulemaking.
Whenever possible, AFS-400
will coordinate with each re­
gion on these proposed changes
prior to publication in the
Federal Register.
( 2 ) Regional Propos­
als. Proposed F&E policy and
guidance changes should be for­
warded from the Flight Stan­
dards Division to AFS-400. A
staff study may or may not be
required for the proposal. The
detail of the submissions will
depend upon the subject. Head­
quarters will evaluate the pro­
posals. AFS-400 will return
proposals when more detail and
study are required.
(3) Headquarters Ini­
tiated Chanoes. Proposed F&E
policy and guidance changes
Par 275 8200.34
will be forwarded to the re­
gions for coordination by
AFS-400. If these types of
changes arrive at the regions
without proper headquarters
coordination, AFS-400 must be
notified immediately. The
Flight Procedures Standards
Branch, AFS-420, is the primary
point of contact. F&E changes
that alter the scope of nation­
al and regional Flight Stan­
dards responsibilities and in­
volvement, without proper Head­
quarters coordination and con­
currence, are unacceptable.
276. FLIGHT STANDARDS PROJECTS
AND BUDGETING CONFLICTS.
Flight Standards sponsored pro­
jects are as important as pro­
jects proposed by Airway Facil­
ities and Air Traffic. Occa­
sionally, project budgeting or
budget reprogramming may result
in conflicts between regional
divisions.
a. Project Involvement.
The FPB F&E inspector and the
Flight Standards Division Man­
ager must be assertive in the
entire F&E process (from plan­
ning to installation) and, es­
pecially, in committee meetings
where the major decisions are
being made. Flight procedures
requirements and operational
safety projects require an ac­
tive participation by Flight
Standards personnel to assure
appropriate distribution of the
limited funding resources.
Page 2-113

8200.34
b. Conflicts. Where fa­cility need is great and F&E
funding limited, even some of
the best working relationships
can end in conflict. Common
sense, tact, and compromise
should always prevail. Con­flicts should be resolved at
the regional working level or
branch manager level, whenever
Page 2-114 8/11/94
possible. When not possible,
division level management reso­
lutions may be required with
the Regional Administrator as
mediator. If required, con­flicts may be elevated to the
appropriate Associate Adminis­
trators for resolution.
277.-299. RESERVED.
Par 276

8/11/94 8200.34
SECTIOR 7. JOB TASK 110 -DEVELOP AIR RAVIGATIOR FACILITIES
IRPUT FOR FACILITIES ARD EQUIP.MERT (F&E) BUDGET (RESERVED) (TBD*)
*TBD=TO BE DEVELOPED
Page 2-115 (thru 2-120)

8/11/94 8200.34
CHAPTER 5. OBSTRUCT! OR EVALUATIOR
SECTIOR 1.
500. PURPOSE. In support of
the regional flight procedures
program, this chapter provides
flight procedures inspectors
with a detailed explanation of
the FAA's Obstruction Evalua­
tion (OE) program and pre­
scribes the policies, criteria,
and procedures applicable to
accomplishing the OE responsi­
bilities of the regional Flight
Standards Division. Guidelines
within this chapter will stan­
dardize the inspector's OE ap­
plications.
NOTE: This chapter
discusses Obstruc­
tion Evaluations
under FAR Part 77.
Although FAR Part
121 operators are
required by FAR Sec­tions 121.97,
121.177, and 121.189
to perform a type of
obstruction evalu­
ation, this require­
ment is not directly
associated with the
FAA OE program dis­
cussed in this chap­
ter.
501. BACKGROUND. The Federal
Aviation Act of 1958 (FA Act),
and subsequent amendments, leg­
islates the FAA's responsibili­
ty for maintaining a safe Na­
tional Airspace System (NAS).
One portion of this responsi­
bility concerns Objects Affect­
ing Navigable Airspace which is
the title of FAR Part 77.
Through this regulation and
Par 500 GERERAL
internal directives, the FAA
complies with the FA Act and
evaluates objects that may have
an effect on navigable air­
space.
a. OE Handbook. The pri­
mary FAA directive concerning
the OE program is Order 7400.2,
Procedures for Handling Air­
space Matters, and specifical­
ly 1 Part 2 of the handbook,
which has the same title as FAR
Part 771 Objects Affecting Nav­
igable Airspace. Also in the
Handbook, Part 3, Airport Air­
space Analysis, discusses on­
airport construction that re­
quires an obstruction evalua­
tion.
b. OE Responsibilities.
Handbook 7400.2 specifies that
the OE program is administered
by regional Air Traffic (AT)
personnel. The System Manage­
ment Branch, (regional 530
branch),-with coordinated as­
sistance from personnel in Air­
ports, Airway Facilities (AF),
and Flight Standards 1 accom­
plishes the OE tasks. The re­
gional Flight Procedures Branch
(FPB) is primarily responsible
for accomplishing OE tasks of
Handbook 7400.2 assigned to
Flight Standards. Due to the
large volume of proposals,
obstruction evaluations can be
the most time consuming task
accomplished by the FPB.
502. STATUTORY BASIS FOR OB­
STRUCTION EVALUATIONS. The FA
Act of 1958 and the Airport and
Page 5-l

8200.34
Airway Improv7ment Act of 1982
form the pr1mary basis for
agency actions with respect to
natural obstructions or man­
made structures that may inter­
fere with or be hazardous to
air navigation and air com­
merce. The provisions and dec­
larations in these public laws
are implemented through Federal
Aviation Regulations (FAR) and
executed through the agency's
obstruction evaluation program.
The following are pertinent
portions of these statutes con­
cerning obstructions affecting
navigable airspace and an ex­
planation of the limitations
imposed by the laws.
a. FA ACT of 1958.
(1) Section 104,
Public-Right of Transit. Con­
tains a recognition and decla­
ration of the public right of
freedom of transit through the
navigable airspace of the Unit­
ed States.
(2) Section 307,
Airspace Control and Facili­
ties. Authorizes and directs
the Administrator to develop
plans for and formulate policy
with respect to the use of
the
navigable airspace; and assign
the use of the navigable air­
space under such terms, condi­
tions, and limitations as he
may deem necessary in order to
ensure the safety of aircraft
and the efficient utilization
of such airspace.
(3) Section 313,
Other Powers and Duties of the
Administrator. Empowers the
Page 5-2 8/11/94
Administrator to perform such
acts, to conduct such investi­
gations, to issue and amend
such general or special rules,
regulations and procedures,
pursuant to and consistent with
the provisions of the Act, as
he shall-deem necessary to car­
ry out the provisions of, and
to exercise and perform his
powers and duties under the
Act.
(4) Section 1001,
Conduct of Proceedings. Autho­
rizes the Administrator to con­
duct his proceedings in such a
manner as will be conducive to
the proper dispatch of business
and to the ends of justice,
subject to the provisions of
the FA Act and the Administra­
tive Procedures Act.
(5) Section 1101,
Hazards to Air Commerce. Di­
rects the Administrator to re­
quire all persons to give pub­lic notice of construction or
alteration, or of the proposed
construction or alteration, of
any structure where notice will
promote safety in air commerce.
b. Airport and Airway
Improvement Act of 1982.
(1) Section 505,
Airport Improvement Program.
Authorizes the FAA, through the
Secretary of the Department of
Transportation, to make grants
of funds for airport/heliport
development and planning.
(2) Section 509,
Submission and Approval of Pro­
ject Grant Applications. Au­
thorizes the establishment of
standards for, among other
Par 502

8/11/94
things, airport design and
safety of approaches.
(3) Section 511,
Project Sponsorship. Authoriz­
es the requiring of assurances
in writing that the aerial ap­
proaches to the airport will be
adequately cleared and protect­
ed by removing, lowering, relo­
cating, marking or lighting, or
otherwise mitigating existing
airport hazards and by prevent­
ing the establishment or cre­
ation of future airport hazards
and the requiring of assurances
in writing that appropriate
action, including the adoption
of zoning laws, has been or
will be taken, to the extent
reasonable, to restrict the use
of land adjacent to or in the
immediate vicinity of the air­
port to activities and purposes
compatible with normal airport
operation, including landing
and takeoff of aircraft.
c. Court Decisions and
the Statutes. Occasionally,
the FAA is taken to federal
court based on an individual OE
case determination. The case
is argued before a federal
judge to determine if the FAA
was "arbitrary and capricious"
in its determination. The
court will consider if the de­
termination was based on inter­
nal FAA guidance, the FAR's,
and the laws. A court's deci­
sion against the FAA normally
will stress deficiencies in the
FAA's internal guidance, proce­
dures, or the FAR's, but may
even further define the extent
or limits of the law.
d. Overview of the Stat­
utes. Many people mistakenly
Par 502 8200.34
believe that the FAA has the
authority to limit the height
of structures or prohibit con­
struction if it affects naviga­
ble airspace or air commerce.
A review of the pertinent parts
of the laws shows that there is
no specific authorization for
federal regulations which would
limit structure heights, pro­
hibit construction, or even re­
quire structures to be obstruc­
tion marked and lighted. Con­
gress chose to withhold that
authority. Since this authori­
ty would involve federal zoning
regulations and due process ac­
tions, including the taking of
property and the paying of com­
pensation, the statutes left
the matter in the hands of the
land owners and state and local
authorities.
( 1 ) The FAA' s ob­
struction evaluation program is
to a great extent dependent
upon the cooperation of con­
struction sponsors, zoning au­
thorities, government agencies,
and others who have a function
or responsibility relating to
planning, approving, or con­
structing buildings and other
structures. Much of the
program's success is traceable
to the efforts of persons en­
gaged in these activities to
conform to the FAA obstruction
standards at the outset of con­
struction planning.
(2) No judicial de­
ClSlon has been issued on the
extent to which ground struc­
tures may constitute an unlaw­
ful interference with the pub­
lic freedom of transit through
the navigable airspace recog­
nized in the FA Act. Until au-
Page 5-3

8200.34
thoritative guidance is re­
ceived or express legislative
authority is conferred on that
point, the agency actions in
the field of ground hazards to
air navigation will be limited
to the areas presently covered
in FAR Part 77.
503. REGULATORY BASIS FOR OB­
STRUCTION EVALUATIONS. By
adoption of FAR Part 7 7, the
Administrator implemented the
provision of the FA Act to ac­
complish the following: 1. Re­
quire all persons to give pub­
lic notice of proposed con­
struction or alteration of any
structure where notice will
promote safety in air commerce;
and 2. Provide the agency with
the means of exercising the
powers and authority vested in
him with respect to actions
related thereto to ensure the
safety of aircraft and the ef­
ficient utilization of naviga­
ble airspace.
a. Measures Adopted.
(1) Establishing
requirements and standards for
notice to the Administrator of
proposed construction or alter­
ation.
(2) Establishing
standards for determining ob­
structions to air navigation.
( 3) Providing for
aeronautical studies of ob­
structions to air navigation to
determine their effect on the
safe and efficient use of air­
space.
( 4 ) Providing for
public hearings and other re-
Page 5-4 8/11/94
view on the hazardous effect of
proposed construction or alter­
ation on air navigation.
(5) Publishing rec­
ommendations for the marking
and lighting of obstructions to
air navigation.
b. Notice Requirements.
The requirements for giving
notice to the Administrator of
proposed construction or alter­
ation appear in Subpart B of
FAR Part 77. The requirements
for notice are authoritative
and there is a penalty, as
specified on FAA Form 7460-1,
Notice of Proposed Construction
or Alteration, for failure to
comply.
( 1) Notice standards
are established to provide con­
struction sponsors with guide­
lines for determining whether
their construction or altera­
tion requires notice to the
FAA. Since the standards are
used principally by the non­
aeronautically orientated pub­
lic, they are designed to be
simple and easy to apply. To
determine if notice is required
a person needs only to know if
the overall height of the pro­
posed structure at its site
would exceed 200 feet above
ground, and if less than 200
feet, whether the structure
will exceed an airport slope of
100 to 1, 50 to 1, or 25 to 1.
The guidelines are specified in
the notice standards and in
Advisory Circular 70/7460-2,
Proposed Construction or Alter­
ation of Objects That May Af­
fect the Navigable Airspace,
and are applied to the nearest
airport/heliport listed in the
Par 502

8/11/94
Airport/Facility Directory and
appropriate Alaska and Pacific
supplements.
(2) Some notices
submitted to the FAA do not
actually exceed the FAR stan­
dards for giving notice. How­
ever, since the notice stan­
dards do not cover all possi­bilities which might be of in­
terest to the FAA, normally all
notices received are processed
for evaluation.
c. Obstruction Standards.
Standards for determining ob­
structions to air navigation
appear in Subpart C of Part 77.
(1) The regulations
state that only public use air­
ports, planned public use air­
ports, and military airports
are afforded protection under
FAR Part 77.
{2) The obstruction
standards are different than
those for giving notice. In
most, BUT NOT ALL cases 1 the
obstruction standards are less
restrictive than the notice
requirements. An exception is
the construction of an obstruc­
tion under 200 feet AGL and
below the 100 to 1 surface,
which will have an effect on an
instrument approach minimum
altitude, thus exceeding FAR
Part 77.23(a){3).
(3) The obstruction
standards have several func­
tions, the most important is to
identify ground structures that
could affect air navigation.
If a proposed obstacle does not
penetrate one of these estab­
lished obstruction standards,
Par 503 8200.34
then it is not an obstruction
to air navigation. FAA re­
quests for public comment on
proposals and the petitioning
process for determinations are
only for those proposed struc­
tures that exceed an obstruc­
tion standard.
{ 4) If a proposed
obstacle penetrates one of
these established obstruction
standards, then by definition, it is an obstruction to air
navigation.
(a) Some of the
FAR Part 77 obstruction stan­
dards are relatively simple
numerical standards associated
with the common airspace re­
quirements of airports, heli­
ports, and seaplane bases.
Known as Civil Airport Imagi­
nary Surfaces or "Part 77 Sur­
faces", they are similar to the
notice standards with specific
values assigned to all surfac­
es. These standards indirectly
serve as guidelines in airport
design and in airport zoning. It is these standards that pro­
tect the airspace needed in
aeronautical operations from
intrusion by obstructions.
(b) Other por­
tions of FAR Part 77 obstruc­
tion standards are the rela­
tively complex standards asso­
ciated with the airspace re­
quirements of airways, off-air­
way routes, all terminal opera­
tions and procedures, and VFR
operations. These standards,
although referred to in the
FAR's, are defined in appropri­
ate FAA directives.
Page 5-5

8200.34
(c) In addition
to being used to identify ob­
structions, obstruction stan­
dards are used in administering
the Airport Improvement Program
( AIP) , developing technical
standards and guidance in the
design and construction of
airports/heliports, deciding
which structures should be
marked and lighted, and deter­
mining which obstructions
should be depicted on aeronau­tical charts to warn pilots of
their presence.
(d) All struc­
tures which exceed FAA obstruc­
tion standards are obstruc­
tions. These obstructions may
or may not be hazards to air
navigation. An aeronautical
study is used to determine if
an obstruction is or is not a
hazard.
d. The Aeronautical
Study. "Aeronautical Study" is
the name given to the proce­
dures established in Subpart D
of FAR Part 77 for studying and
evaluating proposed structures
affecting navigable airspace.
These procedures provide the
forum and the means by which
the agency gives full and equal
consideration to the interests
of the construction sponsor and
to the public interest of safe
air commerce and the efficient
use of navigable airspace.
( 1) The aeronautical
studies are fact-finding in
nature. Therefore, those con­
siderations given significant
weight in the studies are those
based on fact. Suppositions,
guesses, opinions, and other
intangible matters, although
Page 5-6 8/11/94
considered, are given little
weight.
( 2) All obstructions
are presumed to be hazards un­til the aeronautical study de­
termines otherwise. The aero­
nautical study evaluates such
factors as the number of air­
craft operations, aircraft op­
erational capabilities, elec­
tronic and procedural require­
ments, and airport/heliport
standards.
( 3) When deemed nec­
essary by the FAA to gather
facts, an informal airspace
meeting of aeronautical per­
sons/organizations may be con­
vened. Effects on future aero­
nautical operations and proce­
dures may be considered. Plans
for such future operations and
procedures may either be known
by the FAA, on file with the
FAA, or surface as a result of
the OE process.
( 4 ) When substantial
argument against or objection
to the proposal is received or
the agency's own evaluation
shows substantial adverse ef­
fects, a meeting may be held
with the construction sponsor
to explore possible changes in
the construction proposal that
would eliminate or alleviate
the conflicting demands for
airspace.
e. Determinations.
Whereas there are standards
with specific, assigned values
for giving notice and for iden­
tifying obstructions, there are
no similar criteria-type stan­
dards established for determin­
ing hazards to air navigation.
Par 503

8/11/94
( 1) In the absence
of established standards for
determining hazards, each de­
termination represents a judge­
ment decision based on the best
factual information that can be
obtained during an aeronautical
study of the effects of the
proposed structure upon the
safe, efficient utilization of
navigable airspace and on air
navigation facilities.
(2) When the total
adverse effect is found to be
substantial, the proposed
structure is determined to be a
hazard; otherwise, it is deter­
mined to be no hazard. Thus, a
determination is made only af­
ter a full and complete study
has been conducted and all
facts relevant to the struc­
ture's effect on aviation have
been thoroughly evaluated. The
determination is given to the
construction sponsor and copies
are distributed to all known
interested parties.
f. Reviews. An aeronau­
tical study may continue beyond
the issuance of an initial de­
termination because Subpart D
of FAR Part 77 provides for
review of these determinations.
(1) The sponsor of
any proposed construction, any
person who stated a substantial
aeronautical objection to it in
an aeronautical study, or any
person who has a substantial
aeronautical objection to it
but was not given an opportuni­
ty to so state, may, within 30
days after issuance of a deter­
mination, petition the Adminis­
trator for a review. If there
are valid grounds for a review,
Par 503 8200.34
the petition is granted and a
review is conducted.
(2) FAR Part 77 pro­
cedures provide that a review
may be on the basis of either
written materials or a public
hearing. A review on the basis
of written materials is, essen­tially, a review of the case
records whereas a review on the
basis of a public hearing in­
volves additional fact-finding.
In either case, the objective
of any review is the same as in
the preliminary study, that is
to determine the effect of the
proposed construction on the
operation of air navigation
facilities and the safe and
efficient use of navigable air­
space. Final determinations
are issued at the close of a
review and copies are provided
to all interested parties.
( 3) Final determina­
tions are advisory opinions
issued to all concerned par­
ties. The determination is
relative to the agency's find­
ing on the hazardous effect of
the proposed construction on
air navigation.
g. Overview of the Regu­
lations. By requiring notice
prior to construction for
structures that may affect air
navigation, the FAA is given an
opportunity to study, evaluate,
and resolve problems that could
be caused by the construction
of the structure. The FAA's
role as the airspace use ex­
pert, coordinator, and arbitra­
tor is effective and the integ­
rity of the navigable airspace
is maintained at a high level.
The obstruction evaluation pro-
Page 5-7

8200.34
gram and the issuance of hazard
or no hazard determinations
have proven to be an effective
method of dealing with ground
structures over which the agen­
cy actually has no authorita­
tive control.
(1) A determination
of "no hazard" specifically
means that the obstruction
would not have a substantial
adverse effect on air naviga­
tion as determined by the FAA's
aeronautical study. This de­
termination does not necessari­
ly mean that the obstruction,
when built, has no effect on
operational and instrument pro­
cedures. Consequently, when
the sponsor is notified of the
determination by the region,
FAR Part 77 requires supplemen­
tal notices by the sponsor to
the FAA prior to beginning ac­
tual construction and prior to
the structure reaching its
greatest height. These notices
are required to insure timely
completion of FAA actions need­
ed for maintaining safe aero­
nautical operations.
( 2 ) Of the thousands
of cases studied in the OE pro­
gram, few structures have been
constructed after the FAA de­
termined the proposal to be
hazardous. When a structure is
built against the FAA's advice
that it would be a hazard to
air navigation, the agency
takes appropriate action to
ensure continued safety of air­
craft operations and proce­
dures. That action may be to
increase an established minimum
instrument flight altitude,
modify an established instru­
ment approach procedure, re-
Page 5-8 8/11/94
quire a restriction on instru­
ment departures, or other nec­
essary adjustment of procedures
or operations to maintain an
acceptable level of safety. In
addition, appropriate caution­
ary notices and information may
be published on aeronautical
charts and in other publica­
tions to warn pilots of the
hazardous condition.
(3) Even though the
FAA has no legal or regulatory
authority to restrict construc­
tion of hazardous structures,
the FAA determination does di­
rectly and indirectly affect a
proponent's decision to build
such structures.
(a) When a
structure is under the control
of an airport authority having
a grant agreement with the FAA
under the provisions of the
Airport and Airway Improvement
Act, penalties may be imposed
or federal funds for airport
improvement withheld pending
compliance with agreements for
keeping airport approaches
clear of hazards. These ac­
tions by the FAA will pressure
the airport authority to take
whatever steps that are neces­
sary to mitigate the hazardous
structures.
(b) The Federal
Communications Commission (FCC)
has licensing authority con­
cerning proposed construction
of radio, television, microwave
relay, or other broadcasting
facilities and also issues con­
struction permits for the ap­
propriate structures. The FCC
requires an FAA determination
and agrees that structures haz-
Par 503

8/11/94
ardous to air navigation should
not be built or operated.
(c) Insurabili­
ty and associated costs may be
a deterrent to construction.
The FAA has no control over
insurance rates; however, ex­
tremely high operating costs
and the legal responsibilities
associated with these types of
structures are a deterrent to
construction.
504. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS CON­
CERNING THE STATUTES AND THE
REGULATIONS. Congress has es­
tablished the laws and the FAA
has issued the FAR. The proce­
dures for accomplishing the OE
program are incorporated in the
FAA's internal orders. The OE
program is an integral part of
and interrelated with nearly
everything for which the FAA
has responsibility. This in­
cludes the AlP program, the
Airspace program, obstacle
clearance requirements, capaci­
ty restriction problems, air­
craft safety, aircraft perform­
ance, protecting navigable air­
space, and promoting air com­
merce.
a. Past Benefits. Admin­
istration of the OE program has
required the FAA to take action
in related areas of responsi­bility to provide broad guid­
ance imposed by the statutes.
The following are examples and
situations relative to obstruc­
tion evaluations.
(1) Airport/Heliport
Design Standards. The FAA has
the responsibility to develop
airport/heliport design stan­
dards. Such standards are nor-
Par 503 8200.34
mally issued in the form of
advisory circulars.
(a) Advisory
circulars on airport/heliport
design define criteria which
the airport/heliport owner may
use to ensure protection of the
airspace needed for the air­
port/heliport now and in the
future. The FAA coordinates
these standards with the inter­
national-community through the
International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO).
(b) The air­
port/heliport design criteria
emphasize runway obstacle pro­
tection especially in the in­
nermost portion of the approach
and departure areas. Local
agencies are required to adopt
these criteria if the airport/­
heliport is developed under the
Airport Improvement Program
(AIP). The intent of the cri­
teria, especially in conjunc­
tion with AlP funds, is that
obstructions near the airport I­
heliport will be prevented.
(c) Airport
management prepares an approach
and clear zone plan in accor­
dance with obstruction stan­
dards in FAR Part 77. Such a
plan outlines the area sur­
rounding an airport/heliport to
be protected from tall struc­
tures or other objects. More
detailed information on the
imaginary surfaces can be found
in FAR Part 77 and Order
7400.2. These imaginary sur­
faces are important because the
underlying area determines the
boundaries for land use plan­
ning for the airport.
Page 5-9

8200.34
(d) Airport
management is responsible for
ensuring that the height re­
striction ordinances adopted by
the local jurisdiction is in
agreement with the FAR Part 77
imaginary surfaces. Thus, if
an airport owner wishes to pro­
tect the airport from obstruc­
tions, close coordination is
required with the local zoning
jurisdiction to assure that a
local height restriction ordi­
nance is adopted and enforced.
AC 150/5190-4, A Model Zoning
Ordinance to Limit Heights of
Objects Around Airports, dated
1988, provides model ordinances
for different types of air­
ports.
(2) Obstruction
Marking and Lighting. The sta­
tutes do not contain a basis
for the mandatory marking and
lighting of structures to warn
pilots of their presence.
Therefore, guidelines on how to
mark and light structures to
provide the minimum necessary
conspicuity have been provided
in AC 70/7460-1, Obstruction
Marking and Lighting. The ba­
sis is contained in FAR
7 7 • 11 (b) ( 3 ) • After an aeronau­
tical study is completed and
the FAA recommends that the
structure be obstruction marked
and lighted, the public can use
the AC for FAA's recommended
standard. The AC is free of
charge.
(a) While com­
pliance with the standards in
AC 70/7460-1 for marking and
lighting of obstructions is not
mandatory, it.is usually to the
mutual benefit of both the pro­
perty owners and aeronautical
Page 5-10 8/11/94
interests. As an example, non­
compliance could mean the de­
termination the FAA has issued is now invalid. In total, the
vast majority of obstructions
to air navigation are marked
and lighted, including all ra­
dio and television transmitting
towers over which the FCC has
authority and requires compli­
ance when it is a condition of
an OE determination of "no haz­
ard".
(b) In certain
situations, less than minimum
marking and lighting, as de­
fined by the AC, may be found
acceptable but only after a
special aeronautical study has
been made to determine that
such action would not result in
the creation of a hazard to air
navigation.
(3) Aeronautical
Study of Existing Obstacles.
Aeronautical studies of exist­
ing objects are conducted under
the authority of Sections
307(a) and 313(a) of the FA Act
of 1958, as amended. A notice
received under FAR Part 77 for
proposed construction or alter­
ation that has already been
started is considered an exist­
ing object.
(a) As a prac­
tical matter, there are few
differences between the way an
existing obstacle is studied
and the way a proposed obstacle
is evaluated. The differences
lie in how the case is adminis­
tratively handled.
(b) Determina­
tions or recommendations con­
cerning existing objects are
Par 504

8/11/94
not subject to review under the
prov1s1ons of FAR Part 77.
Petitions or requests for re­
view are granted or denied at
the discretion of the Regional
Administrator. Should a review
be granted, it is processed
outside the regulatory frame­
work of FAR Part 77.
b. Section Summarv. This
section of the handbook covers
the underlying laws, in associ­
ation with the FAR, dealing
with objects affecting naviga­
ble airspace. Pertinent points
must be emphasized and are
listed below.
( 1) While the FAA
has no authority to deny or
restrict construction or alter­
ation of any ground structures,
the FAA does have the authority
to require prior notification
for the construction or alter­
ation of structures. Notifica­
tion standards are specified in
FAR Section 77.13.
(2) The FAA has es­
tablished standards for deter­
mining obstructions to air nav­
igation. These standards are
specified in FAR Part 77, Sub­
part C.
(3) Obstructions to
air navigation may or may not
be determined to be hazardous.
( 4 ) The FAA conducts
aeronautical studies on the
proposed construction or alter-
Par 504 8200.34
ation of structures to deter­
mine the effects upon the oper­
ation of air navigation facili­
ties and the safe and efficient
utilization of navigable air­
space.
(5) Upon completion
of the aeronautical study, the
FAA issues a determination of
hazard or no hazard.
( 6) For a hazard
determination, the aeronautical
study must find that the con­
struction would have a SUBSTAN­
TIAL ADVERSE EFFECT on the safe
and efficient utilization of
the navigable airspace or on
the operation of air navigation
facilities.
(7) The FAA has no
authority to require obstruc­
tions to be marked and lighted.
However, FAA recommends ob­
struction marking and lighting
as provided in AC 70/7460-1.
c. Changes. Congress has
and will change the laws and
the FAA will update the FAR in
response to changing legisla­
tive, judicial, and executive
dictates. New technologies and
airport capacity enhancements
will also require changes to
the FAR and the FAA's internal
directives. Changes will di­
rectly or indirectly effect the
region's OE program.
505.-519. RESERVED.
Page 5-11 (and 5-12)

8/11/94 8200.34
SECTIOH 2. REGIOHAL OBSTRUCTIOR EVALUATIOR PROGRAM
520. GENERAL. This section
provides an overview of the
regional OE program with empha­
sis on Flight Standards duties,
responsibilities, and policies.
NOTE: Because an
obstruction evalu­
ation on a proposed
or existing struc­
ture are essentially
the same, the re­
mainder of this
chapter will refer
to all OE cases as if they were propos­
als. In this man­
ner, qualifying
statements such as
"The structure will
affect, or if exist­
ing, does affect ..
. •· will not be nec­
essary. Only when
emphasis or qualifi­
ers are required
will proposed and
existing structures
be separately ad­
dressed.
521. ORDER 7400.2, PROCEDURES
FOR HANDLING AIRSPACE MATTERS.
As stated in Section 1, para­
graph SOla, the primary FAA
directive concerning the OE
program is Order 7400.2 and
specifically, Part 2 of the
handbook which has the same title as FAR Part 77, Objects
Affecting Navigable Airspace.
a. Basic Policies Out­
lined in Order 7400.2. Part 2
of this order primarily ad­
dresses the mechanics of admin­
istrating the regional OE pro-
Par 520 gram for Air Traffic personnel.
However, scattered throughout
the six chapters are signifi­
cant FAA policies, criteria,
and guidelines which are appli­
cable to Flight Standards.
(1) The obstruction
standards apply to existing and
proposed man-made objects in­
cluding mobile objects, objects
of natural growth, and terrain.
(Paragraph 4-4.)
(2) The FAA's prime
objective in administering the
OE program is to ensure the
safety of aircraft and ef­
ficient utilization of naviga­
ble airspace by aircraft.
(Paragraph 4-5.)
(3) The FAA recog­
nizes there are varied inter­
ests for the use of the na­
tion's airspace. When airspace
use conflicts arise, the FAA
emphasizes the need for con­
serving the navigable airspace,
preserving the integrity of the
national airport system, and
protecting air navigation fa­
cilities from either electro­
magnetic or physical encroach­
ments which would preclude them
from performing their opera­
tional functions. (Paragraph
4-5.)
( 4 ) Each of the four
regional operational divisions
shall review all notices of
proposed construction or alter­
ation received. (Paragraph
4-6b. )
Page 5-13

8200.34
(a) A no hazard
acknowledgment or determination
shall be issued only after all
operating divisions agree that
the proposal will not create a
hazard to air navigation. This
is true whether notice criteria
were exceeded or not.
(Paragraph 4-6b.)
(b) Should
there be a disagreement between
the operational divisions in
the airspace findings, the dis­
agreement shall be resolved
before issuance of the official
FAA determination. (Paragraph
8-2.)
(5) Objects that
exceed the standards of FAR
Part 7 7, Subpart C, are pre­
sumed to be hazards to air nav­
igation unless an aeronautical
study determines otherwise.
(Paragraph 7-1b.)
(a) Once an
aeronautical study has been
initiated, other standards in
addition to those in FAR Part
77, Subpart C, shall be used to
determine if the object being
studied would actually be a
hazard to air navigation. The
additional standards used are
those established by the FAA to
satisfy operational, procedur­
al, and electronic require­
ments. (Paragraph 7-1b.)
(b) A proposed
structure which would exceed a
height of 2000 feet above
ground level will be presumed
to be a hazard (have a substan­tial adverse effect upon the
safe and efficient use of navi­
gable airspace) unless the
sponsor, at the time of filing,
Page 5-14 8/11/94
makes a clear and compelling
case to -the contrary. (Para­
graph 4-11.)
( 6 ) An adverse aero­
nautical effect occurs when an
object: exceeds the obstruc­
tion standards of FAR Part 77,
Subpart C (includes by refer­
ence, the TERPS surfaces); der­
ogates airport capaci­
ty/efficiency; or is found to
have an adverse physical effect
(for example, signal blockage
or reflection) or is found to
have an electromagnetic radia­
tion effect (for example, sig­
nal interference) on the opera­
tion of air navigation facili­
ties. To be a SUBSTANTIAL AD­
VERSE EFFECT, a significant
volume of aeronautical opera­
tions would be affected.
(Paragraph 7-3 & 7-4.)
(7) Evidence of ad­
verse effect is not sufficient
justification for a determina­
tion of hazard. However, a
finding of a SUBSTANTIAL physi­
cal or electromagnetic adverse
effect normally requires issu­
ance of a determination of haz­
ard. (Paragraph 8-2.)
(8) Throughout Part
2 of Order 7 4 00.2, guidance,
policies, and procedures are
provided for a multitude of OE
subjects. Examples are:
shielding, antenna farms, air­
port imaginary surfaces, dis­
tribution of 7460 series forms,
multiple applicants for a sin­
gle site, multiple sites, mul­
tiple structures, negotiations,
airspace- meetings, structures
under the jurisdiction of the
FCC, National Ocean Service
(NOS) involvement, agricultural
Par 521

8/11/94
aircraft operations, temporary
construction, existing objects,
petitioned reviews, sensitive
cases, and marking and light­
ing. Flight Standards inspec­
tors may or may not be involved
with every aspect of OE cases
but must be familiar with the
entire OE program and the con­
tents of Order 7400.2.
b. 7460 Series Forms Used
in the Regional OE Program.
Examples of completed 7460 se­
ries forms normally used by the
OE inspector are included as
Flight Standards figures at the
end of the section (completed
examples are not included in
Order 7400.2). Although these
completed forms contain actual
OE cases, they are representa­
tive only and may not be en­
tirely correct or conform to
current AT guidance for proper
completion of the forms.
( 1) FAA Form 7460-1,
Notice of Proposed Construction
or Alteration. See figure 5-1.
This is the form that is com­
pleted by the construction pro­
ponent and forwarded to the
FAA. The bottom of this form
may be used by AT to acknowl­
edge receipt of the proposal in
lieu of FAA Form 7460-7 list­
ed below.
(2) FAAForm7460-2,
Notice of Actual Construction
or Alteration. See figure 5-2.
This form is forwarded to AT
prior to actual construction.
Distribution is then made to
interested offices.
(3) FAAForm7460-5,
Obstruction Evaluation Log.
This OE log form is normally
Par 521 8200.34
used by AT. It may be used by
the other operational divisions
to log OE cases.
( 4) FAA Form 7460-6,
Obstruction Evaluation Work­
sheet. This form is primarily
used by AT when evaluating pro­
posals applicable to FAR Part
77 criteria: notice criteria,
obstruction standards, and air­
port imaginary surfaces.
(5) FAA Form 7460-7,
Acknowledgment of Notice of
Proposed Construction or Alter­
ation. See figure 5-3. This
form may be used by AT to ac­
knowledge the original proposal
sent by the proponent. It also
states that an internal FAA
study was conducted to deter­
mine if the proposal would be
an obstruction, if marking and
lighting is required, and if
supplemental notice is re­
quired. Appropriate blocks are
established to show the result
of the FAA study. If further
aeronautical study is neces­
sary, the block is checked
stating the proposal is pre­
sumed to be a hazard pending
completion of further study.
( 6) FAA Form 7460-8,
Aeronautical Study of Proposed
Construction or Alteration.
See figure 5-4. This form is
completed and distributed by AT
to invite public comment on the
proposal when an aeronautical
study is initiated.
( 7) FAA Form 7 460-9,
Determination of No Hazard to
Air Navigation. See figure 5-
5. This form is completed and
distributed by AT when the
aeronautical study determined
Page 5-15

8200.34
that the proposal would not be
a hazard to air navigation.
( 8 ) FAA Form
7460-10, Determination of Haz­
ard to Air Navigation. See
figure 5-6. This form is com­
pleted and distributed by AT
when the aeronautical study
determined that the proposal
would be a hazard to air navi­
gation.
( 9 ) FAA Form
7460-11, Project Status Re­
quest. This form is sent to
the proponent by AT for no haz­
ard determinations when a no­
tice of start of construction
by the proponent is required
and the notice has not been
received by the FAA within a
reasonable time frame.
c. Dates and Time Limits.
FAR Part 77 and Order 7400.2
establish effective/expiration
dates and time limits in rela­
tion to the OE process. A
brief list of the important
dates and time limits are in­
cluded in this handbook without
the detailed circumstances and
exceptions included.
( 1) A proponent must
file a notice of proposed con­
struction or alteration 30 days
prior to beginning construction
or prior to filing for a con­
struction permit.
(2) Although no FAA
notice response time is speci­
fied, the FAR's 30 day limit
required for the notice allows
construction to begin after 30
days.
Page 5-16 8/11/94
(3) When requested,
supplemental notice is required
48 hours prior to the start of
construction and 5 days after
the construction reaches it
greatest height.
(4) Normally, for
circularized OE proposals, 30
days are established as a com­
ment period for response by
interested persons.
(5) For petition of
an OE determination, 3 0 days
are provided following the is­
suance of the determination.
( 6) The effective
date (date determination be­
comes final if not petitioned)
of both hazard and no hazard
determinations is 4 0 days after
the issuance date.
(7) Occasionally, a
determination will be corrected
based on new or updated infor­
mation. Corrected determina­
tions are effective upon issu­
ance, except that in no case
will the effective date be pri­
or to the effective date of the
original determination.
(8) Determinations
on existing objects are effec­
tive upon issuance and do not
have expiration dates.
(9) Due to the ever
changing aeronautical environ­
ment, no hazard determinations
have an expiration date. This
expiration date is 18 months
from the effective date of the
determination.
(10)
for review is If a petition
filed, the re-
Par 521

8/11/94
gional determination is not
final until the petition is
resolved. If the effective
date of a final determination
is changed as a result of a
petition or review, the expira­
tion of the determination is
adjusted accordingly.
( 11 ) For proposed
structures corning under the
jurisdiction of the licensing
authority of the FCC, the expi­
ration date for a no hazard
determination is 6 months from
the effective date unless the
sponsor makes application to
the FCC for a construction
permit. For timely FCC appli­
cation and permit approval, the
expiration date is the expira­
tion date specified in the FCC
construction permit.
522. THE REGIONAL OE PROCESS.
Although Order 7 4 0 0. 2 estab­
lishes the policies and proce­
dures of the regional OE pro­
gram, an adequate insight into
the actual process for handling
cases is not detailed. Also,
each region may handle the OE
process somewhat differently.
An attempt is made in this
paragraph to provide the in­
spector with the basic, but
typical, processes of a region­
al OE program. OE processing
explanations are provided only
when they directly affect
Flight Standards responsibili­
ties and involvement in the
program.
a. AT Receipt of Notice.
FAR Section 7 7 • 17 requires that
construction or alteration pro­
posals be submitted to the Air
Traffic Division of the FAA
region having jurisdiction over
Par 521 8200.34
the location of the structure.
(1) Air Traffic is
the central control and "prima­
ry" for administration of the
regional OE program. AT re­
sponsibilities include receiv­
ing notices, responding to the
proponent, initiating aeronau­tical studies, negotiating with
the sponsor, issuing determina­
tions, and specifying marking
and lighting provisions.
( 2 ) On receipt of
the notice of proposed con­
struction or alteration (FAA
Form 7460-1), an AT OE special­ist assigns an aeronautical
study number, verifies informa­
tion, and determines if notice
is required as specified under
FAR Sections 77.13 and 77.15.
Normally, these actions can be
accomplished in a relatively
short period of time, providing
the information on the form is
complete and accurate.
( 3) Plotting the pro­
posal on a sectional chart, 7
1/2-rninute quadrangle chart
(referred to as a quad chart),
and/or an obstruction chart
( OC) is normally accomplished
or is provided by the propo­
nent.
(4) The AT special­ist may discuss the case with
the proponent if problems were
found on the FAA Form 7460-1 or if the proponent hand-carries
the form or additional material
to the region.
b. Coordination. Coordi­
nation is normally accomplished
by exchanges of paper, use of
Page 5-17

8200.34
the computer, or a combination
of both.
( 1) AT will input
the case into the OE automation
program and/or forward the
7460-1 to the other operational
divisions. Accompanying the
7460-1 may be other aids to the
evaluation such as a copy of
the quad or sectional chart
depicting the proposed site,
proponents drawings, AT work­
sheet, etc. For all operating
divisions and especially for
the FPB, an accompanying chart is a useful tool.
(2) If the proposal
is near a military airport/­
heliport, military training
route, etc. , AT will coordinate
with the military representa­
tive. Some regions coordinate
all 7460-1's with the military.
(3) AT may coordi­
nate with other entities such
as state & local aviation orga­
nizations.
c. Evaluations. The op­
erational divisions, including
AT, complete their evaluations.
Many regions have a staggering
OE workload. The larger re­
gions handle 2000 or more OE
cases a year. With this work­
load and limited resources,
only the most controversial
cases will have Flight Stan­
dards involvement beyond the
initial response. Therefore,
the inspector should assure
that all appropriate Flight
Standards references in the
original response to AT are
technically accurate because
the final determination will
likely contain this wording.
Page 5-18 8/11/94
(A brief review of the evalua­
tion responsibilities for AT,
AF, and Airports are included,
but Flight Standards responsi­
bilities are more detailed.)
(1) Air Traffic.
(a) Studies the
structure's effect on aeronau­
tical operations, air traffic
control procedures, and air­
port/heliport traffic patterns.
(b) Coordinates
with the other divisions on the
problems and results of the
study.
( 2) Airway Facili­
ties. AF evaluates the poten­tial physical or electromagnet­
ic effect of proposals on air
navigation and communications
facilities and ATC tower line­
of-sight requirements.
(3) Airports. Air­
ports provides input concerning
existing and planned airports I­
heliports including potential
restrictions and impacts on
airport operations, capacity,
efficiency, and development.
(4) Flight Stan-
dards. As stated in 7400.2,
Paragraph 4-23a ( 3) Responsibil­
ities -Screening of Notice,
Flight Standards primarily has
the responsibility for FAR Sec­
tions 77.23(a) (3) and
77.23(a)(4). Paraphrased,
these FAR sections state that
an object is an obstruction to
air navigation if it creates
less than the required obstacle
clearance within a terminal or
en route obstacle clearance
area. In conjunction with FAR
Par 522

8/11/94
references, Flight Standards'
responsibilities also include
the effect of a proposal on IFR
and VFR operations. (Paragraph
4-31d.)
(a) VFR Traf­
fic. Determine the effect upon
VFR routes, airport and termi­
nal operations, or other con­
centrations of VFR traffic.
(Paragraph 5-11b(1).)
( b ) Terminal
Area IFR Operations. Determine
the effect upon terminal area
IFR operations including tran­
sitions, feeder routes, radar
vectoring, holding, Standard
Terminal Arrival Routes (STAR),
and Standard Instrument Depar­
tures (SID). (Paragraphs
5-11b(2), 7-2c.)
(c) Instrument
Approach/Departure Procedures.
Determine the effect upon any
segment of a standard/­
military/special instrument
approach procedure including
approach light systems. Evalu­
ate both existing and proposed
procedures. Determine the ef­
fect upon departure procedures.
(Paragraphs 4-31c, 5-11b(2),
7 -2c. )
(d) En Route
IFR Operations. Determine the
effect upon Minimum En Route
Altitudes (MEA), Minimum Obsta­
cle Clearance Altitudes (MOCA),
Minimum Crossing Altitudes
(MCA), Minimum Holding Alti­
tudes (MHA), and turning areas.
(Paragraphs 5-11b(3), 7-33a.)
(e) Flight
Standards/Aviation Standards
Coordination. When required,
Par 522 8200.34
consult with the Flight Stan­
dards District Office (FSDO)
and Flight Inspection Area Of­
fice (FIAO). (Paragraphs 7-32,
8-2. )
(f) Airway Fa­cilities Coordination. In co­
ordination with AF, evaluate
the effect of possible navaid
interference and reduced per­
formance on the appropriate
instrument flight procedure and
flight inspection requirements.
(Paragraphs 4-31c, 5-2, 5-11,
5-11b(4).)
(g) Airports
Coordination. In coordination
with Airports, evaluate whether
the penetration of a FAR Part
77 surface creates an unaccept­
able safety risk. Also, pro­
vide input concerning the TERPS
surface penetrations and the
special CAT II obstacle clear­
ance surfaces if applicable,
which are associated with fu­
ture instrument approaches and
planned or programmed changes
at the airfield. (Paragraphs
4-31b, 5-2, 5-11.)
(h) Air Traffic
Coordination. In coordination
with AT, evaluate the possible
effect on AT operations and
aircraft operations in associa­
tion with AT procedures; for
example, MOCA increase within
25 statute miles of a facility,
loss of cardinal altitude, add­
ed departure restriction on a
SID, etc. (Paragraphs 5-11,
7-33b.)
( i ) AC 7 0 I 7 4 6 0-
1, Obstruction Marking and
Lighting. Based on the crite­
ria provided in the AC and when
Page 5-19

8200.34
requested by AT, evaluate
whether obstruction marking and
lighting is necessary and to
what extent. Evaluate modifi­
cations and deviations specifi­
cally proposed by the sponsor.
(Paragraphs 9-3, 9-20.)
( j) Adjust-
ments. If the structure will
have an adverse effect on an
instrument flight procedure,
determine procedural and struc­
tural adjustments that can be
made to eliminate or mitigate
the adverse effects. Some pro­
cedural changes may require an
environmental assessment and
environmental impact statement.
(Paragraphs 5-11b(5), 7-34a.)
(k) Response.
If the proposed construction or
alteration will have an adverse
effect on VFR or IFR aircraft
operations, procedures, or min­
imum IFR flight altitudes, the
Flight Standards evaluation
should clearly state the extent
of these effects. (Paragraphs
4-23b, 7-3.)
d. Responses. Because a
proponent may begin construc­
tion 30 days after filing the
7460-1, a timely response to AT
is expected from all evalua­
tors.
( 1) Certain cases
may be very complicated and
time consuming for the FPB OE
inspector. AT should be noti­
fied if a specific case will
have an abnormally long re­
sponse time.
( 2 ) The inspector
should assure that the original
response to AT is technically
Page 5-20 8/11/94
accurate-because the final de­
termination will likely contain
the effects as submitted.
e. Acknowledgements. AT
responds back to the proponent.
This is called an acknowledge­
ment but may actually be a fi­
nal determination. If the in­
ternal FAA study (responses
from evaluators) definitely
shows the proposal will not be
a hazard, the FAA acknowledge­
ment to the proponent is the
final determination. Some of
the OE cases processed in the
region are completed and closed
out within 30 days.
( 1) If a proposed
obstruction is determined to be
a hazard, the AT OE specialist
will contact the proponent to
determine if the structure can
be moved or lowered. Some ad­
justments may be possible so
that a hazard determination is
not issued. This is accom­
plished through negotiation
with the proponent.
(2) When requested,
the FPB will be involved in
these negotiations. A no ex­
ceed height (NEH) is very im­
portant. NEH is an example of
the Order 7400.2 requirement
for possible structure adjust­
ments. Structure movement and
possible procedure adjustments
can be discussed at the negoti­
ations.
NOTE: Order 7400.2
use~ terms such as a
study, preliminary
study, internal FAA
study, and aeronau­
tical study. To
preclude any possi-
Par 522

8/11/94
ble confusion,
Flight Standards
personnel no~ally
accomplish only one
study. The intent
of the FAR and Order
7400.2 requiring an
aeronautical study
is met when the in­
spector accomplishes
the Flight Standards
portion of the study
and responds to AT.
However, the Flight
Standards responsi­
bility to the indi­
vidual OE case is
not complete until a
final dete~ination
is issued. A deci­
sion to circularize
a case for public
comment may require
additional inspector
responses or in­
volvement.
f. Circularization. An
opportunity to participate in
the study input may be made
known to the aeronautical com­
munity through circularization.
When AT decides to distribute a
public notice to conduct a full
aeronautical study, AT will
circularize the FAA Form
7460-8, containing a graphic of
the proposal's location. Order
7 4 00.2 contains policy examples
when circularization is re­
quired and when not required.
(1) The effects on
aeronautical operations, as
denoted from the responses of
the operational divisions, are
included.
Par 522 8200.34
( 2) The FPB will
receive a copy of the FAA Form
7460-8.
( 3 ) The OE inspector
may want to recheck all calcu­
lations on the original re­
sponse. ·The inspector may con­
tact Flight Standards/Aviation
Standards field offices (FSDO
or FIAO) concerning all aspects
of the individual case. The
volume of air traffic concern­
ing a specific operational ef­
fect may be supplied by the
FSDO and new aeronautical ef­
fects may also be furnished.
The FIAO may provide additional
TERPS effects or flight inspec­
tion information. The comment
period on the circularization
gives the OE inspector time to
reevaluate and consolidate all
Flight Standards comments. A
second response to AT (whether
formal or informal) may be ap­
propriate. If there is a re­
versal of the Flight Standards
objection or no objection on
the original response, a writ­
ten second response is pre­
ferred.
( 4 ) Although rela­
tively rare because of the
large volume of OE cases pro­
cessed each year, an informal
airspace meeting may be con­
vened by AT to gather addition­
al facts and information.
Flight Standards participation
may be requested.
g. OE Determinations.
Based on the aeronautical study
results, AT will complete the
appropriate determination form.
The determination will list all
factors considered in reaching
the final FAA conclusion. All
Page 5-21

8200.34
timely and appropriate public
comments will be detailed.
( 1) AT may request
additional information and jus­
tification from the OE inspec­
tor on the case's aeronautical
effects based on the Flight
Standards response and other
comments received.
( 2) Prior to issuing
a final determination, AT may
again attempt to negotiate with
the proponent for lowering or
moving the structure. Flight
Standards participation may be
requested.
( 3) Before issuing
the final FAA determination, AT
may discuss the specifics of
the case with the OE inspector
and representatives from the
other operational services. A
meeting may be held. These
discussions may include the
proper phrases and terms that
should be used in the determi­
nation. For no hazard deter­
minations, any service origi­
nally objecting to the proposal
must agree to the final deci­
slon.
(4) Final no hazard
determinations are important to
the OE inspector especially
when instrument procedure ad­
justments are required. How­
ever, construction notices may
be more important because re­
quired procedure adjustments
may need immediate action.
(5) Generally, the
OE no hazard determination and
construction notice forms will
be the only indication of a
negotiated reduction in the
Page 5-22 8/11/94
proposed structure's height or
negotiated movement of the
structure.
h. Reviews. The sponsor
or other interested parties may
petition any determination,
whether hazard or no hazard,
for review by Washington Head­
quarters. See Section 5 of
this chapter for headquarters
reviews.
NOTE: The following
paragraphs will list
general Flight Stan­
dards policies on
the OE program.
Some application
policies or examples
may be included as a
continuation of a
general policy.
Specific evaluation
and criteria appli­
cation policies will
be discussed in the
following sections
of this chapter.
523. PRESERVATION OF NAVIGABLE
AIRSPACE. Navigable Airspace
is defined in FAR Part 1 and
that definition is included in
Chapter 1. Navigable Airspace
is airspace at and above mini­
mum flight altitudes including
airspace needed for safe take­
off and landing.
a. In order to maintain
an acceptable level of safety,
aircraft require a buffer be­
tween operational altitudes and
objects. When considering pro­
posed structures, the buffer
may be achieved by limiting
aircraft operations, by limit­
ing the location and height of
Par 522

8/11/94
these objects, or by a combina­
tion of these factors.
b. The inspector should
understand that navigable air­
space is a limited national
resource. Congress has charged
the FAA to administer this air­
space in the public interest
and to ensure the safe and ef­
ficient utilization of such
airspace. Full consideration
shall be given to the require­
ments of national defense, of
commercial and general avia­
tion, and to the public right
of freedom of transit through
the airspace.
c. Once airspace is al­
lotted to ground structures, it
is considered not retrievable
for aircraft use. The inspec­
tor must be accurate in the
evaluation to prevent inadver­
tent loss of airspace.
d. While a sincere effort
shall be made to negotiate eq­
uitable solutions to conflicts
over airspace use, preservation
of the navigable airspace for
aviation must receive primary
emphasis.
524. STANDARDS OF THE OTHER
OPERATIONAL SERVICES. Flight
Standards supports the stan­
dards, and the operational de­
cisions based on the standards,
of the other operational ser­
Vlces.
a. As stated in the first
chapter of this handbook, the
standards and criteria of each
operational service compliment,
and in some cases even dupli­
cate, the standards of other
operational services. Even
Par 523 8200.34
with the areas of responsibili­
ty defined in Order 7400.2,
gray areas may still exist con­
cerning who makes the final
determination on a specific
standard.
b. Flight Standards is
not concerned about who applies
the standards. Flight Stan­
dards is definitely concerned
that the standards shall apply
and that the defined levels of
safety are maintained.
525. DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILI­
TIES. Flight Standards accepts
and supports the division of
responsibilities concerning
obstruction evaluations as de­
fined in Order 7400.2.
a. Because of the overlap
in areas of responsibility, the
other operational divisions
should closely coordinate with
the FPB OE inspector concerning
problem areas that may fall
under Flight Standards juris­
diction.
b. In addition, the OE
inspector's evaluation is based
on detailed knowledge of the
geographic area of concern and
the availability of other divi­
sion's documents that may af­
fect Flight Standards responsi­
bilities. Consequent! y, the
other operational divisions
must assure the tools and in­
formation needed by Flight
Standards are supplied. Exam­
ples are proposed nonfederal
facility locations from Airway
Facilities or runway construc­
tion projects from Airports.
c. Many regions have in­
terdivisionalagreementsdesig-
Page 5-23

8200.34
nating one office to be respon­
sible for a specific element of
the evaluation but not neces­
sarily as defined in Order
7400.2. When other services
accomplish evaluations that are
Flight Standards responsibili­ties, the OE inspector should
be available for telephone con­
ferences and to answer ques­
tions. Flight Standards may
support these local agreements,
especially if the evaluation
process can be expedited. An
example is the local AT facili­
ty evaluating minimum vectoring
altitude (MVA) effects.
d. Flight Standards ex­
pertise is occasionally re­
quested concerning the safety
aspects of certain proposed
obstruction effects in relation
to another service's standards.
Based on the specific OE case,
the OE inspector should candid­
ly discuss the operational as­
pects of the effects. The in­
spector should not attempt to
limit or define another ser­
vice's standard, but should
discuss criteria interrelation­
ships as they pertain to safe­
ty. Stated differently, the OE
inspector is NOT responsible
for trying to determine "how
safe is safe enough" for anoth­
er service's standards. The
inspector should stress compli­
ance to ALL standards.
526. RELEASE OF INFORMATION.
Requests from the public for
access to or copies of informa­
tion contained in OE case files
should be referred to the Air­
space Management Branch, re­
gional 530, who will process
them in accordance with the
Freedom of Information Act
Page 5-24 8/11/94
( 5 U. S • C . 55 2 ) and Order
1200.23, Public Availability of
Information. In addition, re­
quests for verbal information
on the status, possible changes
to the original proposal, and
possible FAA determinations on
any OE case should also be for­
warded to the Airspace Manage­
ment Branch.
527. PUBLIC DEMAND ON FPB
TIME. The FPB is not staffed
for extensive instruction or
training of proponents, consul­
tants, and other representa­
tives of construction sponsors
concerning all the aspects of
Flight Standards obstruction
evaluations. This is especial­
ly true for prefiling evalua­
tions trying to find a least
offensive location or determin­
ing the maximum height for a
specific location. There are
sufficient public sector con­
sultants that are proficient in
these standards application
areas.
a. General responses to
questions on standards applica­
tion are-appropriate and pro­
fessional courtesy to public
inquiries is required.
b. The aeronautical study
of the OE process as defined in
FAA regulations and orders is
the only approved method to
reach a final determination.
The inspector should be
cautioned against stating or
even inferring that the FAA
would issue a determination of
no hazard on a given informal
proposal prior to the formal
submission to the region.
Par 525

8/11/94
528. NEGOTIATIONS. Negotia­
tions to find a equitable solu­
tion to airspace conflicts is
fully supported by Flight Stan­
dards. Normally, the AT OE
specialist will negotiate with
the sponsor for adjustments to
the proposal. The OE inspector
will participate in OE negotia­
tions when requested by AT.
a. The OE inspector
should be aware of all aspects
of the specific OE case prior
to participating in a negotiat­
ing session with the proponent.
If the inspector is not famil­
iar with the case but the pro­
ponent is at the region for a
meeting, participation is still
possible and recommended. The
inspector should tell all meet­
ing members immediately that
they are unfamiliar with the
case and explain that the FPB
participation may be limited to
stating policies and explaining
criteria application. Final
Flight Standards concurrence on
all agreements may be withheld
until a later date.
b. The inspector shall
negotiate in good faith. How­
ever, the appropriate standards
and policies may limit the de­
gree of negotiation that is
even possible. Solutions must
be consistent with these stan­
dards and policies.
c. During negotiation
sessions, an in-depth discus­
sion of issues is appropriate
and verbal conflicts between
meeting members must be
avoided. Verbal abuse may be a
negotiating tactic of a few
proponents or consultants. The
inspector must portray a high
Par 528 8200.34
degree of professionalism dur­
ing any type of negotiating
session.
529. A NEW FACILITY FROM THE
CONSTRUCTION PROPONENT. RE­
SERVED. TBD.
530. AERONAUTICAL STUDIES ON
EXISTING OBJECTS. The follow­
ing contains Flight Standards
background and justification
for expanding the Order 7400.2
evaluation process on aeronau­
tical studies of existing
structures that have not been
previously studied by the re­
gion.
a. During field visits,
Flight Standards inspectors and
other FAA personnel occasional­
ly find newly constructed ob­
stacles that affect IFR and VFR
aircraft operations.
b. The Flight Standards
policy is that any newly dis­
covered structure, from whatev­
er source, that may effect air­
craft operations should be re­
ported to the regional FPB.
The location coordinates and
mean sea level (MSL) height, to
the highest accuracy possible,
should be provided. The reason
for this policy is aircraft
safety.
c. The OE inspector
should determine if a previous
OE study has been accomplished.
A review of the OE cases may be
required. FIAO assistance may
be needed and issue a Notice to
Airmen (NOTAM), if appropriate.
d. If the structure was
previously studied, AT should
Page 5-25

8200.34
be informed of the construc­
tion.
e. If no regional filing
was previously accomplished,
all known information on the
structure, including the VFR
and IFR effects, should be for­
warded in writing to the Air­
space Management Branch. Based
on the policies and procedures
established in Order 7400.2, AT
will determine if an aeronauti­
cal study is appropriate.
f. AT forwards the data
to NOS for inclusion in the NOS
Quarterly Obstacle Memo -Digi­
tal Obstacle File so that the
appropriate obstruction data
bases, which are used by numer­
ous agencies and organizations,
are updated. In all instrument
procedure development, the pro­
cedures specialist utilizes the
NOS Quarterly Obstacle Memo –
Digital Obstacle File as a
source document.
531. COORDINATION WITHIN
FLIGHT STANDARDS/AVIATION STAN­
DARDS. The policy that the FAA
shall speak with one voice also
applies within Flight Stan­
dards. For Flight Standards
responses to regional OE stud­
ies, that voice is the FPB.
a. Occasionally, Flight
Standards field offices,
FIAO's, and even other regional
Flight Standards branches may
become involved with individual
OE cases. This involvement is
normally limited to requests
for assistance from the FPB.
Any questions, information,
comments, or objections to an
individual OE case must be ad­
dressed to the FPB.
Page 5-26 8/11/94
b. The FPB must be aware if other Flight Standards/­
Aviation Standards offices are
on the distribution lists for
the 7460 forms originating from
AT. If other offices receive
the forms, these offices must
be aware of any required ac­
tions they must perform. The
FPB shall inform these offices
of their responsibilities, if
any. Agreements between the
FPB and the other offices con­
cerning the required actions
may be appropriate.
c. In most OE cases, the
FPB can complete the full eval­
uation. However, cases may
arise that require the FPB to
request assistance from the
FIAO. Normally, these situa­
tions will be extremely "close
calls" or when the FPB requires
additional data, procedure in­
formation/expertise, chart
work, or flight inspection re­
sults.
( 1) FPB initiated
telephone or written requests
to the FIAO, should include the
specific information needed, so
as to avoid burdening the FIAO
with work that can be or has
been accomplished in the re­
gion.
(2) If a full ob­
struction evaluation by the
FIAO is ~equired, the request
shall be in a written format
and should contain all the in­
formation forwarded to the FPB
from AT. A temporary personnel
shortage is normally the reason
the FPB would request a full
evaluation by the FIAO.
Par 530

8/11/94
(3) A good working rela­
tionship and understanding are
required between the FPB and
FIAO concerning obstruction
evaluations because OE cases
are normally time critical.
d. Requests for assis­
tance from FSDO's and other
Flight Standard offices are
normally for information about
a geographical area or air­
port/heliport, information and
opinions about operations spec­
ifications ( OpSpecs) , and ques­
tions about aircraft perform­
ance, onboard avionics, etc.
Par 531 8200.34
e. The FPB shall deter­
mine which information received
from other Flight Standards/­
Aviation Standards offices is
pertinent to the OE case and
incorporate this information
into their response to AT.
532.-535. RESERVED.
Page 5-27 (thru 5-33)

8200.34 8/11/94
FIGURE 5-l. SAMPLE FAA FORM 7460-1, ROTICE OF PROPOSED
CORSTRUCTIOR OR ALTERATIOR
DO NOT REMOVE CARBONS Please Type or Print on This F~ Fo"llotPP~oved OM!j.NO. 2120-0001
0 Notice of Proposed '1;) /Au feron~tjtfj. tr.rll l
US~QTI'Q"!$p0'1CI'IC)n Construction or Alteration
~lwlatlctiAdrNnrs~
1. Nature of Proposal ·2. Complete Description of Structure
A. Type I B. Class .J c. Wort< Schedule Oates Upon Please describe, on a separate sheet of paper~ necessary,
~ New Construct1on ~ Permanent Beginr'irg FM appro ale proposed construction or alteration.
0 Alteration * 0 Temporary (Duralion months End A ~A 1> A. For proposals involving transmitting stalions, include
effective radiated power (ERP) and assigned frequency of * If Atteration. prov1de previous FAA Aeronautical Study Number. if available : all proposed or modified transmillers on the struclt.lre. (n
3A. Nlime, address, 1nd telephone number of incllv'du.l, company corporation, etc. proposing the not known, give frequency band and maximum ERP~
construction or alter~~tlon. (Number, Street, City, Slate, and Zip Code) B. For proposals involving owmead wire, transmission lines,
John Horrigan etc., include the size and the configuration of the wires and
Cellwave, Inc. their supporting structtJres.
2500 Terminal Tower C. For all proposals, inClude site orientation, dimensions, and
eonstructi6n materials of the proposed or altered structure.
Cleveland, Ohio 44113-2241 D. Optional- Oescribe the type of obslnJdion marlcing and
( 216 ) 621-8362 lighting system desired lor your structure. The FAA will
Area Code Telephone Number recommend appnopriate marking and lighting for the
38. Name, address and telephone number of proponent's representative, ~ dilferent than 3A. above. stnJcltJre in accordance with the standards of Advisoly
Circular AC 70/7460-1. An FAA marlcing and lighting
Shahram Bojati recommendation will reflect the minimum acceptable level
Lukas, KcGowan, Race & Gutierrez ri eonspieuity necessary to warn pilots ollhe presence of
1819 B Street, N.w •• Suite 700 an object However, the FAA. under ~n
circumstances, will not objecl to the use of a system (such
Washington, D.C. 20006 as a medium intensity flashing white light system or a dual
( 202 ) 857-3500 lighting system) other than the recommendled standard.
Alea Code Telephone Number
4. location Of Structure 5. HeiQht and Elevation ft>neate:Sttc:lo()
A. Coordinates 1 ~ kh=edttls 01 seconds. B. Nearest Crty or Town C. Neare~ public or military airport. A Elevation of Site above mean
Latitude ol rl 8Ad State hel•port, ftoghtparl<, e< seaplane base sea level. 1295' • 40 09 42 Johnstown, OB Kearns Pvt.
Long~ude ol rl • (1 ). o .. tance to 46 (1 ). DIStance from structure to nearest B. Hetght of structure including all
point ~ nearest runway app.menancos and lighting above
82 37 21 3.0 miles 7.0 Jliles ground or water. 314'
40. Source of coordinate information for ~em 4A. above. (2). Direction to 48 (2). D•rectJon from structure to a•rport C. Overall height above mean sea level
0 USGS 7.5' [) oOther (A+B)
Quad Chart Survey Specify West Southwest 1609'
Indicate l!le reference datum of lhe c:>or~nates. ~ known 4E. Describe, on a separate sheet of paper, lhe location of the site with respect to highways, streets. airports,
D Pa ~Other prominent terrain features, exis1ing struclures, etc. Attach a copy of a U.S. Geological Survey quadrangle map 7.5
NAO 27 NAD 83 Spec; minute series (or equivalent) showing the construction site. H available, attach a copy of a documented site survey See at ached s rve with the surveyor's certification.
FAILURE TO PROVIDE ALL REQUESTED INFORMATION MAY DELAY PROCESSING OF YOUR NOTICE
Notice is required by Part n otthe Federal Aviation Regulations (14 C.F.R. Part 77) pursuant to Sect>on 1101 of the Federal AviaDon Act of 1958, as amended )49 U.S.C. app. § 1501). Persons who
knowingly and willfully violate the Notice requirements of Part n are subject to a civil ~nalty of $1,000 per day until the notice is received, pursuant to Section 901 (a} c1 !he Federal AVIition Ad o1
1958, as amended (49 U.S. C. app § 1471(a)) as well as the fine (criminal penally) of not more than $500 for the first ot!ense and not more than $2.000 for subsequontoftenses. purwantto Section
902)a) of the Federal AviaDon Act ol1958. as amended (49 U.S C. app § 1 472(a)).
I HEREBY CERTIFY that all of tt;e above statements made by me are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge. In addition, I
agree to obstruction mark and/or light the structure In accordance with established m~.' ~" ·~ .:.,.. ~standards as necessary>
Oate I Typed or Pnn!Od Name end T .. o1 P.-Folong Notoc:e ~ hM–;;;– I /,. 1;:;:{"7( 8-17-93 Shahram Bojati/Consulting Engineer
FOR FAA USE ONLY FAA will either return this form or issue a separate ackno~dgement
The Proposal: Suppiomonlll Notlca or ConltNction. FAA Fonn 7460-2. is._.., rnytrne fie prcjod is lblndoned, or
0 0oes nat _.. I nobce to FAA. 0"'1W148noonboflnNstartolconst'udion. 0 s not ide<ltified as an OOSinlCDOn under any standard ot FAR. Part n, 0 W!hon live days allor fie cionsouctlon- its~ hoqO.
Subpart c. and -ld not,.. hazard 10 navogation. Ths deterrNna!lon _., on – ois-asanobstruc:tlonunderlhestandardsoiFAR.Partn. 1•1 extendtd. rovisedorlerrrinlted byl!le issusu'll olfice; . .
(bJ the conSinJCIIOn is subject to the liconsing authonty olthe Ftderol Comnvocalions Cancnission (FCC) and an appfaoon Subpart c. "" -ld not be • hazard to navigotion. lor 1oonsD'uct>on permt s made to the FCC"" or bofO<eN·abow txpirat>on-. kl SJCII cases N dolomlinllion
0 Should be obstudion 0 marl<ed 0 ligt1ted per FAA expres co the date prescribed by !he FCClorCCII!II>ieOon olconst'udion. or on fie date !he FCC -the~
NOTE: Requesifor omnsion olthe- penod olflcs- """be pcsrnned or deM<ediO l'e issui>; alice M'-"1 C6eular 7017460-,' Chapten IIIWI15daysproor10the~dato. 0 Obst7ud>on marking and l;gittlng are not necessary. f l!le lt'UC1Ure is su~ 10 l!le licensing authonty oll!le FCC, 1 copy olltus det!mWialion wil be.,. to tha1 agency.
Remart<s
(Uselhese- lor any •II I 01 'I 1 Longitude I 01 'I • NAD 83 Coordinates luturt correspondence wittll!le FAA) Latitude . .
-~ I~ lOoM
FAA Form 7460·1 ll·ll:ll Do Not Remove C11rbons
Page 5-34 Fig 5-l

