Jeppesen approaches: Why can't we just use them?

I recently went TDY to Ramstein AB, Germany, where I was reacquainted with life in the real Air Force. As a guest of the 86th Airlift Wing's 37th Airlift Squadron, I became acutely aware of how busy life is these days in an operational squadron that responds daily to "real world" contingencies. During my week at Ramstein, I also gained a great deal of insight into how USAF rules affect the aircrew's ability to effectively perform their mission.

The aircrew "question of the day" at Ramstein is no different than the calls we receive from the field daily at the Air Force Flight Standards Agency (AFFSA): "Why can't we just use Jeppesen approaches?" It's a valid question which affects the way we do our mission and it deserves an honest answer.

Let's use a common seenario to frame our discussion. You show up at the squadron to fly, only to find the schedule covered in red ink. The mission you expected to fly has been changed because of a shortnotice tasking. No problem, changes are what make your job challenging, and flexibility is the key to airpower, right? You haven't heard of your dest.ination before, so you go to the flight planning room to look up the field in FLIP. Amazingly enough, you discover the field's approaches are not published in DoD or NOAA FLIP. As you scratch your head and wonder what to do, another member of your crew rushes in waving a copy of a Jeppesen approach servicing your new destination. Assuming the approach is current (big assumption), what other factors would you consider as the aircraft commander?

Our starting point is AFI 11-206, General Flight Rules, a book we are all familiar with. Paragraph 8.4.1 defines the term "Published Instrument Approach." Our discussion will center around bullet four which says a published approach is . . . "Any product not published in a DoD or NOAA FLIP document, but approved by the MAJCOM for which an operational requirement exists. The MAJCOM Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPs) office must review the product before the MAJCOM grants approval. The MAJCOM TERPs office shall inform aircrews when a product does not meet recognized obstruction clearance and (or) flight inspection criteria."

First, let me point out one important fact. '^Te are not singling out Jeppesen approaches in AFI 11-206. Paragraph 8.4.1 applies to all non-DoD/NOAA instrument approach procedures. Jeppesen just happens to be the company which publishes most of the non-DoD/ NOAA approaches we use. Although the rest of this discussion will center specifically on Jeppesen approaches, the rules apply equally to all other nonDoD/NOAA instrument approach procedures.

Back to our scenario. Can you use the Jeppesen approach? According to paragraph 8.4.1, you can consider the Jeppesen approach a published approach as long as two things have happened: first, the approach must be reviewed by your MAJCOM TERPs office, and second, your MAJCOM must grant you permission to use the approach. If both of these events have occurred, you may use the Jeppesen approach as a published approach. If either of these two events has not occurred, the airfield you are going to must be treated as if it has no published approach.

How do you know the appropriate review has been accomplished? Here's where it gets tricky. AFI 11-206's guidance is very clear; however, MAJCOM flight directives (MAJCOM supplements to AFI 11-206, 55- and 11-series MCIs and/or MCRs, FCIFs, FCBs, etc.) provide conflicting guidance. The important thing to remember is that MAJCOM flight directives can never be less restrictive than AF-level guidance. Operational commanders must provide aircrews with the appropriate approved flight publications for the mission they are tasked to fly. As usual though, the last line of defense is the aircraft commander. In the end, it is the responsibility of the aircraft commander to ensure any nonDoD/NOAA approach procedures have been properly reviewed and approved by the MAJCOM.

Now, I know a lot of you are out there saying, "Your requirements are unreasonable; we can't go through this process every time we have to use Jeppesen approaches; we can't do our mission." I understand your concerns. Let me tell you a little about Jeppesen and then we'll do a "sanity check." As I mentioned earlier, I'm not picking on Jeppesen. Jeppesen is highly respected in the aviation community. However, they are strictly a publishing agency. They take locallydeveloped procedures, print them in the Jeppesen format, and sell them to users worldwide. Jeppesen gives no guarantee other than the disclaimer printed in their manuals, "Jeppesen makes no express or implied warranty, and disclaims any liability with respect to the design, adequacy, accuracy, reliability, safety, or conformance with government standards or regulations, of any flight procedure prescribed by a government authority, including, but not limited to, any express or implied warranty of merchant-ability or fitness for a particular purpose."

With this statement in mind, let's do a "sanity check." Are all Jeppesen approaches 100% reliable according to our DoD TERPs standards? The answer is "NO." If all Jeppesen approaches are not 100% reliable, should someone review Jeppesen approaches before our aircrews fly them? I think we all agree the answer is "YES." Now, who should review Jeppesen procedures to ensure they meet DoD standards? I think an instrument procedures expert should do it. Sounds like a TERPs guy, right? If the expert reviewing the Jeppesen approach procedure discovers any discrepancies, should the crew be notified prior to flying the approach? Of course. Sounds a lot like AFI 11-206, doesn't it? When you view AFI 11-206, paragraph 8.4.1, in these terms, it is clear the guidance is sound. The problem is getting the appropriate approaches reviewed in the time available - time that is often limited by real-world, short-notice taskings..

So, what's the answer? If your unit flies into a location without DoD/NOAA procedures regularly (AFI 13-209 says three times or more per year), then request the procedure be included in FLIP. (See FLIP GP Chapter 11.) If the location is not flown into regularly, notify your MAJCOM TERPs office as soon as you realize you need an approach reviewed. While many flights are short-notice, most of our missions are known several days in advance. If the mission is really short-notice, work out a process with your MAJCOM TERPs office to handle shortnotice taskings on a priority basis. The TERPs review is crucial and we all need to work together to make sure it gets done.

Finally, here's a commercial message: AFFS.AK can marshal a great deal of resources to assist you or your unit with any flight-related problem. Feel free to give us a call. Our number is DSN 858-5418. Fly safe and fly smart.

Editor's Note: Jeppesen approaches which have been reviewed and appr,sued are listed as such on the GDSS. If away from home station, contact TACC for information on the airfield in question. If the airfield has not been approved, TACC will coordinate with the HQ AMC TERPs office to solve the problem. For further information, you may contact HQ AMC/DOAS (Airfield Suitability) at DSN 576-3112/4508, fax 1667. In addition, the Airfield Suitability Report and the Summary of Airfield Restrictions are available on the world-wide web at: http:/weblord:81/ hqamc/directorates/amcdo/ dot/dot.htm

Reprinted from Focus, AFSOC's Commando Safety Joumal, Winter '96.

by Major Kevin Jones,

HQ Air Force Flight Standards Agency (AFFSA/XOFD), Andrews AFB MD

Copyright Superintendent of Documents, Military Airlift Command Mar/Apr 1997
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved