Republic of the Philippines

CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

Old MIA Road, Pasay City, Philippines

Manual of Standards
For Instrument Flight Procedure
Design Services

First Edition
March 2022

Published by:
Civil Aviation Authority of the
Philippines

UNCONTROLLED COPY
UNCONTROLLED COPY
UNCONTROLLED COPY
Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1st Edition ii March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service

RECORD OF AMENDMENTS AND CORRIGENDA

Amendments
Number Date applicable Subject(s) Entered by

Corrigenda
Number Date applicable Subject(s) Entered by

March 2022 iii 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1st Edition iv March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service

LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES

Part Page Amendment No. Page Date

Part 15 Governing Aeronautical Information Services
Foreword i 1st Edition March 2022
Record of Amendments
iii 1st Edition March 2022
and Corrigenda
List of Effective Pages v-viii 1st Edition March 2022
Table of Contents ix-x 1st Edition March 2022
Definitions xi-xx 1st Edition March 2022
Abbreviations xxi-xxv 1st Edition March 2022
Page March 2022
1-1 1st Edition March 2022
1-2 1st Edition March 2022
1-3 1st Edition March 2022
1-4 1st Edition March 2022
1-5 1st Edition March 2022
1-6 1st Edition March 2022
2-1 1st Edition March 2022
2-2 1st Edition March 2022
2-3 1st Edition March 2022
2-4 1st Edition March 2022
2-5 1st Edition March 2022
2-6 1st Edition March 2022
2-7 1st Edition March 2022
2-8 1st Edition March 2022
3-1 1st Edition March 2022
3-2 1st Edition March 2022
3-3 1st Edition March 2022
3-4 1st Edition March 2022
3-5 1st Edition March 2022
3-6 1st Edition March 2022
3-7 1st Edition March 2022
3-8 1st Edition March 2022
3-9 1st Edition March 2022
3-10 1st Edition March 2022
3-11 1st Edition March 2022
3-12 1st Edition March 2022
4-1 1st Edition March 2022
4-2 1st Edition March 2022
4-3 1st Edition March 2022
4-4 1st Edition March 2022
4-5 1st Edition March 2022

March 2022 v 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service

4-6 1st Edition March 2022

4-7 1st Edition March 2022
4-8 1st Edition March 2022
4-9 1st Edition March 2022
4-10 1st Edition March 2022
4-11 1st Edition March 2022
4-12 1st Edition March 2022
4-13 1st Edition March 2022
4-14 1st Edition March 2022
4-15 1st Edition March 2022
4-16 1st Edition March 2022
4-17 1st Edition March 2022
4-18 1st Edition March 2022
4-19 1st Edition March 2022
4-20 1st Edition March 2022
4-21 1st Edition March 2022
4-22 1st Edition March 2022
4-23 1st Edition March 2022
4-24 1st Edition March 2022
4-25 1st Edition March 2022
4-26 1st Edition March 2022
4-27 1st Edition March 2022
4-28 1st Edition March 2022
4-29 1st Edition March 2022
4-30 1st Edition March 2022
4-31 1st Edition March 2022
4-32 1st Edition March 2022
4-33 1st Edition March 2022
4-34 1st Edition March 2022
4-35 1st Edition March 2022
4-36 1st Edition March 2022
4-37 1st Edition March 2022
4-38 1st Edition March 2022
5-1 1st Edition March 2022
5-2 1st Edition March 2022
5-3 1st Edition March 2022
5-4 1st Edition March 2022
5-5 1st Edition March 2022
5-6 1st Edition March 2022
5-7 1st Edition March 2022
5-8 1st Edition March 2022
5-9 1st Edition March 2022
5-10 1st Edition March 2022

1st Edition vi March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service

5-11 1st Edition March 2022

5-12 1st Edition March 2022
5-13 1st Edition March 2022
5-14 1st Edition March 2022
5-15 1st Edition March 2022
5-16 1st Edition March 2022
5-17 1st Edition March 2022
5-18 1st Edition March 2022
5-19 1st Edition March 2022
5-20 1st Edition March 2022
6-1 1st Edition March 2022
6-2 1st Edition March 2022
6-3 1st Edition March 2022
6-4 1st Edition March 2022
6-5 1st Edition March 2022
6-6 1st Edition March 2022
APP1-1 1st Edition March 2022
APP1-2 1st Edition March 2022
APP1-3 1st Edition March 2022
APP1-4 1st Edition March 2022
APP1-5 1st Edition March 2022
APP1-6 1st Edition March 2022
APP2-1 1st Edition March 2022
APP2-2 1st Edition March 2022
APP2-3 1st Edition March 2022
APP2-4 1st Edition March 2022
APP2-5 1st Edition March 2022
APP2-6 1st Edition March 2022
APP3-1 1st Edition March 2022
APP3-2 1st Edition March 2022
APP3-3 1st Edition March 2022
APP3-4 1st Edition March 2022
APP3-5 1st Edition March 2022
APP3-6 1st Edition March 2022
APP4-1 1st Edition March 2022
APP4-2 1st Edition March 2022
APP4-3 1st Edition March 2022
APP4-4 1st Edition March 2022
APP4-5 1st Edition March 2022
APP4-6 1st Edition March 2022
APP4-7 1st Edition March 2022
APP4-8 1st Edition March 2022
APP4-9 1st Edition March 2022

March 2022 vii 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service

APP4-10 1st Edition March 2022

APP5-1 1st Edition March 2022
APP5-2 1st Edition March 2022
APP5-3 1st Edition March 2022
APP5-4 1st Edition March 2022
APP6-1 1st Edition March 2022
APP6-2 1st Edition March 2022
APP6-3 1st Edition March 2022
APP6-4 1st Edition March 2022
APP6-5 1st Edition March 2022
APP6-6 1st Edition March 2022
APP7-1 1st Edition March 2022
APP7-2 1st Edition March 2022
APP7-3 1st Edition March 2022
APP7-4 1st Edition March 2022
APP7-5 1st Edition March 2022
APP7-6 1st Edition March 2022
APP8-1 1st Edition March 2022
APP8-2 1st Edition March 2022
APP9-1 1st Edition March 2022
APP9-2 1st Edition March 2022
APP10-1 1st Edition March 2022
APP10-2 1st Edition March 2022

1st Edition viii March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
FOREWORD…………………………………………………………………………..…… i
RECORD OF AMENDMENTS AND CORRIGENDA………….…………….…........... iii
LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES …………………………………………………………… v
DEFINITIONS ……………………………………………………………………………… xi
ABBREVIATIONS ………………………………………………………………………… xxi
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ……………………………………...……….…..……… 1-1
1.1 General …………………………………………………………………. 1-1
1.2 National Regulations for IFPDS ……………………………………… 1-1
1.3 Approval and Responsibilities for IFPs ……………………………… 1-2
1.4 Design Criteria …………………………………………………………. 1-2
1.5 CAAP Safety Oversight ……………………………………………….. 1-2
1.6 Safety Risk Assessment ………………………………………………. 1-3
1.7 Quality Management System ………………………………………… 1-3
1.8 Continuous Maintenance and Periodic Review …………………….. 1-3
1.9 Target Audience of the MOS for IFPDS …………………………….. 1-3
1.10 Structure of the Manual ……………………………………………….. 1-4

CHAPTER 2 CAAP SAFETY OVERSIGHT FUNCTION ……………………………… 2-1

2.1 State Safety Oversight System ……………………………………….. 2-1

CHAPTER 3 PROCEDURE DESIGN SERVICE PROVIDER FUNCTION …………. 3-1

3.1 General ………………………………………………………………….. 3-1
3.2 Service to be provided by a PDSP …………………………………… 3-1
3.3 Process and Procedures to be Established for a PDSP …………… 3-2
3.3.1 PDSP Operations Manual …………………………………………….. 3-2
3.3.2 Quality Manual …………………………………………………………. 3-5
3.4 Provision of Service ……………………………………………………. 3-5
3.4.1 Design and Publication of New Procedures ………………………… 3-5
3.4.2 Periodic Review ………………………………………………………… 3-6
3.5 Quality Assurance ……………………………………………………… 3-7
3.6 Training and Qualifications ……………………………………………. 3-7
3.6.1 Competency-based Approach in General …………………………… 3-7
3.6.2 The Competency Framework for Procedure Designer …………….. 3-8
3.6.3 Training phases for procedure designers to be included in
the PDSP Training Program ………………………………………….. 3-9
3.6.3.1 Ab Initio Training for Procedure Designers ………………………….. 3-9
3.6.3.2 Initial Training for Procedure Designers ………………………………. 3-9
3.6.3.3 On-the-job training (OJT) for Procedure Designers ………………… 3-9
3.6.3.4 Advanced Training for Procedure Designers ………………………… 3-10
3.6.3.5 Recurrent Training for Procedure Designers ………………………… 3-10
3.6.3.6 Refresher Training for Procedure Designers ………………………... 3-10
3.6.4 Minimum Qualification for Flight Validation/Inspection Pilots ……… 3-10
3.6.5 The Competency Framework for Flight Validation Pilots …………… 3-11
3.6.6 Training Phases for Flight Validators to be Included

March 2022 ix 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service

in the FVSP Training Program ……………………………………….. 3-11

3.6.6.1 Initial Training ………………………………………………………….. 3-11
3.6.6.2 On-the-job training (OJT) ……………………………………………… 3-11
3.6.6.3 Recurrent Training ……………………………………………………… 3-12
3.6.6.4 Refresher Training ……………………………………………………... 3-12
3.7 Safety Management System (SMS) ………………………………….. 3-12

CHAPTER 4 FLIGHT PROCEDURE DESIGN QUALITY ASSURANCE

SYSTEM …………………………………………………………………………………….. 4-1
4.1 General ………………………………………………………………….. 4-1
4.2 The Need For Quality ………………………………………………….. 4-1
4.3 The Instrument Flight Procedure Process …………………………… 4-4
4.4 Step-by-Step Description of Activities Within the Process ………… 4-17