8/11/94 8200.34
FJ:GURE 5-2. SAMPLE FAA FORM 7460-2, ROTJ:CE OF ACTUAL
CORSTRUCTJ:OR OR ALTERATJ:OR
SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE
SUBMISSION INSTliUC'TION: For A·g.,nce Notice of Actual Construction or Alr.ration. Plea• type or firmly print information AeronauncaJ Study No.
requestlld. Complete items 1, 2, 3A!1 ), 3AI2), 1nd 6. 11 ~licable. RISO complete J/ems 4 1nd 5. Oetech parr 1. Fold and tepe 11 yj-i/111£ ~~7 ·.:.t.. bottom. MaJito the FAA Regional Otr.c. lor yoo.;r ….. PanT A IS prov1oed lor your file.
–
'-' NOTICE OF ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION
\A~OI~ –1. CONSTRUCTION
Type and Descnpt•on of Construction
Construction of Building
2. CONSTRUCTION LOCATION- HEIGHT
A. Coord•nates iTo tMths ot.seconcts. illcnown) e. LocatiOn ( Olst•ne• and ditKtiOn from nearest City or town. :ne;uoe St/"Ht
LIUtudl … , L.ongitl>de address il1ny.)
41°118 '125 "I 72 °1 55 'I 29 "I ""
Connecticut Financial Center
C. Construellon He1ght Total Height 157 Church St. I (Construction & Site) Abo\18 Ground L~ Abo.e Mean S.. L-1 New Haven Ct. 06508
AGL 3941 6" Ft AMSL 421 I Fr.
D. Site S.Vatton Determined By E. Name of Nearest Public-Use Aii"I)Ort-mciUde Distance and DltKIIOn
CJ Actual S4Jnoey CJ Me+> Contour Cl Other Tweed-New Haven Airport Three r~ i 1 es South of Structure
3. CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATIONS
.A. NotdtcatJon (Notlee Ia Critical to flight * e. Construction/Project
Safety-FAR P111 77 Required ) Date Date * (1) Construction w1ll start (Submit at least
48 hrs. m advance) 11/89 (1) Project Abandoned -.
(2) Estimated Completion 4/91
* (3) Structure Reached Greatest He1ght (2) Construction Disfnan~ed
(Submit Within 5 Clays) 1 I 91
4. MARKING AND LIGHTING
A. Marl<ed 8. Lig~ted
~ed ~es IIJ]No CJ Temporary CJ Hig~ Intensity White tClremporary
I[J]Dual (High lnllnsity White and Rlld) Gone
5. ANTENNA REQUIRING FCC LICENSE
A. C;&Jl Sign 8. FI"8Queney c. Date Applied for FCC Conwuctton Perm1t D. Date Construction J>erm1t Issued
N/A N/A
6. PREPARER'S CERTIFICATION
~~-A. Proponenrs Repnesentative S. ConstructiOn Proponem
a;;:;-Name: Communications Site Mgmt. ~ame: Enterprise Construction Co. LTD ::.!a:i Address: 1 Corporate Center ddress: 1 Commercial Plaza ide .QO>C> Hartford Ct. 06103 ~ ··~ Hartford Ct. 06103
~ ~i "=' … c..
~ … 8
0~(,) Te!.No.: (203)525-6507 (lncluelt Area Code) Tel. No.: (203)549-1674 (InclUde Area Coo11
;:: ~~ i ~=:~.TIFY INFOAMATIOe.H'R"CMDED IS TRUE. COMPLETE. AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDG!=O
~ :$. Signature\ ~ Tiue Date
… ~ ~ ~-~ Y.LJ ~ D i vi s i on Man age r · 1 -14-9 1
"–-N'OTICE is ,_ed by Part no~ Federal Aviat~n F.iegulations (14 C.F~. Part n) pursuant to Section 1101 of tile Feceral Av1abon Act of 1958. as
amended (49 U.S.C. 1101 ). Pet"$0ns who knowingly and Willfully VIolate the nobee 18Quirements of Part n are sub1ect to a nne (cnmtnal penalty) of not
more than $500 tor the first ottense and not more than $2.000 for subsecluem ottenses. pursuant to Section 902(A) of the Federal Aviallon Act ot 1958, u
amended (.c& u.s.c. 1-472(A)).
FAA. Fonn 7480-2 (o.cli SUPERSEDES PREVIOVS ECITlON Fig 5-2 AOVANCE NOTICE OF CONSTRUCTION
SUB/rfiT WITHOUT DEU. Y Page 5-35

8200.34 8/11/94
FIGURE 5-3. SAMPLE FAA FORM 7 460-7, ACKROWLEDGEMERT OF ROT ICE OF
PROPOSED CORSTRUCTIOR OR ALTERATIOR
lk II("'-' 2£:£_Q ':'C 'J ~.Je:;cr~me:.!
=! ·rc:"'~ccr~c!:Cn
Fecercl Aviation
AC:mlnlstratlon FFWE:. '·L . .:.;.; ~· c: .:.c.·.:i:li~~:=~ATJ::·. ::;::
12 iiE:.I :::,~_.;;:;, El~:;,;7i.~ PA~i\
Cl3C3 AERONAUTICAL STUOY
NO. 90-ANE-344-0E
AC:<NOWLEDGMENT OF NOTJCE OF FRCPOSE:J CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION
CONS7l'IUC71CN LCCATICN
Two Way Radio Service
100 Marion Drive
Kingston, MA 02364 Quincy, MA
! :e.:c;:.:~·;c·:
c:::NS7~UC7JON I
P~CPOSEO Guyed Tower 6c9'
–.e =e':e~aJ A.·,nar:or: .J.cmrro;:s~ratien he .. e:::y ac:<r.cw1e~;es ~e-:e::~ :f ~ct;ce :a:!-: Sept ember 7, 19 90
:~:::~e::: ::::ns;:–..;c::ci": or a1~e~.atocn :es.:~::::e-: aco …. e. l..:.a:· .. c •.ts~
849'
~ ~:…:::·• '"':as eeoe~ c:r:c::.:c~ec ur:eertr:e :.-:::\ltSICns cf F3n ii c1 ~~.e ~ec:e~af Avta::c-=.;-; .. c:rcns :c :e~t~~tre .. .,.re: .. e .. :~e :::lrcc:::se-c c:ns:ruc:JCI"'
wc~…:c ::ear. o:s:r:..e::on to a1r navi;a_tiCI"l ·N~&!:-.er 1t snoulo :e T.ar"'"e~ and :i'=:o::c-: :: -!'""'"arce sa~e~:;·n atr ~a·.-:;a~.: …. .;.~c 'NI"'e~~e~ .:: … ::le!";";enta:
~c~:ce :r s~a~ ar.c ::r.'lj:let;cr: ot c:ns:r:..c:.cr: 1s ~ec:..1red !o ;:errr:1t :u~ely ;~ar. ~; ;.~: ~otrfica:.c:"': :c a1r:"'r.e:- -·~e ':ncu-:;s :f ::–.a: s~:.~ey are a.s
~CIJC·.vs:
C 7.–:e :rcccs~ c:n~tr..:c:Jcn cces .,ot ~ecu1re a ~Ot1ce :c r=.-\.-\
_ ~.,e :rcc::seo c:r.s:n:c:;cr. s ""::: .ce!":t:fie: 3S an ocs::"..;c:;:n :;r.ce· =.-.·::::.-:arc :7 .=.;.r .. =ar: -; S … ::.1.r: C a:-:: ···•c:.:'c r:ct :e a
…,a;arc 😮 a1r nav!l;a:ocn.
0 -.,e .orcc:csec ::::ns:ruc:;on IS :Ce'it>~.e:: as ar: :cs~c::cn ~ . .-r.cer ~~e s~a:.-:!.·:~ :·=A~.==."":-:- .s … ::a!":': : … :·.vcu1C ;c: :e 3 r:azar: !O
a1r na … ~;atJon.
0 i:,e 3~r..;c:ure sncule ce ocstruc:Jcn marked anc ,ig:nted ;:e~ F .l…:. ;.,:·::s;~y C.rc:..:z~ .~C -:-o,-:-.:.e:.· '"Ccs:r..;::::cr. .VlarKm; ar.c
L:gnnng. ·Chapter:; –––
0 Succle'"r.e~:aJ notiCe •s re~1.Mec at ~east .:.S !"lours :e!cre !~e s:ar: -:f ::~s::-:.;:::cn ar:c · …. r:r:1n t1ve ::a·.'s !!':er ~ns::-…::::.cn reac:"oes .~s
;reares• :-:eH;nr {use the er.c~osec ~A.A. form).
ur.1ess:
.'ar exte!"'C!C. :-evrsed or :erm1r:a;ee ~~ :tle 1SSu1ng office:
J: 1 ~he :.:r:s:ruc:,on 15 sue1e:: to :he lrcer.smg autr.omy of t:"le =ece~aJ :.: . .,mur.rca::cns Cc~!":",ISS :r. ar:c a~ acclicar:cn ~cr a
c:ns:r:…c~:cr. ::e."mrt .s mat:e !C :r.e !='CC .:nor :efcre rr.e :lcc … e ~x:·~a:·::- :c.~e 'n :: … c:-. :ase ::"'.e -:e:!·-:-.r.a~.c~ -?:<::res en :~e :a:e
~resc:-:ceo ~Y :t:e =·:C ~or ::r.-:cte:Jcn et ::ns:r:..;c::cn. cr :n t!".e :a:e … ! :::: :::e~res ::–e a::~1c:!t:c:-
NC7:. ;…r.y rec1…es: 7cr ex:e:;s;cn cf ::-:e a~e:::.ve ce~1Cd of :h1S ee:ermrr:a::c~ ;:..~::a :cs:ma~<e-:: :r :e1r-.e·e:: :: ::-:e ·Sl..;u-:; :~:ce at :eas: • 5
cays !'f1Cr 😮 :l":e ex::rrauon ::a:e
~ 7)-:e :to:::csec ccns::'l.ic:rc~ .·•c~.,;rc ~."tcee-:: ~ar. -:-:-ocs:r"-C:1or . .5:ar.::a.·::s .:.-:: • …. r::-.e' .:e~::na~.,;:l,J, s::..::' s -eczs:;a"".' :::: :e~er~~~e
Nne!re· .t wcu1c :e a ~aza:-: :carr :13v1;a:,on. Pe~c1n; c:::r.".ple~~cn =~ .!::~ " .. r:::-:er s;~c/. 1t :s ::res..:IT'e'! ::-.e :::::–.s:~:.;c::cr: NCutC ~e 1
."ia.:.=rc :.:; a1r r.a … ~;a:;cn. ~..;."'::·er s~:..cy·
D 1-as :::eer1 .n,t:a:ec: :::y :re =..:..A
~ \1ay ~ r~~es:ec ey !:":e s:cnsor 'Nrtl"lln 30 Cays ~f date cf ::-S .ac.<:"CwleC;e~e:–:t
0 :t ~l":e ;:re::csed struc:~.:re ·,…ere ~~L.Ced .n :-:e11;nt :n not e;~ceed 4 90 ~. 1:cve ;r:~…:-c ·e·,e! 1 6 7 0 ~. Jcc·•e sel e·•e:), :t NCu!:
~ct exeec .Cart 77 o~stn.;c~:c~ s:ar.cards.
il ::ooe ::: …. uc:ure ·s SI.!Cjec: to :f'le lice~s~ng autnorr!v cf :tie FCC. a ~:::cy ()! ~:-::s .!C'<~cwrec:;me'"'l ….. u ::e se-r :c ::-.2: ).ge~"~c-;
NC'ilCE lS REQUIRED ANYTIME THE PROJECT IS ABANDONED CR THE PROPOSAL IS MCDIF!EO.
The proposed construction would exceed the Obstruction Standards of Federal
Aviation Regulations, Part 77, Sections 77.23(a)(l) and 77.23(a)(2) by 179 feet.
~/~.~~
s:c,<: :-!aur1ce Georgiap' '!'JrL.E A.;rspace Tecbnica, Spec~ a~~.;·
,s5ce:, __ B_u_r_l_i_n…;g::.'.:..·o.:….:..:n..:•….;.MA::.:._O::._:.l.:.8.:.0_3 ______________ cN __ :-:_o_,_·e_:::_b:..~.:….:..:r_::_5-',:.._:..lc.:..·.:..9.:.0 _____ _
FAA FORM 7~1P
Page 5-36 Fig 5-3

8/11/94 8200.34
FIGURE 5-4. SAMPLE FAA FORM 7460-8, AERONAUTICAL STUDY OF
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION
• ' 0
tl • 0
_j_ US Depoi'Tme( II
Of 'toru;X:Ir'IO!'ion
~l.v\atlon
Admll\lstrotson
Total CC~~~~:~Unicat!OI'II of ll&rlnettt,
tOQt Vt Mall '-"e!'ll.ll
llarll'ltttt, lil ~14:S
CIUC.IPTIOII Jl"\:, Orut S.ak.-"•tiOI"'
lUh'loh. tft.iiN. M4&1\lflf'\•
NiftMtiUI. Notth Ctko\e,
01'\Jo, tew1h Cek.o\a,
WIK.fttln SyltM llanat_,t Ira,.,;~
AttantiCIII, AGL•UO
2"00 laa1 Devon A""""• Det ,101"", llllfteta tOOl I
I~ l£PL'I' ltrU tO
~I CI.L IT\IIT IIQ.
, •.W.· 115•CE
CCIISTitiJCT I Cll L.CCl T I Cll
,LACE IIAM!
'll&rlrwtte, \11
UTITLill LCIIClMl
n° or• 10• 1'1" ~~· 0110
Wt!eWT I N 'tlTl
=»>$TIUCT I~ 14' U:!lt!CIII to vllt!l'f t-r A~t ,.:xn;~ .U..""V' 1'.$1.
Fig 5-4 … ~ ~-~~~. 150·162, 450·470 101:. S14 1274
"1'1Ctl~t hU bttn tiled a.lth tilt Pedtral Avhtlon l.ck!l~nhtrltlon thlt tht •~ve l!ta:rlbed atru:tl.lrt it pr~~:st'li
1Qr ;onnr~~etlon. AI propoucl t~t atr~o~etwre dlolld untd tht su!'Cir:a of S"*Part C of Part 17 of tht Ft:!t~al
Av!lt!CIII ltiUlU!ON ard ~~~ De latl'ltlflt~ II I ODtti'\ICtiOII to air Nv!;ttiOII. A::orl!n;ly tht FU II
condr.l:t!ne tn ttronautl:al at~ of tilt prc~ul to cltttrll!l'lt is effect 1o1J1011 t.'lt uft a!'ICI tfflcle!'lt ''"of tht
Nvlsablt a!rapt:t by tircrtft and on tht ~ration of air l\lv!;atiCIII ftcllttiea.
11'1 t~t lf\.C)', cona!O.ratlol'latlll be eivtn to ell ftcta ~t:tval'lt to tilt tff.ct of tht proposal 01'1 u!rtlnt ·~
plal'll'lt= afrapa:e ~~at; tlr l'ltvl;a:!on ft:llftltl; III'JIOrU; atrcreft operatiOI'II, p~octO.Iru ard IIII'IIIIIA ftlsM
tlt!t…,.a; ll'ld tht e!r trtff!c :011trt\ aystHI. hwtvtr, 01'1\y thou plar'll 01'1 flit wit~ t~t ru, on tha dl:t t"•
Mtl:e COI'ICtrnlne tht '~"' cltJ:ribe:l prt;~Cucl constr~o~et!OI'I wu ra:elvt~, will bit clll'•fctrt~.
1Meru:ed ~~trtOI'It trt lrwltt~ to partl:lpt:t In tht ttrOI'Ia~tfca\ It~ by t;:!:ll>fttll'lf :-..el'ltt t~ tht FU
office luu!r.; t~la rctl:e. To De t\lfl~lt for r:or:aldtratloll, •-tt m.;tt bt ra:r.an: to tht tfftct t~t
I>~'C~ItC connruct!on ~~:~~o~ld hl'l'l 01'1 eviatlcn, prVtlc:t aufHcitP~t detli l to ~~trmit a clttr IIP'Ctru~!n;, tnd
be r.ct!Yt~ 011 or before llty 9, 1991.
Pltue rehr to V11 urOI' .. '-Itlul atiiC!y ~r prlnttc! ifl t~t ~· rlsht t.L"C cer~~er of 'hla 1'1Ct.l:e.
Thla rootlet lilY be rtprod\jctd lrd ~e:!rc11l1ttd by ar~y ll'lttrantd JltttCIII.
Tht pro;:oQitC ltr~o~CtOitt 10C11ld De locatte epprozlc•ttlY 9 Nut !cal alltl tnt of t~t ll.t~ll'ltt•lltrll'ltttt ~"'"
Coc.tr~ty Airport, llarll'ltUt, Ill. It OfOOI!tl tr.cttd tha Oll&tr~o~etiOtl ataN:Itrds of the F~rtl AvlttiOI'IItt•lttiiX'\t,
hrt n u feU-: · '
hetf~ TI'.UtaHil by U ft. • a ht!Jh Nrl thai! SOO ft. ACL
A ~.art Ia 1111 the l't'l'trtt tick.
AIRPORT MANAOERB • PLEAS! POST
COMMENTS INVITED
,.,. 1 ef z he••
Page 5-37

8200.34 8/11/94
FIGURE 5-4. SAMPLE FAA FORM 7 460-8, AERORAtr.riCAL STUDY OF
PROPOSED CORSTRUCTIOB OR ALTERATIOR (Cont'd.)
Page 5-38 ~I
••• 1 I
I
Fig 5-4

8/11/94 8200.34
FIGURE 5-5. SAMPLE FAA FORM 8460-9, DETERMIRATIOR OF
RO HAZARD TO AIR RAVIGATIOR
U 5 Deporrmenr
or Tronsporror1on '"'A£ PlY AE~EFI TO
AEAONAUnCALSTUOY
Federal Aviation
Administration Great Lakes Region/AGL-530
2300 East Devon Avenue NO. 93-AGL-2574-0E
Des Plaines, Illinois 60018
DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION
COHSTAUcnONLOCAnON
a: Mr. John Pearson P~CENAME
0 RAM/BSE Paging Co., L.P.
"' 10 Woodbridge center Drive z 0 Suite 900 Lowell, MI …
"' Woodbridge, NJ 07095
\.A muoE li CCNGI1UOE
~2"56'28.ll 85°20'02.0
OESCFIIPT!ON MEIGHT liN FEET!
CONSTAUCnON Antenna Tower
ABOVE GFIOUNO J ABOVE MSI. PROPOSED Frequency 454.025 MHz, ERP 500 watts
99 859
An aeronaut•cal study of the proposed construction descnbed above nas been completed under the prov1s1ons of Pan 77 of the Federal Aviation
Regulat1ons. Based on the study 1t IS found that the constructiOn would have no suostant1al adverse effect on the safe and effiCient utiliZation of
the nav•gaOie atrspace Oy atrcratt or on the operauon of atr na"ga11on fac11tttes Therefore. pursuant to the authority delegated to me. 1\ IS hereOy
determtned that the constructton would not be a hazard to atr navtgatton provided the follOWing conditions are met:
Cond1t1ons· The structure is marked and lighted in accordance with Chapters 3,
4, 5, and 13 of FAA Advisory Circular AC 70/7460-l, "Obstruction
Marking and Lighting."
Supplemental notice of construction 1s reoutred any lime the prorect •s aoandoned I use the enclosed FAA form). or
ICJ At least 48 hours before the stan of construct•on (use the enclosed FAA form!
~ W1th1n f•ve days after the construct1on reacnes 1ts greatest he1ght (use the enclosed FAA form)
Th1s determmat1on exp•res on JUN 2 2 1994 untess
(a) extended.rev•sed or termmated by the •ssu1ng off•ce:
(b) the construCtiOn 1S suo,ect to the ltcens•ng authority of the Federal Commun1cat1ons Comm1SS10n and an apphcatton for a
constructiOn perm•t 1S made to me FCC on or before the aoove exptratton date. In such case \he determinatiOn exptres on the date
prescnbed Oy the FCC for completton of constructiOn. or on the date the FCC den1es the app1tcat1on.
NOTE: ReQuest for extens•on of theeffect•ve penod of th•s determtnat•on must be postmarl<ed or delivered to the tSSutng off•ce at least 15 days
pnor to the exprratron date ·DEC 1 2
Thts detenm•nat1on •s subJect to re,,ew tf an tnterested pany flies a pet•t•on on or before 1111 . In the
event a petit ton for rev.ew •s It led. 1t shoulc be suOmttted 'n tnpltcate to the Manager Fhght lnformat•on and Obstruct:ons Branch. AAT. 210.
Federal Av•atton Admtn1Strat1on. Washtngton. DC 20591 and conta•n a full statement of me oas1s upon whtch 1t •s maoe.
This detem1nat1on oecomes final on ·a;c 2 2 78 unleSS a pettt•on for rev-is timely filed, 1n which case
the determtnatton w•ll not oecome ftnal pencltng d•spos•t•~f the petttton Interested panteS wtll be notthed of the grant of any review.
An account of the study find1ngs. aeronaut teal obrect•or-s. 1f any. reg•stered w•th the FAA dunng the study, and thebaslsforthe FAA's deCision in
thtS matter wtll be found on the foliowing page(s)
If the structure tS subJect to the licenstng authonty of the FCC. a copy of this determmatton will be sent to that Agency.
This determination. issued tn accordance wtth FAA Pan 77. concerns the effect of thts proposal on the safe and efficient use of the navigable
airspace by atrcraft and does not relieve the sponsor of any compltance respons•O•I•ttes relattng to any law. ordinance. or regulation of any
Federal. State. or local government body 5"
"""' ……. 'o_ ?~b'"'•?:fA{./71~~~• _M_a_n_a_g_e_r_, _s_y_s_t_e_m–:-M:-:a_n_a._g_e_m_e_n_t_B_r_a._n_c_h_, _A_GL-530
Des Plal.nes, Illl.nol.s NOV 1 2 1991 St
ISSUEOIN –––––––––––––––––––ON ––––––––––––
FAA Form 7 … 8 fMll su•e•seoes r•ev•ou,; EOiltON Fig 5-5 Page 1 of ___L_ Pages
Page 5-39

8200.34 8/11/94
FIGURE 5-S. SAMPLE FAA FORM 8460-9,
BO HAZARD TO AIR BAVIGATIOB DETERMIBATIOB OF
(Cont'd.)
The proposed construction would be located approximately .89 nautical miles
southeast of the Lowell City Airport, Lowell, Michigan. It would exceed the
obstruction standards of the Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77 as follows:
section 77.23(al (5) by 28 ft. – a height exceeding the horizontal
imaginary surface as applied to Lowell City Airport.
The proposal was circularized for public comment by letter dated September 27, 1993.
One letter of objection was received as a result of circularization. The Kent
County Department of Aeronautics objected on the basis that the proposal would
affect the flight operations at Lowell City airport and reduce the useability of
the airport.
Aeronautical study disclosed the proposal would have no effect on any existing
or planned instrument flight rules (IFR) operations, procedures, minimum
flight altitudes, or air navigation and communication facilities.
Study for visual flight rules (VFR) effect disclosed that the proposal would
be within the confines of traffic pattern airspace for Category A aircraft at
Lowell City Airport for runways lS/33. The airport's other four runways have
published right hand traffic patterns and standard left hand traffic patterns
and thus would not be affected by the tower's presence. Additionally, runway
lS/33 is a turf runway and it is closed during the winter months.
Consequently, it was determined the impact would be minimal on aircraft in the
traffic pattern at Lowell City Airport and the proposal ~ould be accommodated.
Study also disclosed that at 99 feet above ground level, the proposal would
not penetrate altitudes considered available for VFR enroute operations.
The structure would be appropriately obstruction marked and lighted to assure
aetonautical conspicuity.
The cumulative impact resulti~g from the proposed construction, when combined
with the impact of other existing or proposed structures, was negligible.
Therefore, it is determined the proposed structure would have no substantial
adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace
by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities and would not be
a hazard to air navigation. •
This decision is based solely on the foregoing description of the structure,
which includes location, height, ERP, and operating frequency.
The FhA hereby requests that proper notice be given for any future
construction or alteration that would exceed the above described heights,
including any increase to the ERP, alteration to the transmitting frequency,
and/or addition of any other transmitting devices.
This determination does not i~clude temporary construction equipment such as
cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during the actual construction phase
of this proposal. Such equipment which has a height greater than the proposed
structure and a height which would exceed the notice standards of Part 77 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations requires separate notice. If prior notice
for temporary construction equipment is required, please complete and return
the enclosed FAA Form 7460-1.
Page 2 of 2 Pages
Aeronautical Study No. 93-AGL-2574-0E
Page 5-40 Fig 5-5

8/11/94 8200.34
FIGURE 5-6. SAMPLE FAA FORM 8460-10, DETERMIRATIOR OF HAZARD
TO AIR RAVIGATIOR
us~'"'E'"'
O' lron~tJO' !JI!()n
federal Av1alion
A.dmu'\htrallan GREAT LAKES REGION/AGL-530
2300 East Devon Avenue
Des Plaines, Illinois 60018
IE 0 Ill z North American !roadca•tin& Company, Inc.
KDUZ
~ Box 10
Hutchinson, MN 55350
CONST~ucnoN 135' Increase to Existing Antenna '"'"'"·•"f''•'<.
AE~ONAUTICAl S TUOY
NO Yl-AGL-lU2~-0E
CONSTRUCTION LOCATION
Hutchinson, ~
o,..t.TilVCl ~~o,~llvOl
44° 54' 33"1 94" 22' 00"
IOlS.CiiiiiPliO,…
PROPOSED Tower (Freq: l 07.1 MHz, t. 1260 KHz, ERP 6KW/1KW AIO'J'£ C.AOUkO l.t.8C.'o'E -..SL 346 1441
A.n a~ronaut1C.I Sludy of I he proposed construCfiOI'I deSCflbeO lbOYe hiS ~en complt1td u"d!" t!".e provtS'O"'S Of Pan 77 Of tP'Ie F!'dera1 A-v,at.on
Regulatzons Based on tnt study 11 •s found that the construction would nave a subs1ant,a! adve'W tffect on the s.~le ande11zc,ent ut•hZit1on o! tne
navrg&bte arr,pate by arn::raN Of on the operat•on ot arr navr91hon tacohttH Theretora. p~,~rs1.1ont to the auth011ty O.legateo to me rt rs heret>y
determrned that the eonstructron would be a haZard to arr na.rgatron
AUG 2 3 1992
Thrs determination rs subJect to review rf a t:>e~•t•on rs fried by U'le spor~sor on or before In the
event a J;>etrtron !Of rrtYrtw rs fried ot should be subtnrtted "'trrptrcate to tt'lt Mane~r. Ftoght lr.!orrnatron and ObWuctoons Branch AAT ·210.
Federal AVI&bon Admrntstratron. WIShrngton. O.C 20!>!i1. and contarn 1 lull stattment ot the ba.,s upon wtuch ot rs mao.
Thos delermrnatron becomes ttnal on SEP 2 1992 unless a ~htoon tor rev-os tornety toted rn whrch case
the detarmN"'at~ Will not become f1n&l penchf\i dlf+>Ot.Ahon ot tht ptt1hon Intern ted part..s w111 be not111«1 of the gral'1t o! any revsew
An account ot the stuct; fmdengs.a~ronaut,eal Ob1f'Cl10n~ ''any reg1stered w•th tf"'e FM dur,ng f!"oe study and tht baSI$ for the FAA s decrsron ,,.,
thts m1:ter w11! be found below and1or on the fotlO'IIIrtng page(s)
II the structure IS Sl.lbleet to the lrCtnsong authQrrty ot tl'le FCC. a copy ot thrS Oetermrnatron "''"be sent to that Agency
Thrs determrnatron. >Uued 1n accordance wrth FAR Part 77. eoneerna "'' e"-ct o• tnrs prope~: oo tl'>e ute and effocoent use ot the nav.;ao•e
arrspaee by arrcral1 and does not rei,… 1111 sponsor otany comphanct rHpor>S•brhhn rtlatong to any law. ordonance. or regutatron ot any
Federal. State or loc.t go.emment bOdy.
,,1,£ Mana£er, S,·s:e= ~ana~e~ent Branch, AGL-530
ossuto ·~ ___ D_e'-s'-:.P.;:l.;:ac:i:.;:n.:.;e:;.;s:….:..• …:.~.;;.l.;;.l.;:i.;:n:.:o:;.;i:.:s::_6=0.::0.;:1..::B:_ ________ "" JUL 2 4 1992
Page , o! __::__ PaQII
Fig 5-6 Page 5-41

8200.34 8/11/94
FIGURE 5-6. SAMPLE FAA FORM 8460-10, DETERMIRATIOR OF HAZARD
TO AIR RAVIGATIOR (Cont'd.)
Tne proposed co~struction ~ould be located approximately 3.08 nautical miles
north northeast of Hutchinson Municipal-Butler Field Airport, Hutchinson, MN.
Tn~ proposal exceeds the obstruction standards of Federal Aviation Re~ulatior.s,
Part 77, as follows:
Section 77.23 (a)(2) by the full height of the addition a height dOove
(ground level) exceeding 208 feet within 3.08 nautic~l miles as applied to
Hutchinson Municipal Airport.
section 77.23 (a)(3) oy 1171 a height that increases a m1n1mum instrument
flight altitude within a terminal area (TERPS criteria).
The proposal would necessitate increasing the minimum descent altitudes (MDA'sl
from 1820' to 1940' AMSL for the NDB runway 15 straight-in and circling
instrument approach procedures (IAP).
The proposal was circularized for public comment oy letter dated April 21, 1992.
No letters of objection were received as a result of circularization.
Study ~or visual flight rules (VFR) effect disclosed the proposal would be
beyond all known public-use airport traffic pattern airsp~ce areas and at 346
feet above ground level would not penetrate altitudes considered available for
VFR enroute operations.
The aeronautical study did disclose that the proposal would necessitate an
increase of 120 feet ~the HDA for the NDB runway 15 SIAP as described aoove.
This increase would force aircraft to a higher altitude as they sought to
maintain contact with the airport while circling to a runway or landing
straignt-in. The proposal would eliminate the usefulness of a lower altitude
whlch would more easily enable a pilot to successfully complete the landing
maneuver.
The loss of these altitudes would have an adverse effect on the benefit gained
from their use. The adjustments necessary to accommodate the proposal would
eliminate the usefulness of a portion of tne national airspace system. Study
also revealed tnat the affected approach procedure is tne or.ly one providing a
straight-in approach to runway 15.
A collateral study discovered that during fiscal year 1990, 87 aircraft utilized
instrument approach procedures at Hutchinson Municipal Airport under actual
instrument weather conditions. This usage constitutes a significant volume of
operations. Therefore, it is determined that the proposed construction would
have a substantial adverse effect or. the s~fe and efficient utilization of the
navigable airspace by aircraft and would be a hazard to air navigation.
Aeronautical Study No. 91-AG~-1028-0E
. Pages 2 of 2 Pages
Page 5-42 Fig 5-6

8/11/94 8200.34
SECTIOR 3. FPB REQUIREIIERTS ARD GUIDELIRES FOR
OBSTRUCTIOR EVALUATIORS
536. GENERAL. The obstruction
evaluation process places a
heavy demand upon the FPB OE
inspector in both time and ex­
pertise. Exact evaluations
require a detailed understand­
ing of TERPS and all forms of
airspace utilization. Sound
judgement and common sense are
important requirements. This
section provides an overview of
the elements that inspectors
use to carry out their respon­
sibilities to the regional OE
program. Flight Standards pol­
icies and practices for evalu­
ating proposed obstacles are
included.
537. REFERENCES FOR OBSTRUCTION
EVALUATIONS. The following are
material referred to in this
handbook or other guidance that
may be needed for conducting
obstruction evaluations.
a. FAR Part 77, Objects
Affecting Navigable Airspace.
Establishes standards for de­
termining obstructions in the
navigable airspace and sets
forth requirements for notice
to the Administrator of certain
proposed construction or alter­
ation. It provides for aero­
nautical studies and public
hearings to determine the ef­
fects of such proposals on the
navigable airspace.
b. Order 7 4 0 0 • 2 , Proce­
dures for Handling Airspace
Matters. Addresses the struc­
ture, forms, and procedures for
processing obstruction studies.
Par 536 c. Order 8260.3, United
States Standard for Terminal
Instrument Procedures (TERPS).
Contains_criteria used to for­
mulate, review, approve, and
publish procedures for instru­
ment approach and departure.
d. Order 8260.19, Flight
Procedures and Airspace. Pro­
vides guidance to Flight Stan­
dards/Aviation Standards per­
sonnel regarding the obstruc­
tion evaluation process and
provides guidance on accuracy
standards for obstructions.
e. Advisory Circular
150/5190-4, A Model Zoning Or­
dinance to Limit Heights of
Objects Around Airports. Pro­
vides a model zoning ordinance
to be used as a guide to con­
trol the heights of objects
around airports.
f. Advisory Circular
150/5300-13, Airport Design.
g. Advisory Circular
70/7460-1, Obstruction Marking
and Lighting.
h. Advisory Circular
70/7460-2, Proposed Construc­
tion or Alteration of Objects
that May Affect the Navigable
Airspace.
538. OBSTRUCTION EVALUATION
TRAINING, NATIONAL OE MEETINGS,
AND ASSOCIATED PREREQUISITES.
The following are formal train­
ing courses, conferences, meet­
ings, and prerequisites that
provide the recommended train-
Page 5-43

8200.34
ing and knowledge for the
Flight Standards OE inspector
to perform obstruction evalua­
tions.
a. FAA Course 12051, Ba­
sic Obstruction Evaluation and
Airport/Airspace Analysis (104
hours) . This course is primar­ily designed for Air Traffic,
Flight Standards, Airports, and
Airway Facilities personnel in­
volved in the Obstruction Eval­
uation and Airport/Airspace
Analysis Programs at the Re­
gional and Washington Headquar­
ters level. The course con­
sists of classroom instruction
and laboratory exercises. Con­
tent includes application of
FAR 77 criteria, evaluation of
aeronautical effect, issuance
of hazard/no hazard determina­
tions, obstruction marking and
lighting, FAR 157 and AIP air­
port processing, and issuance
of airport airspace determina­
tions.
b. FAA Course 12052, In­
troduction to Flight Procedures
Analyses (120 hours). This
course is designed for Flight
Standards, Airports, Air Traf­
fic, and Airway Facilities per­
sonnel involved in the conduct
of the agency's obstruction
evaluation program whose relat­
ed training need is limited to
the area of en route and termi­
nal flight procedures analysis. It will also fulfill the train­
ing needs of persons in each of
the four subject services whose
duties include a requirement
for comprehension of en route
and terminal flight procedures.
c. Periodic Obstruction
EvaluationandAirport/Airspace
Page 5-44 8/11/94
Analvsis (OE/AAA) Conference.
Attendance at the OE/AAA week
long conference is expected
because the knowledge gained is
available no where else. Most
of the meeting is for govern­
ment personnel to discuss per­
tinent OE/AAA issues. One day
of the meeting provides a gov­
ernment and industry forum that
encourages a free exchange of
ideas, techniques, and sharing
of hard-earned knowledge on
OE/AAA problem areas.
d. Meetinqs to Discuss
Changes to Order 7400.2. Occa­
sionally, Air Traffic in Wash­
ington, and specifically, the
Airspace and Obstruction Evalu­
ation Branch, ATP-240, hosts a
meeting to discuss changes to
Order 7400.2. Regional partic­
ipation is expected and FPB
inspectors must be adequately
represented.
e. Instrument Procedures.
A comprehensive knowledge is
required of the concepts of
criteria application and the
procedure development process
addressed in TERPS, Order
8260.19, and AC 120-29.
f. Air Operations. A
comprehensive knowledge is re­
quired of general aviation, air
carrier, and military aviation
practices in both fixed wing
and rotor aircraft, for evalu­
ating both IFR and VFR effects.
539. COMMON SENSE. Estab­
lished criteria are not a sub­
stitute for sound judgement and
common sense. The criteria do
not relieve inspectors from
exercising initiative or taking
appropriate action in recogniz-
Par 538

8/11/94
ing both the capabilities and
limitations of aircraft and
navigational aid performance.
a. Generally, hazard de­
terminations are issued for
proposed construction only when
the obstruction results in a
substantial adverse effect upon
aviation. Order 7400.2, para­
graph 7-4, states that in order
for the adverse effect to be
considered substantial, a sig­
nificant volume of aeronautical
operations should be affected.
b. The inspector is en­
couraged to make comments where
safety is concerned, regardless
of traffic volume and written
criteria. There may be occa­
sions where a proposed obstacle
less than 500 feet above the
ground is in a heavily used VFR
route and known terrain/­
lighting conditions will make
the obstacle a hazard to the
VFR operations. Unlit, multi­
ple structures like a tall pow­
er line may be an example.
Where flight safety is ques­
tionable, the inspector should
take the initiative and request
that Air Traffic negotiate a
modification or require light­
ing to this type of proposal.
540. ACCURACY IN EVALUATIONS.
The OE inspector must make ev­
ery effort to conduct a com­
plete and thorough evaluation
of each case. Accuracy is a
necessity, particularly since
no independent check of the
inspector's work is normally
accomplished.
a. An unfortunate charac­
teristic of the OE program is
that errors made by an inspec-
Par 539 8200.34
tor may not become apparent for
years until a revision or re­
view is made to a particular
procedure and the conflict be­
tween the new obstruction and
the old minimums is identified.
The new obstruction may have
substantial adverse effects
upon important IFR procedures
that may have been overlooked.
Once the obstruction is built,
the effects may be irreversible
and the _error will result in
the minimums being raised.
b. Penetrating obstruc­
tions determined to be a hazard
to the flying public are poten­
tially dangerous. Also, the
adverse effect of penetrating
obstructions as defined by cri­
teria may not always be miti­
gated by raising minimums. The
OE inspector must realize that
the accuracy of each calcula­
tion and decision made on a
specific segment of the evalua­
tion potentially affects the
safety of aircraft. For this
reason, the obstruction evalua­
tion, though tedious, is ex­
tremely important and must be
accurate.
541. INSTRUMENT PROCEDURE DE­
SIGN CONCEPTS. The procedures
specialist who originally de­
signs an instrument procedure
will utilize the TERPS criteria
to provide the best possible
product to the pilot. Existing
obstacles, high terrain, de­
sired aircraft tracks by Air
Traffic Control (ATC), and en­
vironmental concerns are all
considered in the final proce­
dure design.
a. SIAP' s. Approach pro­
cedures are normally designed
Page 5-45

8200.34
to be as simple as possible
consistent with the lowest pos­
sible minimums. Final approach
course alignment to a runway is
designed as close as possible
to runway alignment.
(1) Missed Approach
Procedures. Missed approach is
an integral part of an approach
procedure and must be obstacle
free. Although statistically
used only one percent of the
time (based on collision risk
model data), missed approaches
must be available to both the
pilot and ATC. Missed ap­
proaches are designed to return
the pilot to the en route
structure or to reposition the
aircraft for another approach.
ATC requirements or environmen­
tal considerations may dictate
a specific missed approach
ground track or holding fix.
Missed approach criteria make
no assumptions as to aircraft
configuration such as loss of
an engine. Turns during a
missed approach are based on
the median speed of the air­
craft approach categories.
(2) Circling Ap-
proach Minimums. Circling ap­
proach maneuvers are used by a
pilot to land on any runway at
an airport no matter where the
final approach course is
aligned. Consequently, cir­
cling minimums are published on
approach procedures and minimum
altitudes are provided which
contain TERPS obstruction
clearance requirements. Actual
circling approaches are common
at smaller airports. They are
uncommon at high activity air­
ports because of aircraft con­
gestion, multiple approach fa-
Page 5-46 8/11/94
cili ties, and ATC procedures.
Circling minimums must be pro­
tected at all airports with
circling minimums because, like
the missed approach procedure,
this maneuver may be required.
( 3) Course Reversal.
A procedure turn or other type
of course reversal procedure is
normally designed into the
SIAP. Course reversal proce­
dures are required for a pilot
approaching the airport/heli­
port from a direction which
does not allow direct entry
into the procedure. This ma­
neuver positions the aircraft
so that the final approach
course can be entered directly
and in stabilized flight.
(4) Initials and
Transitions. These segments
are designed into the SIAP to
allow routes for pilots to
transition from the en route
environment to the final seg­
ment. Because of chart clut­
ter, only the commonly used or
requested routes will be pub­
lished. Routes not requiring a
course reversal are provided
whenever possible. ATC may
develop a Standard Terminal
Arrival Route (STAR) to transi­
tion to a SIAP as the traffic
conditions warrant.
(5) Minimum Safe
Altitudes. Minimum safe alti­
tudes (MSA) are minimum obsta­
cle clearance altitudes for
emergency use. They normally
include a 25 mile radius from
the primary navaid supporting
the approach and are depicted
on most SIAP' s. Emergency safe
altitudes (ESA) include a 100
mile radius from a navaid and
Par 541

8/11/94
are depicted on some military
SIAP' s. Navigational reception is not guaranteed at the MSA
and ESA distances. These al ti­
tudes are determined and pub­
lished to establish the safe
limits if the pilot, for what­
ever reason, must descend to
the lowest possible altitude.
MSA' s and ESA' s are designed
for emergency use only and are
not routinely used by pilots or
by ATC.
(6) ATC Minimum Al­
titudes. ATC has minimum vec­
toring altitudes (MVA) for ter­
minal radar vectoring and mini­
mum instrument altitudes (MIA)
for en route center use. These
ATC minimum IFR altitudes may
have to be considered for SIAP
development when radar vector­
ing is required for the proce­
dure.
(7) Use of Navaids
and Cockpit Workload. Most
segments of the SIAP require
positive course guidance
from/to a navaid or waypoint.
Within the original design of
the SIAP, navaids in the termi­
nal area are utilized to mini­
mize cockpit workload during
the approach. Positive course
guidance is provided whenever
practical. Consistent with
operationally significant mini­
mums, SIAP's should be designed
with single pilot operations in
mind and consider the minimum
navigation equipment required
by the FAR. The requirement to
tune and identify facilities
which are not derived from the
final approach facility should
be limited to only what is re­
quired for the procedure and
what would be advantageous to
Par 541 8200.34
the pilot to obtain lower land­
ing minimums.
( 8) Descent Gradi­
ents. Each approach segment of
a SIAP, up to the missed ap­
proach point, has maximum and
optimum descent gradients spec­
ified in TERPS. The intermedi­
ate segment usually has the
lowest descent gradient. This
flatter _segment is designed
into the procedure so the pilot
can slow the aircraft to ap­
proach speed and reconfigure
the aircraft for entry into the
final approach. In order to
reduce the aircraft noise asso­
ciated with the approach, other
segment minimum altitudes are
normally the highest possible
consistent with optimum descent
gradients.
b. Takeoff Minimums and
Departure Procedures. Normal­
ly, takeoff and departure pro­
cedures are designated only for
those airports/heliports that
have an instrument approach.
( 1) Review of depar­
ture procedures at VFR airports
may be conducted as required
under FAR Section 135.215(d).
( 2) Review of "en­
gine out" departures may be
conducted, if requested by the
principal operations inspector,
under FAR Sections 121.177,
121.189, 135.367, 135.379, and
135.398.
(3) When an airport
originally becomes an IFR air­
port and an approach procedure
is designed, all runways autho­
rized for instrument departures
are studied. Like approach
Page 5-47

8200.34
procedures, periodic reviews of
departure procedures are accom­
plished by the FIAO.
(4) FAR Part 97 IFR
takeoff minimums and departure
procedures are established by
the FAA to provide a margin of
safety for all IFR operations.
The optimum departure is a di­
verse departure which is, in
essence, an unrestricted depar­
ture (straight ahead climbs or
turns in any direction) • A
40:1 obstacle identification
surface (OIS) is used for the
evaluation. This 40:1 OIS
equates to a rate of 152 feet
per nautical mile ( NM) . The
TERPS criteria assume the air­
craft will climb at a minimum
of 200 feet per NM or approxi­
mately 30: 1. Therefore, the
aircraft is constantly gaining
altitude at a minimum rate of
48 feet per NM over obstacles
which do not penetrate the OIS.
(5) If penetrations
of the 40:1 surface within the
diverse departure area occur in
other than Zone 1 (small area
at the end of the departure
runway) , the procedures spe­
cialist normally attempts to
establish a route which has a
clear 40:1 OIS. This route is
the departure procedure. De­
parture procedures are designed
to be as simple as possible and
the majority are runway heading
climbs to an altitude before
turning. The procedure spe­
cialist's evaluation will at­
tempt to produce the least re­
strictive (lowest) takeoff min­
imums along with the least com­
plicated and safest departure
procedure. When possible, the
Page 5-48 8/11/94
runway will have standard take­
off minimums.
( 6) For penetrations
of Zone 1 or if a departure
route cannot be designed that
has a clear 4 0: 1 OIS, higher
than standard takeoff minimums
or a higher than standard climb
gradient will be specified.
The ceiling and visibility es­
tablished by the takeoff mini­
mums shall be sufficient for
the pilot to see and avoid the
obstructions. The climb gradi­
ents shall provide 48 feet per
NM obstacle clearance.
(7) For the pilot,
higher than standard takeoff
minimums (ceiling and visibili­
ty) are the most restrictive
action that can be taken to
provide a safe instrument de­
parture. Consequently, a spec­
ified minimum climb gradient to
safely overfly the penetrating
obstruction may be established.
If the pilot determines the
specified climb gradient can be
maintained to the appropriate
altitude, standard takeoff min­
imums may again apply; if not,
the higher takeoff minimums
apply. Unrealistically high
climb gradients (normally for
tall, close-in obstructions)
are not established. In cases
of numerous close-in penetrat­
ing obstructions, a climb gra­
dient is not provided and the
pilot is required to see and
avoid the obstructions as pro­
vided by the takeoff minimums.
TERPS paragraph 1205d requires
a note to be published stating
that the obstruction(s) exist
and should be considered by the
pilot.
Par 541

8/11/94
( 8) Departure proce­
dures may not always be compat­
ible with ATC preferred depar­
ture routes or Standard Instru­
ment Departures (SID) . Al­
though every attempt is made to
provide ATC compatible proce­
dures, the requirement to pro­
vide the pilot with the least
restrictive takeoff minimums
and departure procedures may
dictate what is eventually pub­
lished under FAR Part 97, IFR
Takeoff Minimums and Departure
Procedures. SID's are ATC de­
signed departure procedures,
not FAR Part 97 procedures, and
may contain higher takeoff min­
imums and climb gradients than
are published under FAR Part 97
for that runway.
( 9) Pilots flying
under FAR Part 91 are not obli­
gated to comply with IFR take­
off minimums nor departure pro­
cedures. See FAR Section
91.175f.
c. IFR En Route Proce­
dures. En route airways and
facilities are planned prior to
establishment to best utilize
airspace, expedite the movement
of air traffic, and preserve
the environment. Routes
through and around congested
terminal areas are extensively
studied to provide optimum ATC
utilization and to minimize
delays.
( 1) Placement of the
en route facility normally dic­
tates the airway centerline to
the next facility. Exceptions
are dogleg airways. Availabil­
ity of land for purchase or
lease often dictate facility
locations.
Par 541 8200.34
(2) The minimum op­
erational altitudes on these
airways (MEA, MOCA, etc.) can
be determined by the existing
obstacles and terrain in the
appropriate areas of protection
established in TERPS Chapter
17. However, minimum signal in
space requirements may produce
MEA altitudes considerably
higher than required by obsta­
cle clearance.
( 3) Dogleg airways
are normally established for
ATC use to divert opposite di­
rection traffic when congestion
or extensive climbs and de­
scents occur. Because of ATC
separation rules and the need
to reduce any delay for the
aircraft on the dogleg, these
routes are normally established
15 degrees left or right of the
primary airway.
542. CHANGING PROCEDURES.
When IFR procedures are origi­
nally developed, all obstruc­
tions are considered and the
best pilot oriented chart is
produced consistent with safe­
ty, navaid and runway orienta­
tion, and ATC requirements, if
any. There are numerous loca­
tions on and around airports/­
heliports where structures of
varying size and height can be
accommodated without changing
the IFR procedures. The basic
Flight Standards policy is that
major IFR procedural changes
should not be considered to
accommodate proposed con­
struction. This is especially
true when the change would be
detrimental to the flying pub­
lic.
Page 5-49

8200.34
a. Prior to even consid­
ering any instrument procedural
changes, Flight Standards advo­
cates negotiations with the
proponent to move or lower the
proposal. Every effort should
be made to negotiate airspace
conflicts without changing in­
strument procedures.
b. The current Flight
Standards policy is that no
required procedure revision
will be initiated until con­
struction is imminent on the
new obstruction. The reason
for this policy is, in the
past, instrument procedures may
have been changed based on a no
hazard determination and con­
struction never occurred. In
essence, navigable airspace was
"given away" prematurely and
for no reason. When discov­
ered, the procedures would then
have to be revised again to
retrieve this navigable air­
space (return to the lower min­
imums) • During this time peri­
od when the minimums were high­
er, a proponent for new con­
struction can rightfully claim
that current instrument proce­
dures do not require this air­
space. Also, instrument proce­
dure revisions are work inten­
sive and expensive. Conse­
quently, instrument procedures
will not be revised until re­
ceipt of the construction no­
tice.
c. The most commonly re­
quired IFR procedure change is
an increase in the minimum al­
titude for a specific segment.
Change in some segment's mini­
mum altitude may be necessary
to accommodate new construc­
tion. A secondary effect of an
Page 5-50 8/11/94
altitude increase is that the
climb or descent gradients from
the preceding and to the suc­
ceeding segments are affected.
Climb/descent gradients are
based on the minimum altitudes
at one fix to the minimum alti­
tude at the next fix. The
Flight Standards policy is that
climb/descent gradients should
not exceed optimum, or if cur­
rently above optimum, should
not be increased.
d. The following is a
noninclusive list where changes
to IFR procedures should not be
considered, or may be consid­
ered, in order to accommodate
new construction.
(1) SIAP changes
that should NOT be considered.
(a) Major
changes or complete procedure
redesign.
(b) Increase to
straight-in or circling mini­
mums.
(c) Increase to
descent gradients above opti­
mum, or if already above opti­
mum, any increase to descent
gradients.
(d) Adding a
stepdown fix to the intermedi­
ate or final approach segment
utilizing a navaid not required
by the procedure.
(e) Changing
the final approach course.
( f ) An increase
to any minimum segment altitude
that would significantly dis-
Par 542

8/11/94
rupt normal aircraft handling
by ATC; for instance, loss of a
cardinal altitude.
(g) Changes
that would increase cockpit
workload in the intermediate,
final, and missed approach seg­
ments of flight.
(h) Adding a
requirement for additional
equipment to fly the procedure
or to obtain the lowest ap­
proach minimums allowed by the
SIAP; for example, change a VOR
procedure to a VOR/DME.
( i) Raising a
glide slope angle above opti­
mum.
(2) SIAP changes
that may be considered.
(a) An increase
to a minimum altitude of a seg­
ment.
(b) An addition
of a stepdown fix in an ap­
proach segment.
(c) Moving a
fix.
(d) Changing
the course reversal direction
to the other side of the
course.
the missed
tion.
MSA/ESA. (e) A change to
approach instruc-
(f) Increasing
(g) Deleting an
unneeded or unused transition
Par 542 8200.34
or initial approach segment of
the approach.
(h) Replacing a
needed segment by adding or
modifying a transition or ini­tial approach segment.
( 3) IFR Takeoff Min­
imums and Departure Procedure
changes that should NOT be con­
sidered.
(a) Increasing
the takeoff minimums or climb
gradient.
(b) Adding a
departure procedure where none
previously existed.
( 4) IFR Takeoff Min­
imums and Departure Procedure
changes that may be considered:
Changing a departure procedure
providing the change is not
overly restrictive on the pi­
lot.
( 5) En route and ATC
IFR procedure changes that
should NOT be considered.
(a) Increasing
the takeoff minimums or climb
gradient·of a SID.
(b) Increasing
an airway MEA or MCA affecting
significant numbers of air­
craft.
( c ) Any minimum
altitude changes for STAR's,
MVA' s, or airways that would
increase descent gradients
above optimum on the first seg­
ment into SlAP's.
Page 5-51

8200.34
( 6) En route and ATC
IFR Procedure changes that may
be considered: A minor change
that would not adversely affect
a significant amount of air­
craft or disrupt the normal
aircraft handling capabilities
of ATC.
543. PROCEDURES CRITERIA THAT
SEGREGATES PROPOSED OBSTACLES
FROM EXISTING OBSTACLES. Pro­
cedures criteria have two loca­
tions where the evaluations for
existing obstacles and proposed
obstacles may be different.
The first is TERPS paragraph
289, Obstacles Close to a Final
Approach or Stepdown Fix, which
specifically states the crite­
ria apply to existing obsta­
cles. The second is TERPS
Chapter 12, Departure Proce­
dures, which states, at numer­
ous locations, that the obsta­
cle identification surface
(OIS) begins no higher than 35
feet above the elevation of the
departure end of the runway.
The OIS is established for each
runway on the original depar­
ture evaluation, based on ex­
isting obstacles.
a. This TERPS wording is
restrictive. The regional OE
inspector must use logic and
common sense when applying
TERPS paragraph 289 and the
TERPS departure criteria.
These are the criteria, but not
all site-specific peculiarities
can be included in the general
criteria.
b. An example of common
sense application to TERPS
paragraph 289 may be a proposed
obstruction which is lower,
further off final centerline,
Page 5-52 8/11/94
and further from the runway
than an existing paragraph 289
obstacle. However, a tall an­
tenna farm located at the FAF
or final stepdown fix is not
desired, nor should an estab­
lished fix without an existing
paragraph 289 obstacle ever
have a paragraph 289 obstacle.
c. For departures, an
example may be a 1 foot pene­
tration to the existing OIS (if
this OIS start elevation is
less than 35 feet above the
departure end of the runway),
by a proposed obstruction over
2 miles from the departure run­
way. In essence, this action
adjusts the previously estab­
lished OIS which was not the
intent of TERPS. A minor ad­
justment to the OIS may be con­
sidered for a proposal some
distance from the departure
runway end, but should not be
considered for Zone 1 obstruc­
tions.
544. PROPOSAL ACCURACIES.
Obstacle data accuracy is not
absolute. The accuracy depends
upon the source of data. The
size of the error does not pre­
clude the use of the data, pro­
vided it is identified and tak­
en into account. Therefore,
all obstacle data underlying a
flight procedure will have an
accuracy code assigned to it
that is directly related to the
uncertainty associated with the
source of the data.
a. Order 8260.19, Chapter
2, Section 11, identifies the
requirement for accuracy coding
of obstacle data used in the
development of instrument pro­
cedures and provides informa-
Par 542

8/11/94
tion on the application of
these coding standards.
( 1) For precision
approaches, raw data with an
accuracy code of 1A ( 3 feet
vertical and 20 feet horizon­
tal) can be used without fur­
ther adjustment. For all other
procedures raw data with an
accuracy of 2C (20 feet verti­
cal and 50 feet horizontal) or
better, can be used without ad­
justment.
( 2 ) All raw data
wi trr-· higher (greater than 2C)
accuracy codes must have the
horizontal uncertainty (associ­
ated with the obstacle's accu­
racy code) applied to the posi­
tion of the obstacle in the
direction of greatest impact,
and the vertical uncertainty
added to the reported height of
the obstacle.
(3) If higher mini­
mums or excessive climb or de­
scent gradients can be attrib­
uted directly to the uncertain­
ty in obstacle position or
height, then a survey should be
used to provide a higher order
of accuracy prior to the next
revision or periodic review of
the procedure.
(4) Since Flight
Standards does not currently
have funds for contracting out
of surveys, the FPB inspector
has essentially two options:
first, request a flight inspec­
tion fly-by, which will result
in a 4D accuracy code (50 feet
vertical and 250 feet horizon­
tal); or, second, request the
assistance of the airport man­
agement. In most cases, the
Par 544 8200.34
airport management can obtain
survey coordinates through
their respective city, county,
or state surveyor's office or
have surveys completed in order
to mitigate the effect on in­
strument procedure minimums.
Occasionally, the National
Ocean Service (NOS) may provide
a survey.
b. The primary source for
obstacle data used in develop­
ing instrument procedures is
the Quarterly Obstacle Memo –
Digital Obstacle File which is
an obstacle database of NOS.
NOS assigns each obstacle on
the list an accuracy code. The
assigned coding is based on the
source of the data. The NOS
codes have the same footage
parameters as the accuracy
codes used by the FAA, but the
printed codes are not necessar­
ily the same codes used by the
FAA for instrument procedure
evaluation.
(1) NOS obtains ap­
proximately 80 percent of the
new obstacles in its database
through the OE process. The
regional AT OE office sends the
FAA Forms 7460-1 and 7460-2 to
NOS when-the structure exceeds
FAR Part 77. Other obstacles
are added to the list by NOS
aerial photography or individu­
als sending information to NOS.
( 2
) When NOS re-
ceives a FAA Form 7460-1 and
7460-2, they send a quadrangle
map and a questionnaire to the
owner of the structure. If the
obstruction is marked by the
owner on a 7 1/2-minute quad
chart with 5-foot or 10-foot
contour intervals, it is as-
Page 5-53

8200.34
signed a 5D accuracy code. If
the quad chart has a 20-foot
contour interval, the accuracy
code is 5E. The horizontal
code of 5 (+/-500 feet) is
assigned anytime the informa­
tion is derived from an owner
on a quad chart.
( 3) Since the FAA
uses these accuracy codes for
procedure development, 5D and
5E codes may have an undesir­
able effect on instrument mini­
mums. No matter what the as­
signed NOS accuracy code, the
FAA uses 4D for all obstacles
studied under the OE program.
Also, NOS accuracy codes may be
improved if the region can fur­
nish OE survey data to NOS.
c. With respect to pro­
posed obstruction evaluations,
accuracy codes should be ap­
plied when performing aeronau­
tical studies. This ensures
that effects of the obstruction
are properly evaluated.
(1) Past experience
has shown that proponents of
new construction are fairly
accurate on the proposed height
of their structure above the
ground. However, inaccuracies
are common in regard to the
base elevation above mean sea
level (MSL), upon which their
structure will be built and the
location (latitude and longi­
tude) .
( 2) For Flight Stan­
dards obstruction evaluations,
the most important factors of a
new proposal are the MSL height
at the top of the structure and
its location. Without a survey
of the proposed construction
Page 5-54 8/11/94
site, the possible inaccuracies
of the proposal height and lo­
cation must be considered.
d. The following are
Flight Standards policies and
practices for application of
accuracy standards for obstruc­
tion evaluations.
( 1 ) The standards of
Order 8260.19 apply.
( 2 ) An OE accuracy
code of 4D (50 feet vertical
and 250 feet horizontal) should
be used on all segment control­
ling obstructions if required
by Order 8260.19. (Note that
Order 8260.19 requires no ad­
justments, using 4D coding, be
applied to studies involving
IFR departure surfaces in zones
2 and 3, intermediate areas,
and all procedures with 1000/-
2000 foot ROC such as en route,
holding, _procedure turns, tran­
sition/feeder routes, and MVA.)
( 3) Exceptions for
using a less restrictive accu­
racy code may be for proposals
on airport property where good
surveys or an Obstruction Chart
(OC) exists. Knowing the base
MSL elevation and having mea­
sured distances from a runway,
may eliminate the need to apply
an accuracy code. Another ex­
ception may be proposals at
mean sea level (on ocean beach­
es or tidal marshes) where the
base elevation is known within
+/-3 feet (vertical accuracy
A). Another example would be
relatively short objects not
exceeding the height of tree
growth. Local procedure devel­
opment policies specifies tree
heights for obstacle protection
Par 544

8/11/94
(for example, 100 feet) and
existing segment minimums
should already have considered
tree height above the terrain.
(4) If improved ac­
curacy would eliminate an ad­
verse effect, AT shall be noti­
fied. Based on the other ser­
vices' evaluation results, AT
may determine a site survey is
appropriate and request the
proponent to provide this sur­
vey.
(5) The FPB OE in­
spector should not concur to a
no hazard determination with
adverse effects without review­
ing a requested survey. The
review should assure that sur­
vey documentation is from a
legitimate source, such as a
licensed surveyor or licensed
professional engineer. The
information should be in the
form of geographic coordinates
and feet above mean sea level.
The datum standard must be
stated. There should be a
statement of the degree of ac­
curacy of the data (+/-footage
horizontal and vertical). Sur­
veyed coordinates should be to
the nearest tenth of a second.
Usually, the originally filed
coordinates are not this pre­
cise and the location should
change. See Figure 5-7 for a
sample site survey from the
proponent.
(6) The survey has
to be forwarded to NOS with the
FAA Form 7460-2 so the appro­
priate accuracy code can be
included with the new listing
on the Quarterly Obstacle Memo
-Digital Obstacle File. The
OE inspector also must inform
Par 544 8200.34
the FIAO of the accuracy code
used, especially if procedures
have to be revised.
(7) If a survey
would eliminate adverse ef­
fects, the OE inspector should
not concur to a no hazard de­
termination based on a promise
that the proponent will furnish
a survey after construction is
completed.
545. ERRORS IN EXISTING IN­
STRUMENT PROCEDURES DISCOVERED
DURING THE OBSTRUCTION EVALUA­
TION. Occasionally, errors in
existing procedures may be
found when accomplishing the
obstruction evaluation. Ac­
tions must be taken by the OE
inspector or the error conveyed
to another FPB inspector for
action.
a. Action. The first
action the inspector should
take is to discuss the discov­
ery with the FIAO. The appar­
ent error may be nothing more
than an improperly documented
flight inspection result or
some other factor not apparent
on the procedures forms. Actu­
al errors require further ac­
tion.
(1) If minimums are
too low and must be raised,
immediate NOTAM action by the
FIAO procedures specialist is
probably required. Other er­
rors discovered besides mini­
mums may also require NOTAM
action.
(2) If minimums are
too high or other minor errors
exist, immediate action may not
Page 5-55

8200.34
be required but procedure revi­
sion steps should be initiated.
b. Procedural Changes
Affect the Obstruction Evalua­
tions. For errors in minimums
lower than required, the OE
inspector must note the proce­
dural changes required based on
the discovered error and evalu­
ate the proposal based on what
the procedure minimums should
be. Do not evaluate the pro­
posal based on a procedure that
is incorrect and must be
changed.
546. AIRSPACE WHERE ADJUST­
MENTS INCREASE OPERATIONAL AL­
TITUDES. RESERVED. TBD.
54 7 . TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTIONS.
Order 7400.2, paragraph 7-37,
provides the guidance on tempo­
rary structures and temporary
construction equipment.
a. The general policy
stated in Order 7400.2 is that
a temporary structure of 30
days or less should be accommo­
dated by reasonable adjustments
provided there is no substan­
tial adverse affect on aeronau­
tical operations or procedures.
b. A temporary Flight
Data Center (FDC) NOTAM may
have to be issued for temporary
structures and temporary con­
struction equipment which af­
fect instrument procedures.
c. Instrument procedure
revisions may have to be made if construction equipment use
is planned for 120 days or
more. This 120-day limit is
the temporary FDC NOTAM time
Page 5-56 8/11/94
limit specified in Order
8260.19, Chapter 2, Section 6.
d. In the event an
instrument procedure has to be
temporarily revised based on
construction equipment, the
airspace required by the origi­
nal procedure is still reserved
for aircraft. The OE inspector
is cautioned to evaluate new
obstruction proposals based on
the original procedure and not
the temporary procedure. Pre­
cise record keeping is neces­
sary for all procedures changed
based on temporary construction
equipment to ensure proper
evaluation of any new proposals
and to ensure procedures are
revised to the original form
when the equipment is removed.
548. CONSIDERING PROCEDURAL
CHANGES. When a procedure
change is considered to accom­
modate new construction, do not
overlook any design limitations
addressed in Order 8260.19.
For example, do not concur with
a proposal when the FIAO cannot
make the appropriate change
because a final stepdown fix
does not save 60 feet or reduce
visibilities.
549. PROCEDURAL CHANGES AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS.
Order 1050.1, Policies and Pro­
cedures for Considering Envi­
ronmental Impacts, establishes
FAA policies and procedures for
implementing the National Envi­
ronmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA), and specifies Flight
Standards environmental respon­
sibilities. One category of
responsibility includes new
instrument approach procedures,
departure procedures, en route
Par 545

8/11/94
procedures, and modifications
to currently approved instru­
ment procedures. Also see
Chapter 10.
a. During an aeronautical
study, the OE inspector deter­
mines if modification of the
instrument procedure to accom­
modate a proposed obstruction
is technically possible. If
modification is possible and
prior to stating that it may be
possible to modify the proce­
dure, an analysis of the envi­
ronmental consequences of the
action is required.
b. The categorical exclu­
sions in Order 1050.1 do not
apply in noise sensitive areas
or at a location of known envi­
ronmental activism. When con­
sidering changing procedures,
an environmental assessment is
required if the change is apt
to be controversial.
c. Recognizing that cumu­
lative impacts can result from
individually minor but collec­
tively significant actions tak­
ing place over a period of
time, a review is necessary to
determine the cumulative impact
of past, present, and reason­
ably foreseeable future in or­
der to judge whether signifi­
cant changes in noise will oc­
cur.
d. All proposed changes
to a procedure not categorical­
ly excluded will require an
environmental assessment to
determine the extent of the
impact. If the result of the
assessment is a Finding Of No
Significant Impact ( FONSI) ,
then it may be possible to mod-
Par 549 8200.34
ify the procedure. Require­
ments for an Environmental Im­
pact Statement (EIS) may pos­
sibly result in no modification
to the procedure being consid­
ered. The proposal proponent
seeking the revision may con­
sider paying for an environmen­
tal assessment to speed the OE
determination process.
550. EVALUATING VFR EFFECTS.
Order 7400.2 provides most of
the FAA's written guidance for
evaluating the possible VFR
effects of a proposed struc­
ture. In conjunction to this
guidance, the OE inspector must
apply any knowledge they may
have concerning the local VFR
operations or discuss these
types of operations with the
controlling FSDO.
a. Proposals near an air­
port/heliport must be very
closely evaluated, especially
when located in the traffic
pattern area. Climbs for de­
parting aircraft and descents
for landing aircraft within the
traffic pattern area are lmpor­
tant considerations.
b. Any local helicopter
operations require special at­
tention.
c. Local conditions such
as weather and terrain may have
an effect on the evaluation.
d. The OE inspector
should recommend marking and
lighting, even if not specifi­
cally indicated by the existing
guidelines in Order 7400.2, at
locations where visual identi­
fication by the pilot is deemed
appropriate.
Page 5-57

8200.34
e. Proposals less the 500
feet AGL require a thorough
review, but, for en route ef­
fects, any proposal exceeding
500 feet AGL requires an exten­
sive evaluation of VFR routes.
f. While one particular
proposal may not impose an ad­
verse effect upon a VFR opera­
tion, the FPB OE inspector must
consider the cumulative effect it could have when existing
obstacles in the general area
are considered.
551. OVERVIEW OF THE FLIGHT
STANDARDS APPLICATION POLICIES.
The FAA has a congressional
mandate to manage navigable
airspace. Every effort should
be made to negotiate a reduc­
tion in height of proposals or
relocation to maintain current
levels of safety.
a. The Flight Standards
policy, based on the guidance
in Order 7400.2 and this hand­
book, is that proposed struc­
tures can be accommodated pro­
vided their construction would
not have an substantial adverse
effect on IFR and VFR opera­
tions. A major concern is air­
craft safety.
b. In conjunction with
criteria application, the in­
spector should evaluate the
proposal based on the pilot's
viewpoint. Flying in the area
of the proposal can provide
insight not always apparent
from a map study.
c. If a thorough evalua­
tion reveals that there would
be an adverse effect on IFR or
VFR operations, the inspector
Page 5-58 8/11/94
is obligated to object to the
proposal.
552. TOOLS FOR OBSTRUCTION
EVALUATIONS. There are some
tools available to assist the
OE inspector in the obstruction
evaluation. The most produc­
tive tools are the newer auto­
mation aids. There are also
manual aids such as maps,
charts, and forms, that have
been used successfully for
years. Today, automation pro­
grams assist in the evaluation
process, but cannot fully re­
place the manual tools which still are used for complex cas­
es.
a. Automation Tools. The
use of computer programs has
expanded in the past few years.
Several OE automation tools are
utilized in the regions. These
programs were developed by FPB
personnel for local use.
Through lack of a national pro­
gram, they are now shared be­
tween regions. The FPB devel­
oped programs are occasionally
updated or expanded by the de­
velopers. The automation in­
formation presented in this
handbook-is meant for guidance
and understanding for those
using the programs. Use of the
automation tools is not manda­
tory, but for some evaluations
automation is almost indispens­
able. The following are common
automation tools used in the
regions.
( 1 ) The OE Net­
works. Currently, 2 different
networks are being used. One is a local area network based
tracking system developed by a
contractor for Air Traffic in
Par 550

8/11/94
Washington. Some regions now
have an automated OE network
available. Networks have been
criticized for being slow and
cumbersome. However, each of­
fers a database which contains
a current status for each and
every OE case. Networks are a
tracking system only and have
no calculating capability for
Flight Standards evaluations.
(a) The OE
network system manager general­
ly is located in the regional
Air Traffic Division. Users
require a network cable connec­
tion and a network card in
their computer.
(b) The
focal office for the OE data­
base is the regional Air Traf­
fic 530 branch. The 530 office
receives a new FAA Form 7460-1
from an construction proponent.
They enter the information from
that form into the OE network
database and assign an OE case
number. Once the information
resides in the network, a user
from any of the operating divi­
sions may access the data.
(c) Some AT
offices transmit the OE case
via the computer network only
to the other operating divi­
sions. A hard copy of the FAA
Form 7460-1 and map are not
circulated. Other regions still use a hard copy 7460-1
form and a map with the ob­
struction plotted, but use the
computer network for responses.
(d) One
advantage of the OE network is
that the OE data can be loaded
to the Preliminary Regional
Par 552 8200.34
Obstacle Screening Evaluator
(PROSE-see paragraph (2) below)
very readily on the computer
and the need for manual data
entry by the FPB is eliminated.
Some FPB' s have print capabili­
ties for the computer generated
7460-1 form and down load all
cases into a FPB OE tracking
program. All these actions
occur at the same time PROSE is
being utilized.
(e) After
analysis of the proposed ob­
struction by the operating di­
visions, a response may be made
via the OE network. Each user
is assigned a user ID and pass­
word. Response fields in the
OE network may only be accessed
by the appropriate user; that
is, only Flight Standards may
make a response in the Flight
Standards response field. Once
the response is made, it is
"locked" by the user. No one
is then able to change that
response.
(f) Figure
5-8 shows an example of a com­
puter generated 7460-1 form.
Figures 5-9 and 5-10 show two
examples-of a computer OE net­
work response form. Note that
the space for comments is very
limited, but an additional page
is available. Figure 5-11 is
the first page of a yearly sta­
tus listing that is part of
some FPB's internal OE case
automated records.
( 2 ) Preliminary
Regional Obstacle Screening
Evaluator (PROSE). This soft­
ware was planned by a Flight
Standards committee, mainly
from different FPB's. The
Page 5-59

8200.34
software was developed by
Mr. Thomas Hilquist from the
AGL-220 office. The program is
written in Basic and is used as
an OE "rough" screening device.
Although this program has not
been "officially" certified by
the FAA, it was validated by
AGL-220 before it was put into
operational use. Since 1986,
PROSE has been extensively used
and field tested by both
AGL-220 and AS0-220. Changes
and updates were made immedi­
ately upon discovery of any
error. At the time of this
writing, there were no known
errors or discrepancies in the
program.
(a) To use
this software, a database must
be created consisting of all
the existing and planned air­
ports/heliports, approaches,
airways, and facilities in the
region. The database genera­
tion may take several weeks.
Some regions have already cre­
ated this database, and only
need to make additions or cor­
rections as new procedures are
developed or other procedures
are modified. The major draw­
back of PROSE is the database
creation and maintenance.
(b) The
PROSE program defines airways,
approach trapezoids, and other
airspace requirements by ap­
proximating these areas with
circles. These circles are
always large enough to encom­
pass all possible areas of an
instrument procedure. A PROSE
evaluation is very thorough and
may identify more problems than
actually exist. It is an ex­
cellent screening program which
Page 5-60 8/11/94
will identify almost all poten­tial problems, with the excep­
tion of VFR effects and safety
issues. Based on the PROSE
results, the areas "flagged"
for possible effect will re­
quire further study. Areas not
"flagged" will not require fur­
ther study.
(c) Amajor
operational benefit of using
PROSE is that it eliminates
errors due to inadvertently
overlooking any area in an ob­
struction evaluation. This
screening process, by omission
of a program print-out, also
allows for a quicker review.
Of course, a properly main­
tained and accurate database is
critical.
(d) A
starter package explaining how
to initialize the PROSE program
can be obtained from AGL-220.
Tom Hilquist or another inspec­
tor can help with any questions
for initial setup.
(e) Once
the PROSE program and database
are set up, the branch secre­
tary or clerk can input the new
daily OE information into
PROSE. This can be done di­
rectly or through data file
manipulation if the OE data is
entered into another program
like an OE index. In those
regions where AT is using an
automated OE management system,
the AT program builds a daily
OE file that the PROSE program
can use without having to enter
each OE case directly. The
secretary can then run the
PROSE program and distribute
the results to the appropriate
Par 552

8/11/94
OE inspector for further pro­
cessing. The inspector can
then do a quick screen and sep­
arate the OE cases that have no
effect. These cases can usual­
ly be evaluated very quickly.
A rapid turnaround for the cas­
es is the main administrative
benefit of PROSE.
(f) A PROSE
print-out for a typical OE case
is shown in Figure 5-12. Some
important terms and their defi­
nitions regarding the reading
of a PROSE print-out are dis­
cussed in the following sec­
tion, where the evaluation of
en route and approach segments
are thoroughly discussed.
( 3 ) SUPERPROSE •
SUPERPROSE is a follow-on pro­
gram to PROSE. This program
initially runs the PROSE pro­
gram but retains the results
internally rather than produc­
ing a print-out. The operator
is then provided a new menu
from which to chose non-preci­
sion, precision, or radar/de­
parture/circling evaluations.
Using the TERPS Calculator pro­
grams (see paragraph ( 4) be­
low), the program evaluates
every approach of the selected
type at an airport if the PROSE
program had previously deter­
mined that there may be an ef­
fect. SUPERPROSE then prints
specific results for each eval­
uated approach at that airport.
(a) The
following are examples of
SUPERPROSE print-outs for eval­
uated non-precision approaches
at an airport (XYZ is the air­
port identifier):
Par 552 8200.34
"XYZ VOR-A -OK"
"XYZ NDB RWY 21 -OK"
"XYZ NDB-B -EXCEEDS"
"XYZ VOR/DME RWY 03 -CON­
TROLLING"
(b) If the
results are not "OK", then an
individual print-out is made of
the TERPS Calculator results of
that particular non-precision
approach.
(c) Similar
results are obtained when the
precision or radar/departure/­
circling menu items are select­
ed.
(4) TERPS Cal­
culator. This software was
also developed by Mr. Thomas
Hilquist using BASIC for the
programming. TERPS Calculator
software provides a precise and
specific analysis of one re­
quested evaluation at a time.
(a) The
program provides an evaluation
of the final and missed ap­
proach segments of the instru­
ment procedure.
(b) Al-
though a database is required,
the program provides for key­
board data entry without first
putting it into a database.
Also, this software can utilize
the PROSE database and is ex­
tremely valuable in determining
OE effects. TERPS Calculator
is generally used after poten­tial effects have been defined
by PROSE or manual screening.
A TERPS Calculator printout is
shown in Figure 5-13.
Page 5-61

8200.34
(5) GEODES/-
GEODET. Often 1n the OE pro­
cess, distances and courses
based upon latitude/longitude
information are necessary. Two
programs were developed in BA­
SIC which accomplish this task.
Mr. James Mast, of ANM-220,
wrote GEODES, and Mr. Thomas
Hilquist, of AGL-220 wrote
GEODET. No database is re­
quired to use these programs.
They are stand-alone programs
that are very user friendly.
An example of a GEODET printout
is shown in Figure 5-15.
(6) GT-CALC:
Geodetic/TERPS Calculator. In
1991, Jim Mast, ANM-220, devel­
oped GT-CALC which consists of
a set of application modules
and an on-line database of nav­
igational aids, airports, and
airway data. GEODES is one of
the interconnected modules.
Besides database utilization
and geodetic computations,
GT-CALC has modules for ILS,
MLS, diverse departure, hold­
ing, and procedure turn.
GT-CALC is a useful program for
initial development work for
instrumentprocedures, obstacle
analysis, and data retrieval.
However, there is no provision
for updating the on-line data­
base. This capability must be
developed because data become
obsolete quickly. An example
of a GT-CALC printout, includ­
ing the main menu listing
GEODES as an option, is shown
in Figure 5-14.
(7) Instrument
Approach Procedures Automation
( IAPA) • The development of
IAPA first began in 1974. The
Flight Procedures Branch,
Page 5-62 8/11/94
AVN-220, is the software and
hardware manager of IAPA.
Unfortunately, the primary
function of IAPA has been lim­
ited to development of instru­
ment approach procedures. Rap­
id OE analysis is rarely possi­
ble on IAPA. The capabilities
of IAPA are increasing and new
equipment is expected to be
installed in all FIAO' s, re­
gional 220 offices, and Wash­
ington Headquarters in the 1994
time-frame.
(a) Pres­
ently, IAPA is of limited use
in the OE program. IAPA may
sometimes be helpful in the
analysis of a complex OE case
such as determining the effects
in a turning missed approach
area. However, creating an
IAPA workfile to perform this
analysis would be necessary.
This can be a very time consum­
ing task.
(b) Even after the workfile creation,
the complete final approach
portion of the approach proce­
dure has to be built prior to
evaluating something like a
missed approach. Normally, a
manual map evaluation or using
the PC programs listed above is
much easier and quicker. How­
ever, IAPA has the advantage of
being a certified program that
produces certified results.
(c) When
the new IAPA equipment is
available, workfile creation
will be relatively quick and
existing procedures will be
stored in a file until they are
canceled. Stored existing pro­
cedures should be able to be
Par 552

8/11/94
retrieved directly by FPB in­
spectors and IAPA will become
an increasingly important OE
tool.
(d) One
issue that is a problem in us­
ing the current IAPA program is
the display of graphics. The
FPB's do not have IAPA graphics
terminals and printers, and the
workfile must be sent from the
FPB PC to a FIAO or AVN-220
terminal to view the graphics.
The assisting office must then
manipulate the graphics termi­
nal to view the area of inter­
est. Then a print copy is made
and the piece of paper has to
be forwarded to the FPB. This
a rather cumbersome proce­
dure. The initial purchase of
the new IAPA equipment will
resolve this particular prob­
lem.
(e) IAPA is
a menu driven program. The
menu results of segment devel­
opment can be printed using the
PC print screen function. IAPA
segment programs are useful for
trying alternate missed ap­
proaches, finals with stepdown
fixes, and new initial/feeder
routes, should the inspector
determine that procedural
changes may be appropriate.
(f) Cur-
rently, it is possible to ob­
tain a workfile out of IAPA by
using any PC and modern, delete
words from the workfile, and
display the procedure graphics
on a regional computer aided
engineering graphics ( CAEG)
system. All regions originally
had CAEG equipment and efforts
were being made to make use of
Par 552 8200.34
CAEG equipment in OE applica­
tions. However, hardware is­
sues and lack of progress on
programming this project are
delaying CAEG for obstruction
evaluation use. The future of
this project is in doubt, be­
cause the new IAPA equipment
will have most of the CAEG ca­
pabilities and some regions do
not have CAEG.
(8) Airman's
Management Information System
(AMIS). The AMIS database is
helpful to the inspector be­
cause it contains required air­
port/heliport and navaid data
with the appropriate accuracies
required for instrument proce­
dure design and flight inspec­
tion. Although the AMIS data­
base is more extensive than
airport/navaid data, these are
the primary data used by the
FPB. Also, AMIS services the
data need for IAPA. Most re­
gions have an AMIS terminal.
The Data Analysis Branch,
AVN-240, manages AMIS informa­
tion. AMIS is the FAA official
airport and navaid data source
for FPB database creation and
for obstruction evaluations.
b • =M:::::a:.::.:n::.;:u;:..;:a::.:l=–-=E:…:v'""a""l=:u=-a=t-=i'-"'o:.:::n Tools. There are a number of
manual evaluation tools which
are required or desired to
properly complete obstruction
evaluations.
(1) Basic Supplies.
A sharp pencil (.05 rnrn mechani­
cal pencil is recommended),
dividers, an engineers scale
ruler, and an engineers calcu­
lator are considered the mini­
mum requirements for obstruc­
tion evaluations. A drafting
Page 5-63

8200.34
table is also desired for the
extensive map study that may be
required for obstruction evalu­
ations (and also for the numer­
ous other map tasks accom­
plished by the FPB).
( 2 ) Maps and Charts.
The major maps and charts need­
ed are: current instrument ap­
proach charts, sectional
charts, VFR terminal area
charts, current en route low
altitude airway charts, and
airport obstruction charts
(OC). A set of 1:250,000 topo­
graphic charts and quad charts
are occasionally needed. Also
helpful is a SIAP graphic con­
sisting of approach segments
drawn on a sectional chart or
produced by IAPA.
(3) Other Tools.
Besides access to FAA Form
5010-1' s and airport/facility
directories for the regional
area of responsibility, the
primary remaining tool is the
FAA Form 8260 series forms con­
taining the instrument proce­
dure data. Of prime importance
is the FAA Form 8260-9, Stan­
dard Instrument Approach Proce­
dure Data Record. This form
contains the controlling ob­
structions for all segments of
the approach, as well as ROC,
minimum altitude adjustments,
etc. Plastic trapezoidal tem­
plates or transparent segment
overlays for different scale
maps may speed analysis time.
Page 5-64 8/11/94
( 4 ) Job Aid. Figure
5-16 is a job aid that lists
the primary IFR procedures and
VFR operations that should be
evaluated for each obstruction
evaluation. This standardized
obstruction evaluation listing
was selected from examples of
job aids currently used in
FPB' s. The OE inspector is
encouraged to use this job aid
to document any effects discov­
ered for an individual propos­
al. The completed job aid can
also be used for the response
to AT and as a permanent record
of any effect discovered. The
obstacle evaluation process
detailed in the next section
uses this job aid as the format
for the evaluation.
553.-555. RESERVED.
Par 552

8/11/94
FIGURE 5-7. SAMPLE SITE SURVEY
Please Reply to:
lilJP.O. Box 9
E..sex Junction
Vei'IDODI OSo453
0 P.O. Box 5202
St. Thomas
U.S. V.I. 00801
July 27, 1992
Contact Communications
1 Blair Park Suite 17
Williston, Vermont 05495
attn.: Mr. Paul Valois
RE: Ant&nna Tower
3097 WiHiston Road
So. Burlington, VT
Dear Mr. Vaiois: DONALD L. HAMLIN
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS
136 Pearl Street
Esacx SWICiioa, Vermont
llld
140 SubBase
Clarlcac Amalie-St. Thomas
U.S. VirJin Islands 8200.34
Tel. (8()1) 878·3956
(802) 878·5 1:3
Tel (809) 776-3388
We have completed the location of the proposed antenna tower site at the above
mentioned address and the results are as follows:
Latitude- 44° 27' 29.12"
Longitude -73° 08' 25.23"
The above is based on monumentation established in the 1983 datum obtained from
the Vermont Agency of Transportation Central Vermont GPS Network Densification
conducted in October 1991.
Elevation -Base of Tower 353.5 feet (USGS 1929)
Information obtained from the Airport Engineer indicates the highest portion of the
east-west runway is at elevation 341 feet (USGS 1929).
Please contact me if you should require any additional information.
P~fu
Rona!d E. Gauthit>r, Vt I •. S. #574
WAT'ER SUPPLY AND DISTRlBUTION
WASTE WATER COLLECTION AND TRE.<TMENT
STREETS AHO HIGHWAYS SUBDIVISIONS LABORATORY ANAI.YSIS
(W.&..TE~ ..a.NO W.4.STE WATER)
LAND SURVEYING AIRPORTS
Fig 5-7 ~~\::i:~~ION AND INDUSTRIAL PLANNING
SOIL BORINGS
Engi11uriltg- '1M /i..X bttwff1! wMI .w havt end "'""'-r ,.., llttd" SOI.ID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Page 5-65

8200.34 8/11/94
FIGURE 5-8. SAMPLE COMPUTER GERERADD 7460-1 FORM
7460-J F1le Ccnt!'r;ll ScrPPn _, CUF:~£:~rr
tt..:.d: :'r···ASO-;'l!.l•)·-DE f'1~)L 1.~'-'
[.·,oc:r>J \IPC:i :Ol/161ri':::;;· r~nt,.-y' De:tc•: \11 ll7i"<: ~H.:JL (;:.<:.iL.l' ; ''i~· ·.:"'-,•,~:·
F·:··;Jpont~nt. :1~T.~,T 1:1M:.:::.L (f:.l"!E·Ll': •1:.•6 '-''>~1b
r'd tn. of : hARY MP<L If: F>r lOr Stucj;t : 7' .. ·-:~.U-.:.:·'='<;•–u'-
{ddr-ess :4410 ROSEWJOD DR •• Rt·1 1180 On p,~rport :ll
Cty~St.Zip:PLEASANTON~ CA 94588 lraverseway :N8
Tel~Name :510-224-3438 Status :DNE
Bldg~Descp:ANTENNA TOWER HEIGHT INCREASE: EXISTING 3750-4170 MHZ AT 5.2 WATTS;
PROPOSED ADDITION 451.325 MHZ -221 WATTS
Type Struct :ANTENNA TOWER Fini Date :02124192
Povn~r 0.221 KW Submitted ~01/10/92
Frequency 451.325 MHZ Mult:N Circularized I I
Latitude 29-56-53.00 Terminated I I
LongitudE- :082-::;;3-29.()0 P~cknc:-vJl :l::-::::·_/24/9~~ Cit.v
S1~ate :ELLISVILLE pe a"f ?:1c: :I)l"~t::/t·1LS :FL
Nearest Airport: NONE WITHIN
ialist: Alfred P. Smith
REm3rks: HEIGHT REDUCED
XISTING TDWER NO INCREASE F o 11 c•,1 up rj<; t,e;,:
l'itJCA
MEP,
TO 296 AGL ~ROM 308 AGL
S C F; E E: ii CJ F r 1 1.1 N ;c
r~, H~D c~,:::sE B V S)
U I ClLu. t # P)Prop L)Lat F!Freq C)City 1j 3t~ U;6t 0t~wr -lc.-
NUM LOCK CAF'3 LiJCK
Page 5-66 Fig 5-8

8/11/94 8200.34
FIGURE 5-9. COMPUTER GERERATED OE RESPORSE FORM 11
4IRSPACE M~NAG~M~NT Response
Study No.: 91-AS0-1343-DE City: COLLIERVILLE State:lN
Prcponent:BELLSOUTH MOBILITY, INC. Lat:35-02-31.00 Lon:089-41-09.0l
******************************AIRPORT RESPONSEtttttttttttttttttttttttttttt•tt1i
REMARf::S: DATE: 05-AUG-91 SPECIALIST: MEM
We Have no objection to the subject proposal
*************************FLIGHT STANDARDS RESPONSE*****************************
REMARKS: DATE:11-SEP-91 SPECIALIST:TWJ
We Have no objection to the subject proposal
S C R E E N
FIND CASE RESPONSES S)Study #
E)Enter Resp.
Cancel AUTO-RESPONSE? (Y/N)
NUM LOCK 0 P T I 0 N S
Q)OLtit
A)ALtto Response
FIGURE 5-10. COMPUTER GERERATED OE RESPORSE FORM 12
AIRSPACE MANAGEMENT Response
Study No.: 91-AS0-1342-0E City: OAK GROVE State:AL Page 2
Proponent:BELLSDUTH MOBILITY Lat:33-11-58.00 Lon:086-18-04.00
ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttAIRPORT RESPONSE*********************************
REMARKS: DATE:OS-AUG-91 SPECIALIST:JAN
STANDARDS EXCEED VIOLATES 77.25(B) BY 222'
CONICAL SURFACE 569+150=719+10=729' CONICAL SURFACE ELEVATION
9::·1-729=222
tttttttttttttttttttttttttFLIGHT STANDARDS RESPONSE****************************~
REMARKS: DATE:09-SEP-91 SPECIALIST:TWJ
NO EFFECT ON 77.23(A)(3) OR (4). HOWEVER REQUEST SUPPLIMENTAL NOTICE BE
GIVEN TO ATL FIFO SINCE THIS WILL BECOME THE HIGHEST OBSTRUCTION IN THE
CAT C CIRCLING AREA.Q
FIND CASE RESPONSES
Fig 5-9 S C R E E N
S)StL1dy #
E)Enter F:esp.
NUM LOCK 0 P T I 0 N S
Q) DLii t
A) ALtto Response
Page 5-67

8200.34 8/11/94
FIGURE 5-11. SAMPLE YEARLY OE STATUS LISTIRG
=1/11/91 Standard Report Page
DE # CITY ST EFFEC LATITUDE LONGITUDE AMSL MSA ––-·–––––– –––––– ––
91-0001 JACKSON\' I LLE FL NE 302927 81.4114 84 N
91-0001A JACKSONVILLE FL NE 302928 814114 2(>~· N
91-(H)02 ATLANTA GA E 333924 842454 1289 N
91-0003 STONY LANDING sc NE 331230 795915 370 N
91-0004 ALBERMARLE NC NE 352915 800544 !:t90 N
91-ooo::. ALBERMAF:LE NC NE 3:12512 8008::·2 573 N
91-0006 ALBERMARLE NC NE 352423 800931 608 N
91-0007 ALBERMARLE NC NE ::.:t2!:t12 800859 !:·93 N
91-0008 ALBERMARLE NC NE 352423 800930 619 N
91-00(19 ALBERMARLE NC NE 352542 800824 615 N
91-0010 SOMERSET I<Y E 370221 843845 1210 N
91-0011 WADESBOF:O NC E 350442 801708 1634 y
91-0012 NEW HOLLAND GA NE 341911 834615 1!:·74 N
91-0013 TAMPA FL NE 275922 82::::·026 124 N
91-0014 TAMPA FL NE 275922 823026 18::. N
9.:.-0015 BLACf< MOUNTAIN NC NE ::.:.3619 822100 2499 N
91-0016 RICHMOND f<Y NE 3742:,:, 841615 1285 N
91-0017 f<EY WEST FL NE 243442 814449 179 N
91-0018 MARATHON FL NE 244220 810437 1::·5 N
91-0019 STRINGER MS E 314917 891837 842 N
91-')020 MIAMI FL N 2548:'·2 801242 2:,3 N
91-0021 CORAL GABLES FL 0 0 0
91-0022 ATLANTA GA NE 334839 841742 11::·1 N
91-00:23 HAMLET NC NE 344844 7943::'.8 837 N
91-0024 ROANOKE RAPIDS NC NE 363012 774447 588 N
91-0025 CREOLA AL N 305405 880435 308 N
9J.-(H)26 COLUMBIANA AL NE 3:'.1228 863440 1198 N
91-0027 GOLDSBORO NC NE 352210 78(H)~,3 3(>~, N
91-0028 CALERA AL NE 330744 864759 828 N
91-0029 LINN CROSSING AL NE 334113 865841 818 N
91-0030 HOI'1EWOOD AL NE 332900 864838 1120 N
91-0031 PLEASANT GROVE AL NE 332930 865713 998 N
91-0032 JASPER AL NE 335143 872149 9::.9 N
91-()033 HOLLYWOOD FL E 260430 8•)11:;.:;, 209 N
"~1-0033A HOLLYI>JOOD FL E 260408 8011::·5 209 N
91-0034 ST. PETERSBURG FL NE 274608 8:23744 60 N
91-0035 HILTON HEAD IS sc E 321410 804127 50 N
91-•)036 ERLANGEF: f:Y NE 390~:.o 843810 980 N
91-0037 DYEF: TN NE 360510 88::·439 708 N
91-0038 ALVATON f·:v NE 365035 861530 1143 N
91-0039 MONTICELLO ~ y t-JE 36::·101 84::·132 1000 N
91-0040 MADISON TN NE 361~~24 864437 1000 N
91-0041 FAYETTEVILLE NC NE 350257 785133 253 N
91-0042 LABELLE FL NE 264016 812606 327 N
91-(H)43 LABELLE FL NE 264200 812604 326 N
91-0044 YOF:K sc NE 345932 811236 900 N
91-(H)45 POLK CITY FL NE 281536 815211 625 N
91-(H)46 WINTER PARf< F'L NE 283537 8120::,3 224 N
91-0047 ORLANDO FL NE 283347 81:21 =·8 263 N
91-(H)48 VERSAILLES KY NE 380310 8441::·2 1220 N
91-(H)49 CULEBRA PR NE 181939 6518!)5 813 N
Page 5-68 Fig 5-11

8/11/94 8200.34
FIGURE 5-12. SAMPLE PROSE PRiftOUT
File: 92-0301 031492.0E Date: 03-17-1992
Case: 92-0301 may exceed MEA/MOCA near HYK.
Case: 92-0301 may exceed a 1000 ft ROC at BRY.Bear: 331.67
Dist(NM): 21.67
Case: 92-0301 may become 1000 ft Ctrl Obs at BRY.Bear: 331.67
Dist (NM): 21.67
Case: 92-0301 may exceed MVA at LEX.Bear: 276.63 Dist(NM): 52.92
Case: 92-0301 may become MVA Ctrl Obs at LEX.Bear: 276.63
Dis t ( NM ) : 53 • 9 2
Case: 92-0301 may exceed a 1000 ft ROC at LOU.Bear: 203.76
Dis t ( NM ) : 6 • 2
Case: 92-0301 may become 1000 ft Ctrl Obs at LOU.Bear: 203.76
Dis t ( NM ) : 6 • 2
Case: 92-0301 may exceed a 500 ft ROC at LOU.Bear: 203.76
Dis t ( NM ) : 6 • 2
Case: 92-0301 may become 500 ft Ctrl Obs at LOU.Bear: 203.76
Dis t ( NM ) : 6 • 2
Case: 92-0301 may exceed Non-Prec MDA at LOU.Bear: 203.76
Dist ( NM) : 6. 2
Case: 92-0301 may exceed Dept/Missed area at LOU.Bear: 203.76
Dist(NM): 6.2
Case: 92-0301 may exceed a 1000 ft ROC at SDF.Bear: 159.37
Dist (NM): 2. 65
Case: 92-0301 may become 1000 ft Ctrl Obs at SDF.Bear: 159.37
Dist (NM): 2. 65
Case: 92-0301 may exceed MVA at SDF.Bear: 159.37 Dist(NM): 2.65
Case: 92-0301 may become MVA Ctrl Obs at SDF.Bear: 159.37
Dist (NM): 2. 65
Case: 92-0301 may exceed a 500 ft ROC at SDF.Bear: 159.37
Dist(NM): 2.65
Case: 92-0301 may become 500 ft Ctrl Obs at SDF.Bear: 159.37
Dist (NM): 2. 65
Case: 92-0301 may exceed Non-Prec MDA at SDF.Bear: 159.37
Dist(NM): 2.65
Case: 92-0301 may exceed Circling MDA at SDF.Bear: 159.37
Dist (NM): 2. 65
Case: 92-0301 may exceed Dept/Missed/ILS area at SDF.Bear: 159.37
Dist (NM): 2. 65
Case: 92-0301 may exceed a 1000 ft ROC at FTK.Bear: 40.21
Dist(NM): 18.33
Case: 92-0301 may become 1000 ft Ctrl Obs at FTK.Bear: 40.21
Dist(NM): 18.33
Case: 92-0301 may exceed MVA at FTK.Bear: 40.21 Dist(NM): 18.33
Case: 92-0301 may become MVA Ctrl Obs at FTK.Bear: 40.31
Dist(NM): 18.33
Case: 92-0301-0E, State:KY, Lat: 380800, Long: 854300,
Ht: 2000, VA: 50
Fig 5-12 Page 5-69

8200.34 8/11/94
FIGURE 5-13. SAMPLE DRPS CALCULATOR PRIR'.rOtr.r
~AA Ud~lKULllUN ~VALUAIIUN M~NU A A A
1) Pf\LCISION Al'f'fWACHr S
* IlS * MLS
~ 2) NON PRECISION APPROACHES
* ASH * DF * LOCALTZfR -~.. LORAN -C.
* NDfl * RNAV "* SOF * TACAN * VOR
3) AIRWAY * TRANSITION ROUTES
4) SUPPLEMENTAL CALCULATIONS
* CIRCLING AREA * DEPARTURE AREA
* INTERMEDIAT[ AREA * PROC-TURN AREA
5) EXIT PROGRAt1 * HOLDING AR[A
* RADAR VECTOR AREA
' ' ' ·: ~ : : l . ; ~-.. j s : [. 7
NUt: EVALUf~THJ1\! ': '* •,1
).. ). ), NOB J NFUkMATION
f'-1 F'f'Of":T 1 DENT: MGM
r: :w 1 D un : MAr: P r1
~!r1 8 U\ TT Tl_l [)F. : 3 21 R 4 J . ?
NG8 FREQUENCY: 245
FINAL r,PPRO!\CH COURSE (FAC): 97 *~*
RUNWAY NCi: Oj
~WB MAGNETIC VAt\I!\TlC!i··:,~EJ· .. ::,~-;.
NDB !. ONG ITUDF.: 86:;)03r:~
::, H P – D 0 W N i-l >< ( Y ) E :;. u r : !·.: J U : i':
FAF -(W)lTH OR (N)O: W r ! :·< f,! ;\ i' ;·f.:':; r\ :~ ~ C 0 U f: ~:. E I ~ ( T ) 0 o r ( i-) r.:. 011 T H t N !. \f -!1 I D : F"
IM V -A l D T 0 t1 j 🙂 S E D A P P P 0 I NT ( N M ) : 5 . 1 N A \f -A I D T 0 F f. I=" D I :;; TAN C E ( i'H'1 ) : 0
STUDY INFORMATION
~. '' )[:':' C' 0 14 Pl. E T E D 8 Y : T F: F: F! Y J U! ~J l NC-i ~:.
P~OSE FILE NUMBER: AL.OE
08 ~:TRUC T I 011: lATITUDE: ?2 J 834
0S~7PUCTION HEIGHT: 57'
·'·'.\.,I R 0 U T Iii~ S S Y M B 0 l. : P.. ~. 0–:!. 2.. () / ,'
AIRSPACE CA5E NO: 93-0497
OBSTRUCTION LONG1TUDE: 863018
VERTlU~l. ACCI_iF;ACY (FEET):'~
OBJECT Dl~TANCE OUT (FT): 1788.44 DISTANCE OVER (FT):-5Q4.44
\J3,JECT LJLTANCE OUT (NM): .29 DT:::T/\NCE OVEF: U.ifv:):-.1
~~lf';E.CI DLTANCE (FT). 1884.64 DIF~t:::T DI~.T.i\NCE (Ni-1;: -~1
TRUE AZIMUTH FROM NOB TO OBJECT: 114.39
;.~DE:]/:_ WIDTH OF pf,'.1MPJ\Y (F\): 7?44.15 TCJ~J~L \~[~t; 1/2 ~-Jl[;TH \Fl): 7dC.;.:;:,
~WS WiDTH OF ::.ECOND,.'"-\F:Y ( FT): 119.22
Ui~C !)kF~t: 1:1 E.L1 MDA ( A!·!SL): 87 7 ~~ UMF'IJTED ROC.: 300
Page 5-70 Fig 5-13

8/11/94 8200.34
FIGURE 5-14. SAMPLE GT-CALC PRIRTOUT
Exit Options
Geodes
ILS Calculator
MLS Calculator
NonPrec =alculato
Departure Calc.
Holding
State Plane
Search Routine
System SetUp
Exit to DOS
Mode: GEODETIC NAD83 *** ILS CALCULATOR *** OFZ:Yes
ILS VARIABLES
Fid:JAV Aptid:KORD Rwy:09L Mvar:OOE
Elev
643.0
658.4
660.0
660.0 LOC:
G/S:
RWY:
Len: LAT LON
41-59-02.048 087-53-10.502
41-59-08.107 087-54-51.336
41-59-02.027 087-55-06.077
7966 Gpi#: 1096.8 TDZ: cat: 1
Brg/Ang
89.98
3.00
89.98
DH: 860 ALS Typ: Lngth:3000 Apt Elv: 667
Acft CAT: D Type: L Wing Span: 200
Missed Approach Affected
TRAP. AREA Pr i MA
Missed Appr. Section Two
DESIRED DH {MSL) 860
REVISED DH {MSL) 860
AMT. of PENETRATION 547.7
Hi-lighted items used in computation ••
Compute Auto Erase Mode PiDs RWYs
Compute ILS precision affect by obstacle
Fig 5-14 OBSTACLE VARIABLES
NAME:
LAT: 42-00-05.000
LON: 087-40-32.000
Elev: 3000
C/L Dist#: 65998.4
Abeam# Dist#:-6445.0
Ofz Path ESC "Exit
Page 5-71

8200.34 8/11/94
FIGURE 5-15. SAMPLE GEODET PRIRTOUT
***** GEODETIC CALCULATOR MENU *****
1) INVERSE *DISTANCE AND BEARING BETWEEN TWO POINTS.
~ 2) TANGENT * DISTANCE OUT AND OVER FROM KNOWN POINT AND BEARING.
3) DIRECT * COORDINATES FROM KNOWN POINT. DISTANCE AND BEARING.
4) lNfERSECllON * COORDINATES FROM TWO POINTS WITH BEARINGS.
5) TO CALCULATE FIX-ERROR.
G) TO CALCULATE MLS SET-BACK or CONFIRM MLS INFORMATION.
🙂 TO CONFIRM NEW INSTRUMENT APPROACfl INFORMATION and COMPUTF FAC.
~) COMPUTE FIX ERROk USING FIX/FACllliY UAIA BA~~~.
::J j l~Ui'IPU IE RNAV ALONfJ/LkU::i~ TRACK f: kkOR'.:>.
ICJ) t:UfWUff: flf:GRH~ 0~ TURN f-"Of~ t·1JSSHl API-'RO/\CH.
11) TO EXIT PROGRAM.
** +: 0 l S T 1\ N C [ 0 U 1 AN D 0 V E H r R 0 M K N 0 W N P 0 I N l AN 0 B E A f<l N G
r·Rot-1 ·· f'OlNl A. (LA1llUlJ[ )'! 320000 (LUNGilUUE)? 85UOOU
HI:ARIN!i f·RUM 1-'0lNI A U1ay-Degree:;,ie 127 or 90.87)? 45
MAGNETIC VARIATION (-) for EAST. (•) for WEST? 0
TO -!-'OINT B. (lATIIUOl)? 32JJJJ.J3 (LONGllUUL)? U4J~~l
t: i: }. i. i: f~LSUL 1 S I;};* -A·J:
!Jl':.,Tf\NCL OUT ( r T): ?12G70.3'3 DJ~,TANC[ OV[R ( fT) : ~511C3l.rl
DISTANCE OUT ( Nt-1): 39.94 DISTANCE OVE f\ ( N r·1 l : 7.4'J I.#: A
DISTANCE OUI ( t1E TU~S): /3~&&.83 UlSTANCE OVER ( 11ETERS): 138GG.l
DIRECT DISTANCE FROM A TO B {FT): 24689/.62 DISTANCE {NM): 40.G3
TRUE AZI11UTH FROI1 rOINT A TO POINT B: 34.38 DISTANCE OUl (Nt·l): 39.9:i
U 0 Y 0 U H f\V L AN 0 I H t R 0 U l AN I J 0 V E R CASt { Y ) f' s o r ( N ) o '(
Page 5-72 Fig 5-15

8/11/94 8200.34
FIGURE 5-16. OBSTRUCTIOR EVALUATIOR JOB AID
OBSTACLE f!NAIJJATICW ~
CASE NO. _______ -oE
YR -Region- No. Specialist Initials
Result Remarks/ Comments
1. Confirm Site Location .•…•…………•….
2. Altitude/Height Verification …………… .
3. Enroute IFR Operations
A. Aineys ..•……….••….•..••…….
B. Holding •…..••..••…..•……..•.•..
C. MVA •••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••.••
4. Terminal Area IFR Operations
A. Approach Segments ..•••.••..•…..•….
(1). Feeder/Initial Segments
(a) . Feeder Routes ………. .
(b). Initial/Proc. Turn ….. .
(2). Intermediate Segments …….. .
(3). Final Approach Segments …… .
B. Missed Approach •..••………………
C. Cat II/III Missed Approach •…..•..•..
D. Circling ……..•..•………………
E. IFR Departures ……..••••…………
F. Proposed IAPs …•••••••. , ••..•….••..
G. Procedure Adjustments (MTA) ………. .
5. VFR Operations ……………………….. .
A. VFR Flyways (over 500') ………….. . I
I
I
E. VFR Approach Slopes ……………… .
C. VFR Terminal Operations •…………..
D. Charted Visual Approach ………….. .
E. Marking and Lighting ………..•……
6. Minimum Safe Altitude (MSA) ……•…….•..
Fig 5-16 Page 5-73 (thru 5-80)

8/11/94 8200.34
SECTIOR 4. THE FPB OBSTRUCTIOR EVALUATIOR
556. GENERAL. The level of
difficulty involved in an ob­
struction evaluation will de­
pend upon the location and
height of the proposal in rela­
tion to approach procedures and
other instrument procedures and
operations. The OE inspector
must have an intimate knowledge
of TERPS criteria and princi­
ples. In addition, the inspec­
tor must be familiar with the
procedures and operations of
the FPB and the assigned area
of responsibility. After dis­
cussing obscure factors of the
OE analysis, this section will
methodically describe the indi­
vidual steps for accomplishing
an obstruction evaluation. To
assure a complete evaluation,
the job aid in the previous
section lists the typical steps
involved and is the evaluation
format detailed in this
section.
557. THE MORE OBSCURE FACTORS
OF THE OE ANALYSIS. Study of
aeronautical effects of
proposed construction must con­
sider more than the airports
and FAR Part 97 instrument pro­
cedures charted in the terminal
procedures publication. Public
seaplane bases, public heli­
ports, special instrument ap­
proach procedures and depar­
tures, proposed procedures,
radar approaches, and direction
finder (DF) approaches are also
included in the aeronautical
evaluation process. Consider­
ation of these more obscure
procedures and airfields may be
difficult since they may not
have published charts. There-
Par 556 fore, listings of all the spe­
cial SIAP' s, proposed proce­
dures, heliports, and direction
finder approaches should be
constructed and maintained for
easy reference.
a. Use of the Official
8260 Series Forms. As part of
the aeronautical evaluation
process, an important habit to
establish is to always refer to
the 8260 series forms for the
approach or departure proce­
dures at the airport/heliport
being evaluated. Commercial
and government produced ap­
proach charts are good for a
quick visual reference, but the
official procedure is document­
ed on the appropriate 8260 se­
ries forms.
(1) The detail pro­
vided on these forms disclose
information, such as a remote
altimeter penalty, which may
otherwise escape consideration.
The 8260 series forms may also
be the only source of informa­
tion on direction finder ap­
proaches, Army and Air Force
procedures maintained by the
FAA, and special procedures.
( 2) Appropriate cop­
ies of all 8260 series forms
must be maintained in the FPB
for easy reference. Coordina­
tion should be accomplished, as
required, with other ASI's in
the branch when the proposal
falls on the border of two ar­
eas of responsibility. Coordi­
nation with another region
should be accomplished when the
proposal is located near re-
Page 5-81

8200.34
gional boundaries. OE analysis
in an area of responsibility of
another inspector or region may
be possible but is not recom­
mended without coordination.
Access to the information con­
tained in the appropriate 8260
series forms is a major reason
for the coordination.
b. Minimum Sector Alti­
tudes (MSA)/Emergency Safe Al­
titudes ( ESA) . Another obscure
area of the obstruction evalua­
tion is the maintenance of
MSA/ESA. Generally, SIAP's
will provide altitudes for
emergency use in the form of
MSA/ESA's. ESA's are limited
to some military procedures.
The OE analysis must consider
MSA/ESA's as part of the total
process. Some regions maintain
databases on MSA/ESA's and use
automation for this evaluation.
A proposal requiring an alti­
tude increase of an MSA or ESA
will not normally be sufficient
cause to support a determina­
tion of hazard; however, noti­
fication to the FIAO is impor­
tant for OE cases which, upon
receipt of the construction
notice, raise the MSA or ESA.
c. Proposed SIAP's. As
part of the evaluation process,
the inspector must protect air­
space for proposed approaches.
This protection is particularly critical when a precision ap­
proach is proposed for a par­
ticular runway or future Cate­
gory II/III capability is de­
sired.
(1) In order to ob­
ject to a particular construc­
tion proposal based on a pro­
posed SIAP, the need for the
Page 5-82 8/11/94
procedure must be known by the
OE inspector. Obviously, a
specific written request to
develop an instrument approach
procedure at an airport/­
heliport would be one example.
The term -"plan on file" common­
ly refers to future IFR runways
on Airport Layout Plans
(ALP's), but can actually refer
to any SIAP request known by
the inspector.
( 2) Other examples
of proposed SIAP's may be pre­
cision runways on a reviewed
ALP or Airport Master Plan
(AMP), a planned navaid instal­
lation under the facilities &
equipment (F&E) budget process
or an Airports Division funded
airport improvement project, a
nonrule making action (NRA)
case, or any proposed action
that is otherwise documented
and known by the inspector.
However, the designation of a
precision instrument runway is
not sufficient alone to gener­
ate precision approach protec­
tion. Plans must be supported
by installation (within the
near future) of the necessary
equipment to support the ap­
proach.
( 3) Common sense and
good judgement should apply so
as not to over-protect for all
possible non-precision SIAP's.
Because a runway is shown on an
ALP as non-precision instrument
(NPI) is not justification for
protecting all possible facili­
ty site locations for all types
of navaids. This type of eval­
uation is just not possible.
However, specific written re­
quests are not always required
for additional non-precision
Par 557

8/11/94
approaches to runways based on
existing navaids.
( 4 ) Protection for
new technology SIAP' s like long
range navigation (LORAN) or
global positioning system (GPS)
require a specific written re­
quest that the FPB has approved
or plans to approve. Or, the
airport/heliport must be desig­
nated on an FAA procedure im­
plementation list and the spe­
cific runway( s) must also be
listed so that the final ap­
proach course on runway align­
ment is known.
( 5) Departure evalu­
ations for VFR airports/heli­
ports which will become IFR
based on a proposed procedure
must be considered. This eval­
uation may require that a com­
plete departure analysis be
performed to determine what the
takeoff minimums and/or depar­
ture procedure would be prior
to, and in conjunction with,
the evaluation based on the
proposal.
( 6 ) A recent court
decision may redefine what con­
stitutes a proposed instrument
approach procedure and when
appropriate airspace protection
is required for proposed con­
struction or alteration. The
comment period for circulated
OE proposals may surface a need
for a procedure. Changes to
Order 7400.2 may be forthcoming
on the definition of a proposed
procedure or a plan on file.
For Flight Standards, the major
point is that the OE inspector
must know that there exists a
need for a terminal instrument
procedure before any actions
Par 557 8200.34
can be taken to protect the
necessary airspace.
d. Air Carrier Opera-
tions. During obstruction
evaluations, the inspector must
be knowledgeable of airports/­
heliports with present or
planned air carrier activity.
( 1) Airlines perform
their own obstruction studies
to comply with regulations re­
garding obstruction clearance
and aircraft performance. FAR
Sections 121.189 and 135.398
describe some of the require­
ments of this nature which may
result in load limitations for
the aircraft.
(2) Additionally, an
advisory circular (AC) is being
drafted which addresses airport
obstacle analysis for air car­
riers. The guidance in this AC
may be more demanding than the
FAR. Some airlines are using
more stringent departure evalu­
ations in accordance with ICAO
standards. FAR Section 121.189
requires specific clearances
300 feet from the departure
track, whereas ICAO standards
define a departure path which
splays with increasing distance
and reaches much greater
widths.
(3) There are occa­
sions when a regional OE depar­
ture analysis based on TERPS
will not-be as restrictive as
that required by an airline.
This is particularly true in an
evaluation close to the depar­
ture end of the runway. For
this reason, the inspector may
request circularization of OE
cases at air carrier airports
Page 5-83

8200.34
where the location may be in an air carrier departure corridor.
This action will allow the air­
lines the opportunity to com­
ment on the proposal.
e. Special Routes and FAR
Part 95 Direct Routes. Consid­
er the special routes that are
part of an air carrier's opera­
tions specifications (OpSpecs)
and other direct routes which
are not charted. Although most
of these routes may be in the
high altitude structure, some
may have low MEA's which defi­
nitely could be affected by new
construction. Each OE inspec­
tor should maintain a list of
these routes for their use.
558. THE OBSTRUCTION EVALUA­
TION (OE). Usually the FPB
receives an OE case from the
regional Air Traffic Airspace
Branch via an FAA Form 7460-1,
Notice of Proposed Construction
or Alteration. Accompanying
the FAA Form 7460-1 may be oth­
er information to more clearly
explain the intent of the pro­
posal and location; for exam­
ple, regional Air Traffic (AT)
worksheet and a copy of a sec­
tional chart, quad chart, Air­
port Layout Plan (ALP), Airport
Obstruction Chart (OC), or any
other type drawing with the
obstacle plotted.
a. Obstruction Evaluation
Items. The following para­
graphs are expanded explana­
tions of each item on the OE
job aid (see figure 5-15) in
the sequence they would normal­
ly be accomplished. Shortcuts,
"rule-of-thumb", helpful hints
and reminders, common errors,
Page 5-84 8/11/94
and automation aids are ex­
plained where appropriate.
b. Criteria and Safety.
TERPS and other criteria (FAR,
orders, etc. ) may not be ex­
plained in detail but appropri­
ate references are included.
If there is a safety issue that
becomes apparent to the OE in­
spector but is not covered by
the job aid, it is the inspec­
tor's responsibility to include
an appropriate comment in their
response to AT.
559. ALTITUDE/HEIGHT VERIFICA­
TION. The mean sea level ( MSL)
height should be checked by
verifying the simple addition
of the site elevation and the
obstacle height above ground
level (AGL). The site eleva­
tion can sometimes be checked
by referring to contour lines
on a quad chart or it may be
available from additional data
which AT may have submitted.
Note whether dimensions are in
feet or meters. An accuracy
coding determination should be
made. Accuracy standards are
contained in Order 8260.19,
Flight Procedures and Airspace.
560. SCREENING. Although not
an i tern on the worksheet, a
quick inspection of the propos­
al, along with the OE inspec­
tor's intimate knowledge of the
area, may eliminate the need
for further evaluation. Many
OE cases can be evaluated very
quickly by initial screening.
a. Manual Screening.
Many of the obstacle's effects
can be determined by plotting
the location on a sectional
chart. Once the obstacle is
Par 557

8/11/94
plotted, a number of things can
be evaluated based on knowledge
of the area.
(1) Sometimes an OE
proposal will have an MSL ele­
vation that is below nearby IFR
airports /heliports; this will
likely have no effect to SIAP's
at those airports/heliports.
(2) If the obstacle is not within 6 NM of an air­
way, there will usually be no
airway effect. Turning areas
and airway splay, if the airway
is over 51 NM from a facility,
are examples when 6 NM are ex­
ceeded. In the airway second­
ary area, the required obstruc­
tion clearance (ROC) is at
least 500 feet less than the
primary. This reduced ROC is
usually sufficient to rule out
any effect. Dividers may be
used to measure rough distanc­
es.
(3) If a charted
obstacle of equal or greater
MSL height lies within 4 NM of
the same airway segment, there
should be no additional effect
on that airway.
( 4) If a charted
obstacle of equal or greater
height lies in a straight line
between the proposal and an
airport/heliport, then the ob­
struction is shielded and usu­
ally there would be no effect
on the SIAP's at that airport/­
heliport. An exception to
shielding may be if the alr­
port/heliport has an arc ini­tial segment.
( 5 ) Many IFR air­
ports/heliports can be identi-
Par 560 8200.34
fied easily on sectional charts
by the 700 foot floor of con­
trolled airspace shown by the
magenta colored IFR airspace.
If the proposal is more than 30
NM from the nearest IFR air­
port, then usually there will
be no effect on SIAP's to that
airport.
( 6) Special atten­
tion must be given to very tall
proposals. The more familiar
an inspector is with the area
of evaluation the more compre­
hensive the screening can be.
For example, a tall obstacle
may not be identified as a
problem using the previous ex­
amples but could have an effect
on long transition routes, un­
charted airways, or departures
at an airport/heliport many
miles away.
( 7) Area familiarity
is important for proposals that
could have VFR effects. A tall
obstruction may not be identi­
fied as a procedure problem,
but could have a VFR effect on
VFR flyways or departure/­
arrival at VFR airports/heli­
ports.
b. Automation Screening.
Preliminary Regional Obstacle
Screening Evaluator (PROSE) , is
a useful but uncertified tool
used for screening. In es­
sence, this program accomplish­
es the manual IFR screening
listed above. It does not
screen for VFR effects. Plot­
ting the obstruction on a sec­
tional chart for quick visual
screening is still recommended.
(1) If the PROSE
answer is "DNE A4", the pub-
Page 5-85

8200.34
lished airways are not affect­
ed ; and if "DNE A3 " , S IAP ' s
probably are not affected. DNE
A4 and DNE A3 mean that the
obstacle "does not exceed" FAR
Sections 77.23(a) (4) or
77.23(a)(3).
( 2 ) Use the section­
al chart plot to check for VFR
effects, nearby VFR airports/­
heliports that may have a SIAP
proposal on file, and/or an IFR
airport/heliport very near that
was not identified by PROSE.
If discovered, that usually
means that the PROSE database
for that airport/heliport has
an error that needs to be iden­
tified and corrected. This is
one of the reasons for plotting
the obstacle on a sectional
chart even if PROSE alerts "DNE
A3" and "DNE A4".
(3) Maximum use can
be made from PROSE if the in­
spector reviews each day's
batch of obstruction evalua­
tions run on PROSE and isolates
those that say "DNE A3", along
with those that have "may ex­
ceed MVA" as the only A3 ef­
fect. Usually these cases can
be separated, plotted, veri­
fied, and answered in the
shortest time. This quick re­
sponse and turn around time is
a good justification for the
use of PROSE as a screen.1.ng
tool.
( 4 ) The remaining
PROSE cases that have other A3
and A4 effects need to be pro­
cessed manually using the steps
that follow.
561. EN ROUTE IFR OPERATIONS.
Reference: FAR Section
Page 5-86 8/11/94
77.23(a)(4). When the screen­
ing step indicates that there
may be an effect on en route
operations, the inspector must
determine exactly what that
effect is. Flight Standards is
charged with the responsibility
to identify the effect on mini­
mum en route altitude (MEA),
minimum obstruction clearance
altitude (MOCA), minimum cross­
ing altitude {MCA), minimum
holding altitude ( MHA) , turning
areas, and sometimes Minimum
Vectoring Altitudes (MVA) and
Minimum IFR Altitudes (MIA).
a. Airways. Reference:
Order 8260.19, Chapter 3, En
Route Procedures. The evalua­
tion must be accomplished for
FAR Part 95 routes (airways and
direct routes) and routes not
covered by FAR Part 95.
(1) FAR Part 95
routes are those that are
charted on en route low alti­
tude IFR charts and also those
that are not publicly charted
but have been published in the
federal register as a FAR Part
95 route.
(2) Routes not cov­
ered by FAR Part 95 (known as
off-airway routes) are those
routes where a portion is
through uncontrolled airspace
or use private facilities and
have been developed for specif­
ic users using standard TERPS
en route criteria.
( 3) A master list is
maintained by the National
Flight Data Center ( NFDC) • The
Air Route Traffic Control Cen­
ter (ARTCC) keeps a list of
direct routes and the FIAO has
Par 560

8/11/94
a list of routes in their area
of responsibility.
(4) All airways and
direct routes are to be evalu­
ated using the criteria of
TERPS, Chapter 17. Where
criteria require that an airway
be at least 1500 feet above
terrain, a quick rule-of-thumb is that any obstacle less than
500 feet AGL will have no
effect an any airway MOCA. A
inspector must be very familiar
with their area to use this
rule-of-thumb because some
sections of the country have
large areas of airspace with a
700-foot airspace floor and
mountainous terrain.
(5) Particular
attention should be given to
those obstacles that lie within
4 NM of the centerline of an
airway segment and are beyond
an MEA change point but would
be a penetration to the climb
gradient to the new MEA even
though there is no effect on
the MEA of the new segment.
This would cause an increase to
a MCA or require an MCA to be
established where there was not
a MCA previously.
b. Holding. If an
obstacle is near a fix,
determine if holding is
authorized at that fix. This
information is available on the
FAA Form 8260-2, Radio Fix and
Holding Data Record, and may or
may not be published on the en
route chart. Holding pattern
airspace is larger than that
protected by en route criteria
and has a similar 2 NM second­
ary area. Do not forget
holding secondary areas when
Par 561 8200.34
using the holding area tem­
plates. Also, some holding
patterns have a MHA that ~s
lower than the associated MEA
of the airway. Each FPB should
maintain a list of those unusu­
al holding situations.
c. MVA/MIA. Criteria for
evaluating MVA/MIA charts are
found in Order 8260.19, Chapter
3, Section 7, and are classi­
fied as en route subjects,
whereas Order 7400.2 lists MVA
under the heading of terminal
area IFR operations. En route
obstacle clearance criteria
apply to both MVA's and MIA's
and are grouped here because of
this similarity. Air Traffic
Facility Management, Order
7210.3, is the base order gov­
erning MVA charts. Report MVA
effects as terminal effects
under FAR Section 77.23 (a) ( 3)
and MIA effects as en route
effects under FAR Section
77.23(a)(4).
( 1) Each AT tower or
approach control develops their
own MVA chart and is responsi­
ble for keeping it updated.
Each center develops their own
MIA chart and is responsible
for keeping it updated. Flight
Standards involvement with
MVA/MIA charts is as a quality
control office and the forward­
ing of charts to the FIAO for
determination of accuracy in
obstruction clearance. For the
OE program, MVA/MIA obstruction
evaluation is the responsibili­
ty of Flight Standards based
upon Order 7400.2, paragraph
7-2c.
(2) The regional AT
division has the responsibility
Page 5-87

8200.34
to forward to the FPB a current
copy of the MVA/MIA chart and
associated information if the
inspector accomplishes the
evaluation. The MVA/MIA chart
should be drawn on a sectional
chart and be accompanied by FAA
Forms 7210-7 (MVA) or 7210-9
(MIA) for documenting control­
ling obstructions in accordance
with Orders 7210.3 and 8260.19.
(3) The terminal
area chart may be useful in the
evaluation. The proposed
structure may be plotted di­
rectly on the MVA/MIA chart.
Add 1000 feet ROC (the ROC may
be higher than 1000 feet in
some areas-mountainous, precip­
itous terrain, etc. ) to the
proposed MSL of the obstacle
and compare the result to the
MVA/MIA chart altitude for that
area. Another method is to
check the height of the con­
trolling obstruction on the FAA
Forms 7210-7 or 7210-9 to see if the proposal is higher.
(4) For MVA's, if an
obstacle is within 40 NM of the
radar antenna and is within
3 NM of an area boundary, the
adjacent area would be affect­
ed. All areas have a 3 NM buf­
fer. Draw a 3 NM ring around
the obstacle. That part of the
ring that may intersect a lower
altitude area would need to be
raised which causes an effect
on the MVA chart.
(5) Likewise, if an
obstruction is close to but not
exactly on an existing area
protected by 3 NM ring, the new
obstruction would need it's own
3 NM ring (or the whole area
MVA would need to be raised)
Page 5-88 8/11/94
which would change the shape of
that protected area. This
would be an MVA effect, however
slight.
( 6) If an obstruc­
tion is beyond 40 NM from the
radar antenna, the MVA 3 NM
ring expands to a 5 NM ring and
this extrapolates to a 5 NM
buffer around sector boundaries
beyond 40 NM on the chart. The
same 5 NM boundary buffer is
used for MIA's.
d. Automation Tools.
When PROSE alerts "may exceed
MEA/MOCA near XXX" this is a
flag that requires the inspec­
tor to manually check airways.
The XXX is usually a VOR iden­tifier but is of no aid to the
inspector in determining if or
where there may be an airway
effect. It only identifies the
line of data in the database
where the obstacle first ex­
ceeds programmed en route pa­
rameters.
( 1 ) When PROSE
alerts "may exceed MVA XYZ.
Bear: 67.43 Dist(NM): 28.18",
refer to the XYZ MVA chart and
estimate the location of the
obstacle (using the bearing of
67 degrees true, and 28 NM from
the center of the airport) ra­
ther than plotting by coordi­
nates. This technique will
quickly identify whether closer
evaluation is needed.
(2) TERPS calculator
(see preceding section of this
chapter) , has an airway program
that can be used as a tool to
ascertain the exact distance a
proposal's coordinates are from
the centerline of a published
Par 561

8/11/94
airway radial. Also, if the
obstruction is in the secondary
area, this program provides an
uncorrected MEA/MOCA using the
appropriate ROC.
( 3) TERPS calculator
also has a program to analyze
holding patterns and radar MVA
charts.
(4) The geodetic
calculator mode of IAPA is an­
other tool that can be used to
determine an proposal's dis­
tance from centerline of an
airway. The inspector must
first calculate the direct
route between navaids to deter­
mine the exact airway center­
line. For dogleg airways, the
courses will be a full 15 de­
grees from another airway at
the facility or be a whole true
radial from a facility. This
exact route centerline is ad­
justed for variation and round­
ed to the nearest whole number
before it is published on air­
way charts. Therefore, the
radials and distances published
on IFR charts are not useful
for exact geodetic calcula­
tions. The inspector will need
to calculate the ROC if the
proposal's distance is between
4 and 6 NM.
562. TERMINAL AREA IFR OPERA­
TIONS. Reference: FAR Section
77.23 (a) ( 3). Terminal area IFR
operations include approach
areas, terminal routes, depar­
ture area, and circling ap­
proach area. The FPB evaluates
all proposed obstructions using
TERPS criteria referencing ter­
minal instrument procedures for
which 8260 ser1es forms and
other information are avail-
Par 561 8200.34
able. This includes all FAR
Part 97 Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures ( SIAP) ,
Special SIAP' s, and Military
SIAP' s for which the FAA is
responsible. The Army, Navy,
and Air Force receive and re­
view some of the OE cases in
order to protect their air op­
erations. FAA responsibility
is only for those military
SIAP' s developed and maintained
by the FPB/FIAO, which are Ar­
my, Coast Guard, and military
SIAP's at joint civil/military
use airports.
a. Standard Terminal Ar­
rival Routes (STAR's). Al­
though not listed on the OE
Worksheet (and considered to be
en route) , OE effects on STAR's
are the responsibility of
Flight Standards. Order
7400.2, paragraph 5-11, denotes
that STAR's are in the Terminal
Area. T-he OE inspector shall
evaluate the effects of the
proposal on the minimum alti­
tudes published. En route
TERPS criteria apply. If a
route segment minimum altitude
is affected, assure that the
next segment descent gradient
is not excessive and respond to
AT the FAR Section 77.23(a)(3)
effect.
b. Approach Segments.
The approach from entry to
landing can be broken into
three segments: Terminal/init­
ial, intermediate, and final.
The missed approach segment, is
a separate entry on the check­list and is covered separately
in this section. Each segment
has a different ROC. The in­
spector should refer to the FAA
Form 8260-9 for each approach
Page 5-89

8200.34
affected to determine if the
obstruction would cause an in­
crease in a minimum altitude or
become the controlling obstruc­
tion in any approach segment.
If there is an increase in any
approach segment minimum alti­
tude it must be reported to AT
as exceeding the standards of
FAR Section 7 7. 2 3 (a) ( 3) • One
way to determine if an obstacle
will cause an increase in a
minimum altitude is to add the
MSL height of the obstacle to
the ROC plus any adjustments
(including obstruction accuracy
adjustments). Compare this
figure to the charted minimum
altitude. If it is higher than
the charted altitude, it ex­
ceeds FAR Section 77.23(a) (3).
If it is not higher than the
charted altitude but higher
than the noted controlling ob
struction on the FAA Form
8260-9, then AT should be noti­
fied of this fact and requested
to require the proponent to
give supplemental notice by FAA
Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual
Construction or Alteration.
Use the SIAP graphic, if possi­
ble, to visually determine if
the obstruction may lay within
the area boundaries of an ap­
proach segment. The obstruc­
tion can then be plotted.
Plotting is difficult on an
IAPA graphic, so a sectional
should be used. Also, some of
the older IAPA generated SIAP's
were submitted to the FPB with­
out a completed FAA Form
8260-9. Evaluating an proposal
accurately without FAA Form
8260-9 information is time con­
suming. The responsible FIAO
should be requested to supply
completed FAA Form 8260-9's to
the FPB for all SIAP's.
Page 5-90 8/11/94
(1) Feeder/Initial
Segments. These segments gen­
erally have a ROC of 1000 feet
except in mountainous areas or
the secondary area of protec­
tion. Refer to Order 8260.19,
paragraph 807, Terminal Routes.
Any increase in these segment
altitudes will require a
descent gradient check in the
succeeding segment. Also see
TERPS table 1A for altitude
limitations for procedure
turns. Any increase of segment
descent gradient above optimum
is an FAR Section 77.23(a)(3)
effect.
(a) Feeder
Route Seqments. For criteria,
the reference is TERPS para­
graph 220. Identification and
determination of the effect of
an proposed obstacle on feeder
routes may be difficult without
the aid of automation. The 500
foot AGL airway rule-of-thumb
may apply. This could remove
most OE cases from further con­
sideration on feeder routes.
If the determination is made
that further evaluation is
needed for possible feeder ef­
fects, SIAP's at all airports
within feeder range need to be
evaluated. Further screening
can be accomplished by noting
an estimated direction and dis­
tance a proposed obstruction is
from an airport and consulting
the approach plates for feeder
routes and altitudes. The FAA
Form 8260-9 is not very helpful
in this screening. Once it has
been determined that an obsta­
cle might have an effect on a
feeder route, that route should
be plotted on a sectional chart
along with the obstacle and
then en route obstacle clear-
Par 562

8/11/94
ance criteria must be applied
to determine the exact effect, if any, that th-:-case would
have. Caution must be taken to
apply the correct route width
and secondary ROC requirements
when a feeder uses a nondirec­
tional beacon (NDB) for posi­
tive course guidance. These
criteria are contained in
TERPS, chapter 17, paragraph
1750.
(b) Initial
Segments. Reference: TERPS
Chapter 2, Section 3. An ini­tial approach may be an arc,
radial, course, heading, radar
vector (or a combination there­
of) , or a procedure turn or
holding pattern in lieu of pro­
cedure turn. Dead reckoning or
heading segments without posi­
tive course guidance are wider
than airways. Except for pro­
cedure turns and holding pat­
terns, the FAA Form 8260-9 is
of little use in identifying if
the obstacle is within the area
confines of an initial segment.
The approach plate should be
consulted to identify the gen­
eral area of the initial seg­
ments. If the obstacle is in
the general area, the initial
segments may need to be plotted
on a sectional chart and evalu­
ated. If close to segment
boundaries, higher scale maps
or automation use may be re­
quired.
(c) Feeder/Ini­tial Automation Tools. PROSE
can be used to great advantage
in this phase of evaluation.
When PROSE alerts, "may exceed
a 1000 ft ROC at ABC.Bear:
279.07 Dist: 34.56", it has
identified a need for the in-
Par 562 8200.34
spector to take a closer look
at the terminal routes for ABC
airport. It also gives an ex­
act bearing and distance to the
obstacle from the ABC airport.
This information makes it easi­
er to review the plates for a
possible effect. PROSE has
also identified those and only
those airports where a terminal
route may be affected. This
narrows down the search area.
The TERPS Calculator has pro­
grams that can be used to eval­
uate a specific obstacle's ef­
fect on procedure turn areas
and holding patterns, and the
airway program can often be
used to evaluate feeder routes.
IAPA has the capability for
determining minimum altitudes
based upon a specific proposed
obstacle entered in the system.
The geodetic calculator mode of
IAPA can also be used to find
the distance from an obstacle's
coordinates to the centerline
of a feeder route or initial.
(2) Intermediate
Seqment. The intermediate ap­
proach segment blends the ini­tial approach segment into the
final approach segment. Refer
to TERPS, chapter 2, section 4
for an in-depth discussion of
the intermediate segment.
(a) Intermedi­
ate Segment Evaluation. On
airport facility, No Final Ap­
proach Fix (No FAF) SlAP's do
not have an intermediate seg­
ment. Intermediate ROC is 500
feet in the primary area, and
500 feet-at the inner edge ta­
pering to zero at the outer
edge of the secondary area. To
evaluate the intermediate seg­
ment, the obstacle must be
Page 5-91

8200.34
plotted on each applicable SIAP
graphic and a determination
made as to whether it is within
the area confines of the inter­
mediate segment. Some close
cases may require that the FIAO
plot the proposed obstruction's
coordinates on the official
SIAP quadrangle chart. The
proposal has an FAR Section
77.23(a)(3) effect if it lies
within the intermediate area
and the obstruction MSL eleva­
tion plus ROC and adjustments
rounded to the nearest 100-foot
increment is higher than the
published intermediate alti­
tude. This is usually a one
line entry on the FAA Form
8260-9 that have an intermedi­
ate segment. The controlling
obstruction and ROC is listed
on this line.
(b) Intermedi­
ate Increases Effect Final.
Unless there is a fix between
the obstruction and the FAF,
any increase to the intermedi­
ate altitude is a corresponding
increase to the FAF altitude.
If the proposed obstruction
increases the intermediate al­
titude and hence the FAF alti­
tude, the final approach seg­
ment needs to be assessed to
determine the effect on the
descent gradient, or possibly
the minimum descent altitude
(MDA) (reference: TERPS para­
graph 252). Although an in­
crease in the intermediate al­
titude is an FAR Section
77.23(a)(3) effect, AT usually
does not consider this to be
significant or a substantial
adverse effect if it is the
ONLY effect. The final descent
gradient is computed from the
FAF altitude to the touchdown
Page 5-92 8/11/94
zone elevation for straight-in
approaches and from the FAF
altitude to the circling MDA
for a circling only SIAP. An
altitude increase in the inter­
mediate segment may cause a
final MDA increase (for cir­
cling only SIAP's) or the loss
of straight-in minimums, due to
a final segment rate of descent
exceeding the maximum allowed.
Also, any final approach de­
scent gradient above optimum is
considered an adverse effect.
(c) Intermedi­
ate Automation Tools. When
PROSE alerts "may exceed a 500
ft ROC at ABD.Bear: 279.16
Dist(NM): 17.01", an evaluation
of intermediate segments of all
SIAP's with a FAF at ABD air­
port must be accomplished as
explained above. TERP' s calcu­
lator has a program to evaluate
the impact an obstruction may
have on an intermediate area.
IAPA or the intermediate area
drawn on a quad chart are other
vehicles that can provide a
definitive answer for interme­
diate segment effects. The
information from out and over
(tangent) programs of various
geodetic calculators can also
be used to mathematically de­
termine if the obstruction is
in the intermediate area.
( 3) Final Approach
Segment. Reference: TERPS
paragraph 250. Final approach
segments vary and applicable
TERPS criteria are contained in
chapters designated for specif­
ic navigation facilities.
sion Final
Evaluation. (a) Non-preci­
Approach Segment
Plot the proposed
Par 562

8/11/94
obstacle on the SIAP graphic; if SIAP graphic is not avail­
able, construct a graphic based
on the charted procedure. If it is within the confines of
the final approach segment,
refer to the FAA Form 8260-9.
If the MSL height of the obsta­
cle is higher than the control­
ling obstruction as listed on
the FAA Form 8260-9 (and the
full final ROC was used meaning
the controlling obstruction is
in the primary area), add the
ROC and any adjustments to the
MSL height of the proposed ob­
stacle and round to the next
higher 2 0 foot increment. Com­
pare this new figure with the
charted MDA; if it is greater,
the proposed obstruction ex­
ceeds FAR Section 77.23(a)(3).
Another method is to compare
the obstruction's MSL height to
the missed approach elevation
(item #3 on the front of the
FAA Form 8260-9). Examples of
FAA Form 8260-9 can be found in
Order 8260.19, Appendix 9. If it is greater, there will be an
increase in the MDA. Although
final approach segment areas
vary, there are some particu­
lars that need to be kept in
mind.
1 The
length of final for an on-air­
port facility/no FAF SIAP is
normally 10 NM. The final ap­
proach segment outer limit be­
gins 10 NM from the facility
with no fix error. The inner
limit ends at the facility with
no fix error.
2.. A step­
down fix within the final area
will have a fix error that may
need to be computed. The ob-
Par 562 8200.34
struction is considered to be
in the inner area (that closest
to the runway) and is the de­
termining factor in the step­
down MDA, if it is closer to
the runway than the most outer
limit of the stepdown fix er­
ror.
l An ob­
struction in the outer final
area (that area outside the
inner area) may effect the
charted MDA when not using the
stepdown fix. If one or two
sets of MDA's are charted, the
charted minimum altitude at the
stepdown fix will increase and
the descent gradient for the
inner area will increase.
i TERPS
paragraph 289, concerning 7:1
driftdown, is NOT applicable to
OE studies. It is criteria to
be used only for existing ob­
stacles. See paragraph 543 of
this handbook.
.2. The outer
limit of a final approach seg­
ment that has a FAF begins at
the facility (if over heading
the facility) which identifies
the FAF, except for a fan mark­
er. A FAF identified as a fix
formed by a DME, fan marker,
radar fix, area navigation
(RNAV) waypoint, or intersect­
ing radial has an associated
fix error and the outer limit
of the final approach segment
area is extended prior to the
FAF by the amount of the fix
error. Use caution when a FAF
is made up with more than one
fix error; the most restrictive
or greater error must be ap­
plied.
Page 5-93

8200.34
.§. The inner
limit of the final approach
segment area normally ends at
or abeam the runway for ap­
proaches where the missed ap­
proach point (MAP) is predicat­
ed upon timing from the FAF.
Where the MAP is identified by
a fan marker, DME fix, or RNAV
waypoint, the fix error must be
extended beyond the runway end
or MAP, as applicable, and that
becomes the inner limit for the
final approach segment area.
The MAP for a no FAF final is
at the facility which may be
well beyond the runway end.
1 Under
certain conditions excessive
FAF fix error may add to the
MAP fix error, see TERPS para­
graph 287c.
!! The ROC
in the primary area varies de­
pending upon the type of SIAP.
The applicable chapter of TERPS
applies. The ROC is also on
the FAA Form 8260-9.
.2. Except
for airport surveillance radar
(ASR) approaches, all final
areas have a secondary area
where the ROC tapers or slopes
from the primary ROC at the
outer edge of the primary to
the outer edge of the second­
ary.
(b) Precision
Final Approach Segment Evalua­
tion. For a 3 degree glide
slope, the ROC for an ILS can
be summed up as a 34:1 obstacle
clearance plane extending out­
ward along the centerline from
a point 200 feet or more from
the approach threshold begin-
Page 5-94 8/11/94
ning at the threshold height.
A 5000 foot 7:1 transition area
extends outside the primary
area. These ILS criteria will
also suffice for MLS except for
the MLS center area which may
be a few feet lower. At pres­
ent, current guidance directs
that all new ILS's be developed
to the new MLS criteria, there­
fore proposed obstructions may
need to be evaluated using both
criteria. An OC chart is use­
ful in evaluating the close-in
ILS area. Transparencies or
templates made to the OC scale
with boundaries of ILS CAT III­
III missed approach area, (ref­
erence: AC 120-29, paragraph
8), ILS section 1 missed ap­
proach area, (reference: TERPS
paragraph 942a. ) , and Zone 1
departure area, (reference:
TERPS paragraph 1202a.), are
helpful overlay tools to deter­
mine if a proposed obstacle
lies within the subject bound­
aries on an OC chart.
(c) Final Seg­
ment Automation Tools. PROSE
gives two messages that alert
the inspector to check the fi­
nal approach for penetrations
to the FAR Section 77.23(a)(3)
standard. One example is "may
exceed Non-Prec MDA at ABC.
Bear: 291.94 Dist(NM): 8.43".
This message means that the MSL
height of the proposed obstacle
is greater than the controlling
obstruction in at least one
non-precision SIAP final at ABC
airport. The inspector may
choose either of two ways to
check this: find which SIAP(s)
have lower controlling obstruc­
tions, then plot on the SIAP
graphic to check if the propos­
al is within the confines of
Par 562

8/11/94
the final approach segment; or
reverse the procedure and check
area(s) first, then check the
controlling obstruction height.
The other PROSE example is "may
exceed Dept/Missed/ILS area at
ABC.Bear:291.94 Dist(NM):
8. 4 3". This message means that
the proposed obstacle pene­
trates a programmed slope at
the ABC airport, and the in­
spector needs to check for pos­
sible penetrations of the glide
slope on the ILS.
1 The TERPS
calculator does final approach
calculations for all types of
approaches, both non-precision
and precision. The limitations
of the program must be taken
into consideration when inter­
preting the answers provided by
the TERPS calculator; for exam­
ple, the length of the final
approach segment from the FAF
to the MAP is not considered in
the answer and the proposed
obstruction may not be within
the fore/ aft confines of the
actual final approach area. If
the TERPS calculator is being
used to evaluate an obstruc­
tion, then it would be wise to
evaluate a proposal near the
final approach area by using
both the ILS and MLS programs.
The ILS program evaluates the
34:1 slope, and uses a calcu­
lated ROC to determine a no
exceed height (NEH) for the
glide slope. (The TERPS calcu­
lator program uses the acronym
MTA, maximum to avoid, rather
than NEH. ) If the cases are
loaded into the PROSE program,
the data will not have to be
reloaded into the TERPS Calcu­
lator since this program uses
the prose database. This
Par 562 8200.34
avoids having to manually enter all the data for each TERPS
calculator operation; just en­ter the file and OE case num­
ber.
I The Geo­
detic Calculator has a program
to calculate fix error and
gives a graphic printout of the
answer to help visualize the
answer.
J. IAPA is
another automation tool that
can be used to determine exact­
ly what effect an proposed ob­
struction may have on an SIAP;
however, it is a lengthy pro­
cess to build a new workfile.
But it may be worth the effort
when an proposal has multiple
effects (different SlAP's, fi­
nal, circling, missed approach,
etc. ) •
c. Missed Approach Seg­
ment. Reference: TERPS Chap­
ter 2, Section 7 and Chapter 9,
Section 4. Missed approach
evaluations have a tendency to
become complicated. A straight
ahead missed approach is rela­
tively simple. However, an
immediate turning missed ap­
proach or a short straight
climb section followed by one
or more turns, creates a com­
plex area and evaluation pro­
cess. A good SlAP graphic is
helpful to visually determine if the obstacle is in the
missed approach area of protec­
tion. Often it is necessary to
manually plot or request the
FIAO to plot the obstruction on
the quad chart in order to de­
termine if it is within the
area and the exact effects.
Page 5-95

8200.34
(1) Missed Approach
Segment Evaluation. Normally,
the missed approach surface is
a 40: 1 slope starting at the
MAP at the missed approach ele­
vation. The surface evaluation
begins over the MAP at a height
determined by subtracting the
final approach ROC and adjust­
ments from the MDA/DH (MAP ele­
vation) . This elevation can be
found on the front of FAA Form
8260-9 in item number 3. Care
must be taken to assure the
40:1 slope starts at the MAP or
starts beyond the MAP required
by the final criteria. Pro­
posed obstructions that plot a
short distance beyond the MAP
are easy to figure. Divide the
slope distance by 40 and add
the answer to the MAP eleva­
tion. This will give the maxi­
mum MSL height for the obstruc­
tion without causing an in­
crease to the MDA. MLS missed
approach areas are different
from ILS missed approach areas.
Three missed approach slopes
have to be used. These may
change depending on the dis­
tance from the plotted MAP.
(2) Missed Approach
Segment Automation Tools.
PROSE can provide an alert such
as "may exceed Dept/Missed
(/ILS) area at ABC.Bear 327.44
Dist(NM): 2.5". The ILS alert
only appears for those airports
with an ILS. For those air­
ports without an ILS, the
missed approach evaluation may
be ignored if there is not also
a PROSE alert, "may exceed Non­
Prec MDA at ABC.Bear 327.44
Dist{NM): 2.5", since the pro­
posal's MSL height is below the
lowest final approach control-
Page 5-96 8/11/94
ling obstruction for that air­
port/heliport.
(a) TERPS cal­
culator makes an evaluation of
the missed approach area in all
modes. Out and over informa­
tion is supplied by the TERPS
Calculator and this information
can aid in manually analyzing
the missed approach area. Most
missed approach penetrations
need to be manually analyzed.
(b) Other geo­
detic calculators with an out
and over program can also be
used by mathematically adept
inspectors.
(c) IAPA com­
putes the effect of an obstacle
on the MDA. MDA adjustments
are required if there is any
effect. Using IAPA, the final
must be developed (to determine
the MAP, width of final at the
MAP, missed approach elevation,
and the straight-in MDA's).
Circling must be developed if
straight-in is not authorized
(to determine the MAP elevation
and circling MDA's) 1 and then,
the missed approach can be de­
veloped.
d. CAT II/III ILS Missed
Approach. Reference: AC
120-29, appendix 2, paragraphs
71 8, & 9. The areas of con­
cern are the touchdown area 1 touchdown area transi tiona!
surface 1 and missed approach
area. These areas are dis­
tinctly different from any oth­
er TERPS areas.
{ 1) CAT II/III ILS
Missed Approach Evaluation.
The best way to check if an
Par 562

8/11/94
proposed obstruction is within
the lateral confines of the
areas is to plot the obstruc­
tion on an OC chart. (Accuracy
standards may have to be ap­
plied.) Measure the distance
of the obstruction from the
centerline of the runway and
from the approach end of the
runway. A transparency or tem­
plate with these areas drawn on
them is helpful in speeding the
evaluation. No penetrations of
the applicable primary surfaces
are allowed and CAT III ILS
minimums are denied if any sur­
face is penetrated. The crite­
ria only provide for adjust­
ments to CAT II visibility min­
imums when the transitional
surface is penetrated.
( 2) CAT II /III ILS
Missed Approach Automation
Tools. There is no specific
PROSE alert for CAT II/III
missed approach. TERPS Calcu­
lator used in the ILS mode does
evaluates the CAT II/III touch­
down area, touchdown area tran­
sitional area, and section 1 of
the missed approach area. Note
that CAT II/III criteria allow
climb gradients to be specified
in the missed approach. The
evaluation must consider exist­
ing specified climb gradients.
e. Circling Area. Refer­
ence: TERPS, paragraph 260.
The circling areas of protec­
tion are incrementally increas­
ing distances from the runways
for each aircraft speed catego­
ry published on the procedure.
When the proposed obstacle is
close to the airport, the cir­
cling area may be difficult to
accurately evaluate without
Par 562 8200.34
automation unless the obstacle
can be plotted on an OC.
( 1
) Circling Area
Evaluation. If the obstacle is
not obviously further from the
airport than the maximum cir­
cling area and the obstruc­
tion's MSL height is greater
than the lowest (generally CAT
A) controlling obstruction, a
closer evaluation of the cir­
cling area is necessary.
(a) If the ob­
stacle is on or near an airport
with an OC chart, it may be
accurately plotted and studied.
The circling areas may need to
be drawn on the OC chart to
identify exactly in which cir­
cling category area the ob­
struction is located. Once the
category is determined, compare
the obstruction's MSL height to
the controlling obstruction
height, as found on the FAA
Form 8260-9 part 4; if it is
greater, add 300 feet ROC plus
any adjustments to the MSL,
round to the next higher 20-
foot increment and compare to
the charted MDA for that cir­
cling category. If the answer
is greater, then the proposed
obstruction exceeds FAR Section
77.23 (a) ( 3) for that category.
(b) Check the
higher categories for possible
effect; for example, a proposed
obstruction that affected CAT C
circling MDA may also have an
effect on CAT D and E MDA's
because these areas also encom­
pass CAT C.
( c ) Where the
circling MDA is controlled by
the straight-in MDA or by TERPS
Page 5-97

8200.34
table 11, it is possible for a
proposed obstacle to be of
greater height than the con­
trolling obstruction listed on
Form 8260-9 for that applicable
circling category. In this
case, the obstruction's MSL
height plus 300 feet plus ad­
justments may not be greater
than the charted MDA for that
circling category and would not
be a FAR 77.23(a)(3) effect.
( 2 ) Circling Area
Automation Tools.
(a) PROSE makes
an initial evaluation by com­
paring the proposed obstruc­
tion's MSL height with the low­
est circling controlling ob­
struction and a distance from
the airport reference point
(ARP). If the proposal's MSL
height is greater and the dis­
tance is less than the parame­
ters, PROSE gives the alert,
"may exceed Circling MDA at
ABC.Bear: 37.44 Dist(NM) 1.8".
(b) TERPS Cal­
culator has a circling program
that accurately gives the cir­
cling category location for the
proposed obstruction.
(c) Various
geodetic programs can be used
by the inspector to determine
the proposal's distance from a
runway.
(d) IAPA can
also determine where the ob­
struction is in relation to the
circling category areas and
compute the MDA. In the auto­
mation reviews, the runway end
coordinates must be known or be
in a database, to compute the
Page 5-98 8/11/94
distances and give precise an­
swers.
f. IFR Departures. Ref­
erence: TERPS chapter 12. The
effect of an obstacle on depar­
tures will depend on its loca­
tion relative to a runway and
application of the criteria.
Evaluation problems require
determining what is the depar­
ture end of the runway (DER),
what altitude to start the ob­
stacle identification sur­
face ( s) (OIS), applicable climb
gradients and how are they com­
puted, a takeoff minimum if
required, an IFR departure pro­
cedure if required, and final­
ly, how the evaluation is com­
pleted on this new obstacle if
the runway currently has a
takeoff minimum (especially
with climb gradients) and an
IFR departure procedure. Also
see departure philosophies in
the preceding section.
( 1) IFR Departure
Zones.
(a) Zone 1 is a
relatively small trapezoid ex­
tending 2 NM in the direction
of the departure. The OIS be­
gins at the departure end of
the runway (DER) at the DER MSL
elevation. TERPS allows the
OIS to begin no higher than 35
feet above the DER elevation
when establishing the need for
FAR Part 97 IFR Takeoff Mini­
mums and Departure Procedures.
For obstruction evaluations,
the DER elevation or the eleva­
tion (up to 35 feet above DER
elevation) determined to negate
existing obstructions is used.
What this means is, to deter­
mine the effect of a proposed
Par 562

8/11/94
obstruction, the same criteria
parameters used on existing
obstructions must be used on
the proposed obstruction.
(b) Zone 2 is a
large area extending to the en
route environment. The OIS for
Zone 2 begins at the height of
the OIS at the end of Zone 1
and measurements to the pro­
posed obstacle shall be made
from the runway edge or edge of
Zone 1, whichever is the short­
er distance. The OIS height at
the end of Zone 1 is always
303.8 feet (2 NM divided by 40)
above the start elevation at
the DER. Zone 2 OIS continues
at 40:1 to the point where it
reaches the minimum en route
altitude authorized.
(c) Zone 3 is a
large area in the opposite di­
rection from takeoff and ex­
tends to the en route environ­
ment. The OIS for Zone 3 be­
gins 400 feet above the airport
elevation and measurements to
the proposed obstacle are made
along the closest runway edge.
The 4 0 0 feet is based on the
assumption that departing air­
craft will reach an altitude of
at least 400 feet above the
airport prior to exiting Zone
2. A 40:1 OIS is used starting
at 400 feet.
(2) The Evaluation.
(a) Departure
Evaluation. The determination
of the height of the OIS at the
proposal location is very dif­
ficult without automation. The
accurate distance(s) required
for evaluation may be measured
from a quad chart plot or in
Par 562 8200.34
some instances, an OC chart.
The OIS ends at the en route
altitude. This evaluation end
point can be many miles from
the airport. Departures can be
rough screened on a sectional
chart if the proposed obstruc­
tion is not in Zone 1. This
rough screen is to measure the
distance on a sectional chart
from the runway end to the pro­
posed obstruction plot, then
divide that footage distance by
40, and add the runway eleva­
tion. If the obstruction's MSL
height is less than that an­
swer, there would probably be
no effect. If the tangent data
relative to the runway thresh­
old are submitted with the OE
case, the obstruction's loca­
tion can be determined and the
Zone 1 OIS height can be calcu­
lated. If the proposal's loca­
tion data are only coordinates,
then a geodetic calculator is
needed to determine the exact
out and over information for
the obstruction. Once the de­
termination is made that the
obstruction exceeds the depar­
ture criteria, it is necessary
to develop an effect to give to
AT. If the obstacle is in
Zone 1, a ceiling and visibili­
ty restriction would be re­
quired. A climb gradient may
be appropriate. For other zone
penetrations, a departure pro­
cedure may suffice. A depar­
ture procedure should provide
obstacle clearance in ac­
cordance with TERPS paragraph
1203. The assigned altitude
before turning should be the
results of criteria application
and may equal or exceed the MSL
height of the obstruction due
to the required ROC of 48 feet
per NM. The turning altitude
Page 5-99

8200.34
shall be in 100-foot incre­
ments.
(b) Automation
Tools. When PROSE alerts, "may
exceed Dept/Missed( /ILS) area
at ABC.Bear: 291.94 Dist(NM):
8.43", the inspector should
manually screen for departure
effect and then use the TERPS
Calculator when further evalua­
tion is warranted. TERPS Cal­
culator gives an exact evalua­
tion and tells which departure
zone the proposal is located,
the NEH, and the minimum climb
rate in feet per NM to clear
the obstruction. (The TERPS
calculator program uses the
acronym MTA, maximum to avoid,
rather than NEH.) The NEH can
then be compared to the pro­
posed obstruction's MSL height
and if greater, the proposal
has an FAR Section 77.23(a)(3)
effect. Any geodetic calcula­
tor with an out and over (tan­
gent) program can be useful,
but the mathematics to deter­
mine exact height of the OIS at
the proposed obstruction site
may be cumbersome when the pro­
posal is not in Zone 1 or
straight out from Zone 1. Re­
quests for assistance from the
FIAO may be required. IAPA
does not have a certified pro­
gram to evaluate departures at this time.
(c) Standard
Instrument Departures (SID's).
Like STAR's, SID's are not on
the worksheet but the proposed
obstruction's effects on a SID
must be reviewed by Flight
Standards (reference: Order
7400.2, paragraph 5-11). The
effects of the obstruction on
the IFR takeoff minimums and
Page 5-100 8/11/94
departure procedures applies to
all departures (including
SID's) unless the SID specifies
a route, turn, or altitude that
differs from the results of the
departure evaluation. In these
cases, a full study on the ef­
fects of the proposed obstruc­
tion on the published SID is
required and the results may
require a separate SID ceiling,
visibility, and climb gradient.
The route itself may require a
climb gradient and this is the
only time a route climb gradi­
ent will be considered. The
proposal's effect on the pub­
lished SID will be reported to
AT. This may be as simple as
changing a turn altitude or as
complex as extensive departure
restrictions. Based upon the
inspector's knowledge of local
traffic handling by AT, a new
route may even be suggested
that is less restrictive.
( 3 ) Reporting the
Effects.
(a) IFR Takeoff
Minimums (Ceiling and Visibili­
.tyj_. FAR Part 91 and TERPS
table 13 prescribe the standard
civil takeoff minimums in visi­
bility only. If, due to ob­
structions penetrating the OIS, it becomes necessary to require
higher that standard takeoff
minimums, the minimums shall be
no less than ceiling 300 feet
height above the airport (HAA)
and 1 statute mile visibility
(300-1). Ceilings/visibilities
of 300-1 or more will also be
required when a route to miss
the obstruction is not possi­
ble. A penetrating obstruction
in Zone 1 or right after Zone 1
into Zone 2 and covered by both
Par 562

8/11/94
the left and right turning ra­
dius, is normally the location
requiring the higher than stan­
dard takeoff minimums. Another
example is when other penetrat­
ing obstructions in the airport
area may limit the routes that
can be used in the departure
and the proposed obstruction is
located in the only obstacle
free area remaining (like down
the mountain valley or fjord).
(b) Establish­
ing Ceilings. A ceiling of 300 is the minimum ceiling even if
the proposed obstruction is
much less that 300 feet HAA.
If the proposal exceeds 300
feet HAA, a ceiling above 300
is appropriate and shall be
established in 100 foot incre­
ments (400, 500, etc.). An
assumption of obstruction over­
flight would require a ceiling
at or above the top of the pro­
posed obstruction and that
ceiling shall be the effect.
Common sense and good judgement
should prevail especially if
the proposal is several miles
from the airport and in moun­
tainous areas. The assumption
of homogeneous weather, zero
altimeter errors, and standard
lapse rates are all implicit in
TERPS, but may not be valid as
the distance from the airport
increases.
(c) Establish­
ing Visibilities. If a pro­
posed obstruction penetrates an
OIS and is within 1 statute
mile of the departure runway,
the minimum visibility to be
established is 1 mile. Estab­
lishing a 1 mile visibility
disallows the 1/2 mile visibil­
ity authorized by the FAR's and
the lower than standard takeoff
Par 562 8200.34
minimums authorized for some
carriers in their operations
specifications. If the pene­
trating obstruction is more
than 1 mile from the departure
runway, establish 2 miles visi­
bility when equal to or less
than 2 statute miles, and if
more than 2 statute miles, es­
tablish 3 miles visibility.
Visibilities in excess of 3
miles (basic VFR) are not nor­
mally required assuming the
proposed obstruction would be
marked and lighted according to
AC 70/7460-1, Obstruction Mark­
ing and Lighting. Again, com­
mon sense and good judgement
should apply. Visibilities at
the airport and 3 miles from
the airport may be different.
Local conditions must be con­
sidered and minimum visibility
in excess of 3 miles may be
appropriate.
(d) Establish­
ing Climb Gradients. Criteria
are established to allow a
climb gradient to be published
for those aircraft capable of
safely overflying an obstruc­
tion penetrating an OIS. TERPS
specifies that anytime a climb
gradient is published, ceiling
and visibility minimums shall
also be established for those
aircraft that may not be able
to maintain the climb gradient
to the specified altitude. The
pilot, while on the ground, can
take all factors into consider­
ation to determine if the air­
craft can maintain the speci­
fied climb gradient or if the
ceiling and visibility minimums
must apply. A minimum climb
expected on a standard depar­
ture is 200 feet per nautical
mile. The 40:1 OIS equates to
Page 5-101

8200.34
152 feet per nautical mile cre­
ating a 48 feet per nautical
mile buffer or ROC. When a
climb gradient is to be pub­
lished, the ROC of 48 feet per
nautical mile shall be used.
Order 8260.19, chapter 4, sec­
tion 7, provides pictorial gui­
dance for computing climb gra­
dients. The climb gradient
shall be defined in feet per
NM, followed by the altitude at
which continued use of the
climb gradient is no longer
required. Many climb gradient
examples are available in the
published FAR Part 97 IFR Take­
off Minimums and Departure Pro­
cedures.
g. Proposed Instrument
Approach Procedures. Refer­
ence: Order 7400.2, paragraph
7-3. A proposed obstruction
may have an adverse effect on
future IFR operations indicated
by a plan on file.
( 1) Proposed SIAP
Evaluation. All proposed
SIAP's need to have their as­
sumed minimums and departure
procedures protected from deg­
radation. Each FPB shall keep
a record of all proposed SIAP's
or plans on file and assure
that they are considered in
each obstruction evaluation.
In some cases the proposed SIAP
has already been developed and
the proposal's effects on seg­
ments can be evaluated based on
the already determined mini­
mums. At other times, the plan
is only in a conceptual stage
and no minimums or final ap­
proach courses have been as­
signed. An evaluation in this
instance must use the most pro­
bable approach and nominal cri-
Page 5-102 8/11/94
teria; and then, compare the
proposed obstruction with ex­
isting obstructions. If the
proposed obstruction's MSL
height is greater than existing
controlling obstructions and a
segment altitude would in­
crease, then an FAR Section
77.23(a) (3) effect would occur.
Common sense and good judgement
should apply, especially if
there is uncertainty in airport
data (runway end coordinates,
etc. ) •
(2) Automation
Tools. Provided the database
has been constructed, PROSE can
identify airports/heliports
that have plans on file for an
original SIAP. This is partic­
ularly helpful in the screening
process since airports/heli­
ports without a SIAP are not
identified as IFR with magenta
airspace and in initial screen­
ing, do not appear to be a pro­
blem when a proposed obstruc­
tion is plotted on a sectional
chart. New SIAP proposals can
be added to the PROSE airport
database with nominal airspace
values that will be sure to
alert the inspector when a pro­
posed obstruction is near a
proposed IFR airport. TERPS
Calculator can be used to eval­
uate a proposed obstruction
regarding a proposed SIAP al­
most as easily as an existing
SIAP if airport data is avail­
able. IAPA can be used to
build a workfile for a new SIAP
and determine if a proposed
obstruction would be a control­
ling obstruction.
h.
ments.
7400.2, Procedural
Reference:
paragraph Adjust-
Order
5-1lb(5).
Par 562

8/11/94
"If the structure will affect
an instrument flight procedure,
provide a statement as to what
adjustments can be made to the
procedure/structure to elimi­
nate the adverse effects."
Flight Standard's compliance
with the referenced paragraph is normally limited to a no
exceed height (NEH) for the
structure, the increase in min­
imums, and the FAR Part 77 sec­
tion affected. An NEH height,
which may include an appropri­
ate allowance for accuracy,
shall be given for all FAR Sec­
tion 77.23(a)(3)&(4) adverse
effects. The following are
some other obstacle and proce­
dure adjustment factors.
(1) Occasionally, a
proposed obstruction may be
located at the very outer edge
of a TERPS area of protection
which would cause an adverse
effect on a SlAP. The inspec­
tor should consider responding
to AT on small movements of the
obstruction such as moving a
site 100 feet or less. Do not
forget the 250 feet horizontal
uncertainty, if applicable.
(2) If specifically
requested by AT, the OE inspec­
tor can recommend a site relo­
cation where the proposed ob­
struction would have no or lim­
ited effect at the same or
amended MSL height. Normally,
the proponent will have limited
land available for the proposed
structure. Occasionally, the
proponent will have alternate
sites and discuss that fact
with AT. The inspector will
not evaluate alternate site
locations as a normal course of
action, but should be prepared
Par 562 8200.34
to assist AT when requested, or
participate in an AT sponsored
meeting with the proponent. A
proponent's contacts and visits
directly with Flight Standards
without AT involvement is nei­
ther appropriate nor encour­
aged.
(3) Occasionally, a
proponent will submit multiple
filings for a single structure
and these filings may not be
apparent to the AT specialist
during ~heir preliminary re­
view. Reference: Order
7400.2, paragraph 5-4. Discus­
sions with AT will be necessary
to determine the reason for a
second or additional filings
and AT, in turn, may have to
contact the proponent. Whatev­
er the reason, Flight Standards
will not evaluate multiple fil­
ings on one structure unless a
single refiling is, in fact, a
new case based on the withdraw
of the original OE case or
based on an imminent or actual
hazard determination on the
original case. If discussions
with the AT OE specialist are
not possible, multiple filings
on a single structure will be
returned to AT, without evalua­
tion but with an appropriate
explanation, for their han­
dling.
( 4 ) The OE inspector
should be prepared to discuss
with the proponent in an AT
sponsored meeting any factors
including changes to the pro­
posed height or location of the
obstruction. Changes to in­
strument procedures can also be
discussed. The Flight Stan­
dards policy on procedure chan-
Page 5-103

8200.34
ges is provided in the previous
section, paragraph 542.
563. VFR OPERATIONS. Refer­
ences: FAR Section
77.23(a)(l), Order 7400.2,
paragraph 5-llb(l), and Order
8260.19, paragraph 502. Flight
Standards has the responsibili­
ty for evaluating the effects a
proposed obstruction would have
on operational safety including
VFR operations. Whenever a
proposed obstruction is more
than 500 feet AGL or penetrates
an airport imaginary surface, it is considered to be a pene­
tration to VFR airspace. VFR
flyways and VFR practice areas
need special consideration.
When evaluating VFR effect,
special attention must be given
to those aeronautical opera­
tions that are usually conduct­
ed under VFR; for example heli­
copters, seaplanes, and agri­
culture aircraft. Much of the
time, coordination is necessary
and the inspector should re­
quest input from the FSDO to
substantiate, verify, and iden­
tify VFR impacts. The follow­
ing are areas of VFR interest.
a. VFR Routes. Refer­
ence: Order 7400.2 paragraph
7-22a. A proposed obstruction
would have "an adverse effect
upon VFR air navigation if its
height is more than 500 feet
above the surface at its site,
and it is within 2 STATUTE
miles of any regularly used VFR
route. " Examples of VFR routes
are, direct routes between air­
ports/heliports, routes under­
lying a victor airway, a VOR
radial to an airport/heliport,
a 4 (or more) lane divided
highway such as an Interstate,
Page 5-104 8/11/94
a railroad track, a charted
pole or pipe line, a river, and
other prominent series of land­
marks that aircraft may track
visually.
b. VFR Approach Slopes.
Nearly all airports, both VFR
and IFR, have visual runways
that need a clear 20:1 approach
slope surface. A clear 34: 1
approach slope may be needed
for the lowest possible visi­
bility minimums for non-preci­
sion· approaches, but a clear
20:1 is required for safety. A
proposed obstruction that ex­
ceeds a 20:1 approach slope
surface may not have an effect
on a minimum instrument alti­
tude, but will be objectionable
based on VFR effect. Although
the responsibility for protect­
ing the VFR approach area re­
sides with the Airports Ser­
vice, an obvious violation of
the approach surface standards,
especially for a runway having
a non-precision procedure,
should be an objectionable
Flight Standards item based on
safety.
c. VFR Terminal Opera­
tions. Reference: Order
7400.2, paragraph 7-23a, "A
structure that penetrates a
plane 300 feet beneath the air­
port traffic pattern altitude
has an adverse effect." The
evaluation guidelines in Order
7400.2 do not recognize the
fact that an aircraft may be
departing a runway and is
climbing in the traffic pattern
or has to leave the traffic
pattern altitude and descend in
order to land. Flight Stan­
dards is responsible for com­
pleting a safety analysis for
Par 562

8/11/94
the aeronautical operation on
aircraft climbing on a cross
wind leg or descending on the
base leg and turn to final. In
addition, a pilot's attention is necessarily on other items
while departing or preparing to
land, such as maintaining air­
speed while changing power set­
tings, climb/descent rate, and
landing gear and flap posi­
tions. These are all distrac­
tions to seeing and avoiding an
obstacle during a turning
climb/descent.
d. Charted Visual Ap-
proach. There are numerous
charted visual approaches
throughout the country. They
may have recommended routes and
altitudes. These need to be
protected and included in the
obstruction evaluation. They
do not have a FAR Section
77.23(a)(3) effect but can be
objectionable due to safety
reasons.
e. Marking and Lighting.
While the recommendation for
marking and lighting are the
responsibility of AT, Flight
Standards has input concerning
safety of flight. AT usually
refers to AC 70/7460-1, as
amended, Obstruction Marking
and Lighting, in their OE de­
terminations. Flight Standards
can make a recommendation based
on safety at any time, but usu­
ally becomes involved with
marking and lighting when AT
gets a request from a sponsor
to deviate from the recommenda­
tions of the AC. Unless the
proponent submits overwhelming
mitigating arguments for an
equivalent level of safety, the
OE inspector should recommend
Par 563 8200.34
continued compliance with the
recommended procedures estab­
lished in the AC. In making a
decision to reduce recommended
marking and lighting, the ap­
plicable FSDO should be con­
sulted and a site visit may be
required. When evaluating a
request to reduce marking and
lighting, the inspector must
keep in mind that marking and
lighting is mainly for VFR traffic including helicopters,
gliders, ultralights, and bal­
loons, which may have special
visual clearance requirements.
f. VFR Automation Tools.
Very little help can be derived
from automation tools for VFR
evaluationssincedocumentation
of VFR routes is minimal. If a
direct route between airports/­
heliports is involved, a geo­
detic calculator could be used
to find the direct route and
then an out and over program
can determine if the proposed
obstruction is within 2 statute
miles of the calculated direct
route. In the same way, TERPS
Calculator could be used on
airways and a VOR radial.
g. Site Visits. Famil­
iarity with the inspector's
area of responsibility and
knowledge of local aircraft
operations is critical for
proper VFR evaluations. Site
visits to airports/heliports
and FSDO's should be routinely
scheduled. Visits to Air Traf­
fic facilities (center and ap­
proach control) on VFR days can
be used to view VFR traffic and
determine heavily traveled VFR
routes. These site visits for
a single OE case may be appro­
priate.
Page 5-105

8200.34
564. MINIMUM SAFE ALTITUDE
(MSA) . The last i tern on the
job aid is MSA's and is listed
as a reminder to accomplish
this evaluation. Although
Handbook 7400.2 does not recog­
nize MSA as an instrument
flight altitude, a proposed
obstruction may cause an MSA or
ESA to increase and require a
change to the SIAP. If the FPB
processes OE cases using PROSE, it is a simple matter to evalu­
ate each day's batch of cases
Page 5-106 (thru 5-116) 8/11/94
using the MSA-CK program.
Building the database for the
program is not very hard or
time consuming. The advantage is knowing what procedures will
have to be amended. Without
using PROSE, a careful evalua­
tion is required for possible
effects on MSA's and ESA's. A
4 NM buffer is used around all
segment boundaries.
565.-569. RESERVED.
Par 564

8/11/94 8200.34
SECTIOR 5. FPB RESPORSIBILITIES AFTER THE OBSTRUCTIOR EVALUATIOR
570. GENERAL. The primary FPB
responsibility after an ob­
struction evaluation is sending
the response to Air Traffic
(AT) on the results of the
Flight Standard analysis. Af­
ter the initial response to AT,
receipt of any 7460 series
forms on the specific OE case
can require additional actions
by the OE inspector. The OE
inspector's responsibilities to
an OE case does not end until a
final FAA determination is is­
sued. Even after a regional
determination is made, an ap­
peal of that determination to
Washington can cause addi tiona!
FPB involvement with the case.
This section will detail addi­
tional actions required of the
OE inspector concerning indi­
vidual OE cases up to the final
determination, including Wash­
ington level reviews.
571. RESPONSE TO AIR TRAFFIC.
Following a thorough obstruc­
tion evaluation, accurately
communicating the Flight Stan­
dards findings is required.
The OE inspector is also re­
sponsible for informing AT of
any Flight Standards objections
to the OE case. If Flight
Standards has no objections to
the case, that information also
must be understood by AT. This
handbook encourages agreements
between the FPB and regional AT
on the form and wording of in­
spector responses to reduce
unnecessary paperwork. Misun­
derstandings between the two
offices concerning any Flight
Standards objections is unac­
ceptable.
Par 570 a. Response by Computer.
For those offices using the
automated OE network, a Flight
Standards response space is
available. Figures 5-9 and
5-10 give two sample responses
when Flight Standards has no
objections to the case.
(1) If Flight Stan­
dards determines the case has
numerous effects on VFR opera­
tions or instrument procedures,
a paper response should be made if the available space on the
OE automated network is insuf­
ficient.
( 2) Some FPB offices
make all responses using the OE
network, but follow-up with a
paper response for all cases
that exceed standards, in order
to fully describe the elements
of the objection.
( 3) This handbook
will not dictate the method of
response or format. After the
OE automated network is fully
developed and in use at all
regions, appropriate policies
may be established.
b. Response by Form or
Form Memo. Over the years,
many FPB's have established
forms or form memos to respond
to AT.
(1) Figures 5-17
(blank) and 5-18 (completed)
contain a form designed by the
New England Region. It may be
used to respond to AT if de­
sired. The reason for the de-
Page 5-117

8200.34
tail on the form is explained
in paragraph 572.
(2) Figures 5-19
(blank) and 5-20 (completed)
are form memos that may be used
to respond on an OE case.
(3) Note that both
the form and the form memo spe­
cifically state, by checking
the appropriate block, that
Flight Standards objects to the
proposal.
c. Verbal Response. Ver­
bal only responses are not en­
couraged because there is no
permanent record of the Flight
Standards response. When ver­
bally requested by the AT OE
specialist, verbal responses
may be appropriate if a follow­
up computer or written response
is made.
(1) One formal
FPB response is required even if a case has been discussed
and agreements made in a re­
gional meeting or after a nego­
tiation session with the propo­
nent.
(2) After for­
warding the formal Flight Stan­
dards response, additional dis­
cussions and agreements may be
made verbally.
572. AIR TRAFFIC ACTIONS AFTER
THE FLIGHT STANDARDS RESPONSE.
The final determination of
"hazard to aviation" versus "no
hazard to aviation" is made by
the focal OE office in the Air
Traffic Division based upon the
degree of the effects on avia­
tion. That office makes the
decision of which situations
Page 5-118 8/11/94
have substantial adverse effect
on aviation and which do not.
a. Contents of Flight
Standards Response and AT Ac­
tions. In the response to AT,
the condition/minimums which
currently exist and the condi­
tion/minimums which would be
required if the proposed con­
struction occurs, should be
clearly defined.
(1) If errors were
found on existing procedures
during the obstruction evalua­
tion but Flight Standards still
objects to the proposal, a more
comprehensive response, ex­
plaining all details of the
evaluation, is required. This
is also true if minimums were
raised based on a temporary
obstruction and the airspace is still reserved for the lower
minimums. The AT specialist
must have a thorough under­
standing of the actual effects
the proposal will have. All
facts are needed to enable AT
to make decisions, negotiate,
and accurately write a determi­
nation.
( 2) If the objec­
tional effects of the proposal
are only based on accuracy cod­
ing, AT must be notified in the
FPB response that a survey is
needed. See paragraph 544 on
accuracy coding.
(3) If a procedural
change (like MSA' s) will be
required but Flight Standards
does not object to the propos­
al, the response should request
supplemental notice of actual
construction.
Par 571

8/11/94
( 4 ) The no exceed
height (NEB) , the maximum
height of the structure without
having an adverse effect,
should be stated. A NEB may be
given for each effect the
structure would have. This
height gives the AT OE special­ist the information necessary
to negotiate with the propo­
nent. The proponent may be
persuaded to lower the struc­
ture to a lesser height in or­
der to obtain a determination
of no hazard.
(5) Some cases can
affect more than one instrument
procedure or more than one seg­
ment of a procedure. More than
one NEB's may exist and the AT
specialist may discuss options
with the OE inspector. This
may occur prior to or after
negotiations with the propo­
nent. The Flight Standards
policy on procedures changes is
stated in paragraph 542. Nor­
mally, the AT specialist under­
stands this Flight Standards
policy, but the OE inspector
shall determine which instru­
ment procedures changes are ap­
propriate and which are not.
( 6) In some cases,
procedural changes may be ap­
propriate from a Flight Stan­
dards viewpoint, but are not
acceptable to AT. Disruption
of normal air traffic flows is
a prime example. These deci­
sions are made by AT.
(7) In option dis­
cussions with AT, the OE in­
spector should suggest possible
solutions based on the Flight
Standards areas of responsibil­
ity. Do not attempt to make
Par 572 8200.34
decisions for AT. Conversely,
do not permit AT to make Flight
Standards' decisions.
b. Negotiations with the
Proponent. Upon request, the
OE inspector should assist the
AT OE specialist with negotia­
tions. Possible options, like
movement of the structure, may
be presented by the proponent.
See paragraph 528 on negotia­
tions.
c. AT Decisions Based on
Responses. After the opera­
tional divisions have respond­
ed, AT will determine the next
course of action. A determina­
tion may be made immediately or
the case may be circularized
for public comment. In re­
sponse to AT, OE inspectors can
and should recommend circula­
tion when the Flight Standards
evaluation indicates that bene­fits may be derived from public
comment.
573. FAA FORM 7460-8, AERONAU­
TICAL STUDY OF PROPOSED CON­
STRUCTION OR ALTERATION. AT
has their own parameters for
deciding whether an OE case
should be circularized. Pro­
posed structures near an air­
port/heliport or towers higher
that 500 feet AGL are examples
commonly circularized. FAA
Form 7460-8 is used for this
purpose. Figure 5-4 is an ex­
ample of an FAA Form 7460-8.
a. Contents of Form.
Other than the basic informa­
tion on the structure, the FAA
Form 7460-8 will state the ef­
fects as reported by the opera­
tional divisions.
Page 5-119

8200.34
b. OE Inspector Actions.
Upon receipt of the FAA Form
7460-8, the inspector should
review the effects. If there
are effects based on the FPB
response, the accuracy of these
effects should be checked. The
inspector should also assure
that there are no changes in
location or structure height.
(1) If the FAA Form
7460-8 was not forwarded to the
appropriate Flight Standards
field office (based on the re­
gional distribution list), the
inspector should determine if
field office input is required.
If required, send a copy to the
field office. A cover routing
slip may be appropriate.
( 2 ) The inspector
should evaluate the comments
received from the field offic­
es.
(3) Based on input,
new information, or changes to
the proposal, the inspector
should re-evaluate the propos­
al. This may be as simple as
checking calculations or as
complex as conducting another
complete evaluation. The final
adverse effects and recommenda­
tions should be determined.
( 4) If an environ­
mental analysis is required,
have AT inform the proponent of
what is required. If the pro­
ponent is unwilling to complete
an analysis, a procedure change
may not be considered. See
paragraph 549 on procedural
changes and environmental as­
sessments.
Page 5-120 8/11/94
( 5) Most regional AT
offices do not require another
response from the FPB unless
the effects noted in the origi­
nal response change. Minor
changes or minor inaccuracies
discovered may be made verbal­
ly. Major changes require a
formal response, especially
when a Flight Standards objec­
tion/no objection is reversed.
( 6 ) The FAA Form
7460-8 should be filed in the
OE case file.
57 4. DETERMINATIONS: FAA FORM
8460-9, DETERMINATION OF NO
HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION AND
FAA FORM 8460-10, DETERMINATION
OF HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION.
Determinations are issued by AT
based on the results of an in­
ternal FAA study and the circu­
larized aeronautical study.
a. Flight Standards Poli­
cy on a No Hazard Determina­
tion. The Flight Standards
policy is that the Air Traffic
office shall coordinate with
the FPB prior to release of a
FAA Form 7460-9 (no hazard)
when the FPB has an objection
to the p~rticular OE case. The
preferred coordination method
is the OE inspector's initials
on a no hazard determination
grid sheet.
( 1 ) There are a num­
ber of reasons for this policy,
but the policy stated in Order
7400.2, concerning the FAA
speaking with one voice and
that all internal disagreements
will be resolved, is the prima­
ry reason.
Par 573

8/11/94
( 2) Commonly, dis­
cussions and eventual agree­
ments occur between the AT OE
specialist and the OE inspector
when Flight Standards objects
to an OE case. The initials on
the determination are written
confirmation of the agreements.
(3) Coordination is
not necessarily required when,
through negotiations, the pro­
posal was moved or lowered
based on the FPB response or
discussions. However, a change
in the proposal differing from
the FPB response and not dis­
cussed, may need further evalu­
ation and shall be coordinated.
( 4 ) The OE inspector
shall not initial a no hazard
determination until a requested
survey is received and reviewed
or a required environmental
assessment is completed.
NOTE: On reviewing
a proponent funded
environmental as­
sessment (EA) on a
required procedure
change, the OE in­
spector must assure
the EA only address­
es the government
actions needed to
accommodate the
structure. Once ac­
cepted, the EA be­
comes an FAA EA.
Also see chapter 10.
b. OE Inspector Actions.
Flight Standards has no re­
quired coordination policy when
a no hazard determination is
issued and the FPB had no ob­
jections or when a hazard de­
termination is issued. Howev-
Par 574 8200.34
er, if extensive Flight Stan­
dards comments are a part of
the determination, Flight Stan­
dards recommends that AT coor­
dinate with the OE inspector to
insure accurate explanation of
the effects.
( 1) Actions, No Haz­
ard. Issuing an FAA Form
7460-9 indicates that the
structure may be built. The OE
inspector should assume the
structure will be built at the
location and height stated on
the form.
(a) The data on
the structure should be
checked. Changes may have oc­
curred since the FAA Form
7460-1 was received. Any
changes to the effects
discovered by the inspector
should be discussed with the AT
OE specialist. Significant
changes may require an amend­
ment to the determination.
(b) If the lo­
cation or height of the struc­
ture changed, a re-evaluation
of the proposal may be re­
quired. This is the time to
determine all Flight Standards
effects, and not when construc­
tion actually begins.
(c) If a re­
quired environmental analysis
was not completed, do not have
AT issue a determination of no
hazard.
(d) The FAA
Form 7460-9 should be filed in
the OE case file.
(2) Actions, Hazard.
Issuing an FAA Form 7460-10
Page 5-121

8200.34
indicates that the structure
probably will not be built.
The OE inspector should assume
the structure will not be
built. Except for an environ­
mental analysis, the OE inspec­
tor should take the same ac­
tions on a hazard determination
as with a no hazard determina­
tion.
57 5. CONSTRUCTION NOTICE: FAA
FORM 7460-2, NOTICE OF ACTUAL
CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION.
Receiving an FAA Form 7460-2
indicates that the structure is
actually being built or con­
struction will begin in the
very near future. The OE in­
spector's actions may be many
or few depending upon the ef­
fects the structure will have
on aeronautical operations.
a. Effects on Instrument
Procedures. The main concern
of the OE inspector is rapidly
rising structures where immedi­
ate action is needed to main­
tain instrument procedure safe­
ty margins as required by
TERPS. For this reason, re­
ceipt of an FAA Form 7460-2 has
the highest handling priority
of any of the 7460 series
forms.
(1) When the FAA
Form 7460-2 is received, the
air traffic office should for­
ward any survey data received
from the proponent to NOS for
their use in assigning an accu­
racy code. A copy of the sur­
vey should have already been
sent to the FPB for their re­
view. The FIAO should use the
previously determined accuracy
code in procedural modifica­
tions and NOTAM's.
Page 5-122 8/11/94
( 2) Duplication of
effort must be avoided. The
FPB has already determined pro­
cedural effects the structure
would have and that information
should be shared with the FIAO.
b. OE Inspector Actions.
( 1) Analyze the
aeronautical effects based on
the data specified on the FAA
Form 7460-2. If there are no
changes to the location or
height of the structure, the
aeronautical study and determi­
nation of effects should have
been accomplished previously.
(a) If there
are changes to the location or
height of the structure, a re­
view of the aeronautical study
must be accomplished. Negoti­
ated movement or height reduc­
tions may have occurred and the
FAA Form 7460-2 may be the only
indication to the OE inspector
that the actual structure will
have no effect or different
effects.
(b) Normally,
changes to the structure's lo­
cation and height are the re­
sults of negotiations, but may
be refinement of the data orig­
inally submitted by the propo­
nent. Occasionally, a complete
re-evaluation of the effects
will be required.
(2) Determine
procedural changes are
quired. if
re-
(a) If proce­
dural changes are required, the
OE inspector must take the ap­
propriate actions to revise or
Par 574

8/11/94
amend the instrument proce­
dures.
(b) For struc­
tures being constructed over a
longer period of time, normal
procedure amendments may be
appropriate. The estimated
completion time of the struc­
ture listed on the proponent's
submitted FAA Form 7460-2
should indicate if amendments
can be timely accomplished.
(c) Whether
procedural changes are required
or not, temporary construction
cranes may effect instrument
altitudes. Coordinate with the
AT OE specialist as required to
determine the extent of instru­
ment procedures affected. AT
in turn should coordinate with
the proponent.
(3) Determine if a
Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) is
required.
(a) On rapidly
rising structures and construc­
tion sites having temporary
cranes, an OE case that affects
instrument procedures will
probably require immediate is­
suance of a FDC NOTAM.
(b) Because of
the length of time required to
amend and publish an instrument
procedure, an FDC NOTAM may
have to be issued even for
slower rising structures. In
this case, the NOTAM can be
planned for future issuance.
(c) Coordinate
with the FIAO, normally by
telephone, for the development
Par 575 8200.34
and distribution of required
FDC NOTAM's.
(4) Determine if
environmental assessment was
required. If a procedure
change is required, file a copy
of the assessment in the offi­
cial SIAP file.
( 5) Determine if the
procedure change requires fur­
ther actions such as waivers or
airspace~
(a) If a flight
procedures waiver is required,
initiate the waiver.
(b) If airspace
action is required, coordinate
with the appropriate FIAO and
AT office for airspace action.
(6) Notify the FIAO
for required procedural chang­
es.
(a) Some FPB's
notify their FIAO of procedural
changes required when a no haz­
ard determination is issued and
then have AT forward the con­
struction notice direct to the
FIAO. This can be accomplished
by providing the FIAO with a
constantly updated list of OE
cases and their effects.
Flight Standards supports any
FIAO/FPB agreements that can
reduce paperwork provided pro­
cedures are not changed until
construction begins.
(b) Because of
procedure work backlog, some
FPB's and FIAO's use written
requests for procedure changes
including prioritizing the
Page 5-123

8200.34
changes with other procedural
workload.
( 7 ) The FAA Form
7460-2 should be filed in the
OE case file.
576. WASHINGTON REVIEWS OF
REGIONAL OE DETERMINATIONS.
Guidance on Washington office
reviews are contained in Order
7400.2, chapter 8, section 5.
a. What Can Be Reviewed.
All regional OE determinations,
whether hazard or no hazard,
may be petitioned for review.
( 1) Commonly, the
sponsor of a structure will
petition a hazard determination
while any interested party may
petition a no hazard determina­
tion.
( 2 ) AC 7 0 I 7 4 6 0-1 I
Obstruction Marking and Light­
ing, deviation requests are
also forwarded to Washington
after the regional aeronautical
study has been completed.
b. Primary Washington
Offices for Petitions. The
Airspace and Obstruction Eval­
uation Branch, ATP-240, is re­
sponsible for processing peti­
tions for review of regional OE
determinations. Like in the
region, this focal Air Traffic
office coordinates with the
other 3 operational services of
Airway Facilities, Airports,
and Flight Standards. For
Flight Standards, the Flight
Procedures Standards Branch,
AFS-420, is the focal office.
c . AT Actions.
Page 5-124 8/11/94
(1) On receipt of a
petition for review, ATP-240
assigns a docket number to the
petition. More than one peti­
tion of the same case are given
separate docket numbers. (Al­
though not written into the
federal register, the Headquar­
ters determinations are formal­
ly written in docket format.)
(2) ATP-240 informs
the appropriate offices, in­
cluding the sponsor, that the
determination is not final
pending disposition of the pe­
tition.
(3) ATP-240 coordi­
nates the petition and back­
ground information with the
different operational services.
(4) Based upon the
AT evaluation of the case and
petition, including input from
the other operational services,
ATP-240 determines the best
course of action for handling
the petition.
(a) The normal
decision will be to grant a
review or not grant a review.
Other options available are
returning the case to the re­
gion for re-evaluation and con­
tinued negotiations.
(b) Without a
review, a regional determina­
tion may be affirmed and made
final, revised and made final,
or reversed and made final.
(5) If a review is
granted, the case is essential­
ly reopened for additional in­
put and a complete re-evalua­
tion. Any and all aspects of
Par 575

8/11/94
the case are reviewed. A re­
view is a time consuming pro­
cess which may take months to
reach a final determination.
( 6 ) After the re­
view, the regional determina­
tion may again be affirmed,
revised, or reversed. Occa­
sionally, the proponent or
their representatives may offer
options and the case may be
returned to the region to fi­
nalize actions.
d. Regional and Headquar­
ters Flight Standards Actions.
( 1) The general
Washington level practice con­
cerning petitions for review is
to first determine if the peti­
tioner has presented a valid
reason for a review. Reasons
for a review may be inaccura­
cies or untruths in the deter­
mination, not applying standard
FAA policies and practices, and
not meeting the provisions of
FAR Part 77. However, even if
the petitioner did not present
a valid reason for a review, a
review may still be granted or
a determination reversed based
on these same reasons. This is
why petitions to Washington may
be disposed of with or without
a formal review.
(2) AFS-420's ln­
volvement with a petition be­
gins when the petition, the
regional determination, and a
cover letter from ATP-240 is
forwarded to the branch.
AFS-420 evaluates information
presented by the petitioner,
determines if Flight Standards
area of responsibility effects
listed in the determination are
Par 576 8200.34
correct, and analyzes other
areas of concern that may need
to be reviewed.
( 3) During this ini­tial evaluation, AFS-420 may
call the FPB concerning any
factors that may need to be
explained. Discovering what
appears to be an error normally
precipitates the call.
(a) The region­
al OE inspector should not be
concerned that one of their
cases may be reviewed. Some
proponents petition all unfa­
vorable determinations. A pe­
tition for review is specifi­
cally addressed in FAR Part 77.
Washington level evaluation is
required.
(b) The region­
al OE inspector's evaluation
and detailed response to AT,
along with AT's discussions of
these Flight Standards effects
in the OE determination, are
very important to determine if
a case review is appropriate.
For this reason, precise evalu­
ations and required coordina­
tion must be accomplished at
the regional level for all OE
cases.
(c) AFS-420 may
request additional information
on the case that is not avail­
able from the determination and
published information. The OE
inspector must understand that
AFS-420 has only limited maps
available and does not have the
FAA Form 8260-9 for the affect­
ed procedure. Data is limited
to what is available in the
Airport/Facility Directory or
in IAPA. AFS-420 has no knowl-
Page 5-125

8200.34
edge of accuracy codes used in
the regional evaluation, chart­
ed minimums that may have been
raised because of temporary
cranes, NOTAM's that may have
been recently issued, proposed
procedures, etc. , that may have
affected the regional evalua­
tion unless specifically men­
tioned in the determination.
(d) The OE in­
spector should refer to the
case file when questions are
posed by AFS-420. Any relevant
information on the case should
be volunteered besides the
questions specifically asked.
( 4) AFS-420 evalu­
ates all Flight Standards as­
pects of the case. IAPA is
commonly used for detailed
TERPS evaluations.
( 5) AFS-420 forwards
a written response to ATP-240
stating that the Flight Stan­
dards evaluation indicated that
a review is appropriate or is
not appropriate. If AFS-420
recommends a review, a detail
of the reasons will be includ­
ed.
( 6 ) Actions to be
taken by ATP-240 are coordinat­
ed with the appropriate opera­
tional services. If a review is granted, Flight Standards
involvement continues. Prior
Page 5-126 8/11/94
to the review or during the
review, meetings may be con­
vened to discuss the case.
Lawyers may be involved, both
for the FAA and the petitioner.
Any new information gained from
the review is shared. AFS-420
will again respond to ATP-240
on their results of the formal
review. Information should be
detailed enough for ATP-240 to
write the final determination.
Coordination is accomplished
prior to issuing the final de­
termination.
e. Overview of Washington
Office Actions. The Washington
level actions on petitions for
review of regional OE determi­
nations are very similar to
regional actions on the origi­
nal case. The operational ser­
vices evaluate the case and
respond to a focal Air Traffic
office. AT then determines the
next course of action. Infor­
mation may be sufficient for an
immediate determination. The
regional circulated aeronauti­
cal study can be compared to
the formal Washington review
when additional input is deemed
appropriate. Based on all in­
put, a final determination is
made. All operational services
agree with the final determina­
tion.
577.-599. RESERVED.
Par 576

8/11/94 8200.34
FIGURE 5-17. OBSTRUCTIOR EVALUATIOR RESPORSE FORM
FmEJW. A'!tAlra. AOMIMf~Jal- NElf DCl.NI) Jl&fQI
Fl.tGHT STNC)MCS DtvtSION, MIE-a
OBS'1RJC'Ttcll EV AUMTfal
1.\X:ATrON ––––––- CASE NO: –- ~E· –~- OE
MEAR£ST ArRPORT STR\JCiU'E ––––
~ EUNATfON: –––––––––––––––––––-
HEtaiT OF STRJCTl.ltE Aa)YE ~OUNO: ––––––––~-MSL T~ ~ S~E: ___________________________________________ __
T7.23(a)(3l: A tEIGKT wt'TMIM A TSICUW. QBSTAQ.E Ct.ENWU lfliV. 114101 ~UlD A!Sll.T tM lME YERTlCAl OrST~
SmEfJI Ntt POHIT ON 1ME OB.IECT Nm M !STASl.tsHED •nllliUI FI..ISHT ALTrTlJD£ TO IE L!SS llWi ntE fiEQUI'RED
08$TAC.£ CL..EMMC!. MOT *"LJCMU.
PRCPOS~ WtLL. R~U~E r~~E:ASfi'G THE FOU.C:Wt~ AL TfTVOE OF THE AI…:–––––APPRCAOol ________________________________ _
AtRPO~T.
HOt.OtNS ArRlPA~–- TO ____ Fi fiRCCED~E MH ___ _ ·ro Fi
mrr~ TO ~ tMT£~MmtATE TO Fi
FfH\1. TO FT CfRCl. fNG TO Fi
MfSSEC ,lflf!RO'OI TO JrT C !T'AAi\JitE TO Fi
KE1Gr!T mT liOUI.O NOT R~UrRE ~E fiCREAS£ NOTal
EXCCEOS 9'1' _____ FE£T
DO!S NOT EXCE!O ––
R~Tm At~AYS <––––- ~A: ___________ __
AMSL ~SED––-~–– PL.\JS Rex:–– ~IJ~S ––
EXCEEDS S'f
COES NOT EXCEED –-
THE Ae;,VE PRCPOSAL 00£5 – COES NOT EXCE!O Fl. tGiT SiANOAR:S PRCX:EOI..RES PERTAINtl«i TO PART 77
Afo() ts fS NOT OBJECTtCIM'SI.i TO T'HtS OFFtCi.
C~~NTS: ________________________________________________________ _
R£YrE~tER'S $t~'TUtE Ct\TE
"' 7460-11 < t2/71)
Fig 5-17 Page 5-127

8200.34 8/11/94
FIGURE 5-18. COMPLETED OBSTRUCTIOR EVALUATIOR RESPORSE FORM
F'EDERAL. AVfATlOC AC*IUUS'iRATlQII -HE'" ElCUJG l&fOIC
Fl fQfr S"i NIJAAOS D fV JS lON, ANE-3)0
OBSTRJCTlCM E"1 AUJATfON
LO:ATrON __ D_AN_B_U_'R_Y….::,_C_T ______________ CASE NO: __.:9..:;3 ___ ANE- ~1;;…5 ___ OE
N~~Si At~RT __ DA~NB~U~R~Y~–––––~RUC~E_T~O~W~E~R~–––
GRCUNO EL£'fAT10N: _9_1_0–––––––––––
H EtG-ii OF Sl"R!JCT\.RE Aa:lVE GROUNO: _..;;;2.;:.5.;:.0 _________________________ _
lo4 Si. TCP OF STR:.JCTl..R E: 116 0 –––––––––––––––––
77.23Czsl0l: A 1£?G!T lftilUN A ~fNAL CSSTAC..E I:.EJ.RNa 1EI£J. ~fCI ~ULD RESJLT fN Tl£ Y£R'TfC.U. OfSTNCE
SETiiEEJ!t N('( POlXT ON 1l£ CS.lECT ~ AH ESTAS..lSHEJ lilfNI'MUM FUG-IT ALTl'ilJOE TO BE LESS i}I.&.H Tl£ ~UfRE)
OBSTAC..E Q.~. NDT N>f'!.. ~E.
PRCPOSAI.. Wrt.L. R~UtRE IN:RE.~SrNG THE FOLLCWt~ ALTriUOE OF rr!E AL ..:-;,__::,V.:::O.!::R-'-A;::_ ___________ _
DANBURY AP~CA~––––––––––––-
HOLD tt-l3 ArRS:l.,CE –– TO–– F"i ~CCEILF E ru<N –-­TO
INrTTAL TO F"'"
F t~L 1400 TO 1500
MTSSEJ .lf'PR~Ci TO–– F"'" TNTE:l.!o!El tATE
C rRC:. Tt-l3
OE?.,R'ME
HErGiT THAT 'IICUI..O NOT ~~UrRE THE IN:RE.~SE NCTE::J 1056
EXCE:DS :Y __ 1_04 ___ FE~
DOES NOT ~CE::J ––TO
TO
700 TO
CEILING 800 AtRFCR7.
F"'"
F7
r:
F7
n.23Czs)(4): A IE1G-£T Vfiltl1C AH Sf lOJTE cesTAC.E I:.E..~ }~!~,£}.. OF A FE:lERAL AlRli'AY ~ Jof'f'!=<OVCD <r"r-AfR
RarrE: THAT lCUlD tJCREASC Tl£ lilfNt)4tJ)4 CSSTAC..E C:.E..~ ALTrruoE ()IIOCA). –– NDT H'?!.lC.\Bt.E
MEA RE.ATE:J ATRWAYS ( V3 CMK to RACEY ~~~: 2100
AMSi. PRCPCSE:J 1160 P!.~S ~cc–10_0_0 ______ 5:U,tLS 2200 ––––- ––– –––11
DOES NOT EXCEED __ 1_14_9 __
THE ABJVE ?RCFOS,I.L DOES _x __ DOES NOT– E<CEE:J i'L 1G-iT S7ANOAr:a:S ~CC;:)tFES PEi<TAIN ~~ TC F.A.1<7 ii
AND X IS –IS NOT CEJE·:T IONAaE: TO TIHS OFFICE.
C~~NTS=–––––––––––––––––––––––––
s. rl !AM 3/4/93
OATE
Page 5-128 Fig 5-18

8/11/94 8200.34
FIGURE 5-19. OBSTRUCTIOR EVALUATIOR RESPORSE FORM MEMO
0 Memo~ndum
US. Deportment
ot ronsportalion
Federal Aviation
Administration
Subject: Date:
INFORMATION: Obstruction Evaluation
ASO- OE
Reply to
From: Alln. of:
To: Manager, Flight Procedures Branch, AS0-220
AS0-532
We have reviewed the subject Obstruction Evaluation case in
accordance with FAA Handbook 7400.2.
The proposal has no aeronautical effect on the areas for
which we are responsible (77.23(a) (3) and (4)).
The proposal has the following adverse aeronautical
effects. Based upon the listed effect(s), consider this
our objection to the proposal.
) ENROUTE ) IFR ) VFR
Dale c. Anderson
Fig 5-19 Page 5-129

8200.34 8/11/94
FIGURE 5-20. COMPLETED OBSTRUCTXOR EVALUATXOR RESPORSE FORM MEMO
M E M 0 R A N D U M
U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION FLIGHT STANDARDS DIVISION
FLIGHT PROCEDURES BRANCH, AS0-220
SUBJECT: LtiEQ..FLI"L~TIOI'{: Obstruction Eval\.1ation
92-AS0-11B7-0E, Memphi~, TN August 19, 1992
FROM: Manager Flight Procedures
Branch, AS0-220
TO: ASD-!::•32
Page 5-130 We have reviewed the subject Obstruction Evaluation case in
accordance with FAA Handbook 7400.2C.
The proposal has the following adverse aeronautical effects. Based
Llpon the listed effec:t(s), consider this our objection to the
proposal.
Increase the following IFR minimums at Memphis International:
a. St-in, all c:ats, MDA from 760 to 900 (neh-4601*
b. Circling, Cat A & B, MDA from BOO to 900.
c:. St-in, Viz, Cat C from 40 to 60, CAT D from 50 to 1.5
a. St-in, all Cats, MDA from 760 to B60 (neh-4901*
b. Circling, Cat A & B, MDA from BOO to B60
c. St-in, Viz, Cat C from 40 to 50, Cat D from 50 to 60
* An obstacle ac:c:urac:y code of 4D (+/-250' horz., +/-50' vert.)
was used to evaluate this obstacle. We would reconsider this
OE with a certified survey of at least 2.C. accuracy (+/-50'
her:., +/-20' vert.)
NOTE 2. C. acCLiracy wi 11 reduce the ef fee: ts bLit wi 11 not
eliminate them.
Dale C. Anderson
Fig 5-20

8/11/94 8200.34
SECTZOB 6. TASK 114 -EVALUATE A BOTZCE OF PROPOSED
COBSTRUCTZOB (RESERVED) (TBD*)
*TBD=TO BE DEVELOPED
Page 5-131 (thru 5-135)

8200.34 8/11/94
SECTIOR 7. TASK IS -CORDUCT AR AERORAUTICAL STUDY (RESERVED)
('.rBD*)
*TBD=TO BE DEVELOPED
Page 5-136 (thru 5-142)

8/11/94
SECTIOR 8. TASK 126 -PROCESS A DETERMIRATIOR OF
BAZARD/RO HAZARD (RESERVED) (TBD*)
*TBD=TO BE DEVELOPED 8200.34
Page 5-143 (thru 5-149)

8200.34
SECTIOR 9. TASK 127 -PROCESS A ROTICE OF
ACTUAL CORSTRUCTIOR (RESERVED) (TBD*)
*TBD=TO BE DEVELOPED 8/11/94
Page 5-150 (thru 5-156) <>U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1994-523-889/81382