CHAPTER 5 VALIDATION OF INSTRUMENT FLIGHT PROCEDURES …………… 5-1

5.1 Purpose and Objective ………………………………………………… 5-1
5.2 Validation Process ……………………………………………………… 5-1
5.3 Validation Report and Documentation ……………………………….. 5-2
5.4 Validation Process Description ……………………………………….. 5-3
5.5 Preparation for Validation ……………………………………………… 5-6
5.6 Step by Step Description of Activities Within the Process …………. 5-7

CHAPTER 6 FLIGHT PROCEDURE DESIGN SOFTWARE VALIDATION ………… 6-1

6.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………… 6-1
6.1.1 The Need for Validation of Procedure Design Tools ……………….. 6-1
6.1.2 Functional Validation …………………………………………………… 6-2
6.1.3 Validation with Regard to Criteria …………………………………….. 6-2
6.2 Report of the Validation with Regard to Criteria …………………….. 6-2
6.3 Requirements for Revalidation ………………………………………... 6-3
6.4 Implementing a Validation Program ………………………………….. 6-3

APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1 THIRD-PARTY PDSP AUTHORIZATION PROCESS …………….. APP1-1
APPENDIX 2 IFP QUALITY ASSURANCE CHECKLIST …………………………. APP2-1
APPENDIX 3 SAMPLE PDSP AUDIT PROTOCOL QUESTIONNAIRE ………… APP3-1
APPENDIX 4 SAMPLE PRE-IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS FOR
PREPARATION OF IFP IMPLEMENTATION SAFETY
ASSESSMENT ………………………………………………………… APP4-1
APPENDIX 5 FLIGHT VALIDATION PILOT TRAINING AND EVALUATION….. APP5-1
APPENDIX 6 VALIDATION TEMPLATES FOR FIXED WING AIRCRAFT …….. APP6-1
APPENDIX 7 VALIDATION TEMPLATES FOR HELICOPTERS ………………… APP7-1
APPENDIX 8 HUMAN FACTORS ……………………………………………………. APP8-1
APPENDIX 9 OBSTACLE ASSESSMENT …………………………………………. APP9-1
APPENDIX 10 SAMPLE VALIDATION DOCUMENTATION ………………………. APP10-1

1st Edition x March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service

DEFINITIONS

When the following terms are used in this manual, they have the following meanings:

Acceptance. The act of accepting with formal approval (favorable reception).

Accuracy. The degree of conformance between the estimated or measured value and
its true value.

Aerodrome. A defined area on land or water (including any buildings, installations and
equipment) intended to be used either wholly or in part for the arrival, departure and
surface movement of aircraft.

Aerodrome data. Data relating to an aerodrome including the dimensions,

coordinates, elevations and other pertinent details of runways, taxiways, buildings,
installations, equipment, facilities and local procedures.

Aeronautical data. Data relating to aeronautical facts, such as, inter alia, airspace
structure, airspace classifications (controlled, uncontrolled, Class A, B, C... F, G),
name of controlling agency, communication frequencies, airways/air routes, altimeter
transition altitudes/flight levels, collocated instrument procedure (and its airspace as
assessed by design criteria), area of magnetic unreliability, magnetic variation.

Aeronautical Information Regulation and Control (AIRAC). signifying a system

aimed at advance notification based on common effective dates of circumstances that
necessitate significant changes in operating practices.

Air traffic management (ATM). The dynamic, integrated management of air traffic
and airspace including air traffic services, airspace management and air traffic flow
management — safely, economically and efficiently — through the provision of
facilities and seamless services in collaboration with all parties and involving airborne
and ground-based functions.

Air traffic services (ATS). A generic term meaning, variously, flight information
service, alerting service, air traffic advisory service and air traffic control service (area
control service, approach control service or aerodrome control service).

Area navigation (RNAV). A method of navigation which permits aircraft operation on

any desired flight path within the coverage of the station-referenced navigation aids or
within the limits of the capability of self-contained aids, or a combination of these.

Authorized designer. A recognized procedure design service provider authority under

CAAP or a 3rd-party procedure design service provider who is a holder of a procedure
design certificate of authorization that is in force.

Automation. The automatic operation or control of equipment, a process, or a system.

Basic element. The lowest level object identified within a specific function.

Basic parameter. Reference parameter or constant defined in the applicable criteria

for procedure design calculations.

March 2022 xi 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service

Cartographic map. A representation of a portion of the Earth, its culture and relief,
with properly referenced terrain, hydrographic, hypsometric and cultural data depicted
on a sheet of paper.

Circling approach. An extension of an instrument approach procedure which provides

for visual circling of the aerodrome prior to landing.

Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines (CAAP). Unless specifically stated

otherwise, when used in this document shall refer to the government entity responsible
for regulating civil aviation activities of the Philippines.

Competency. A combination of skills, knowledge and attitudes required to perform a

task to the prescribed standard.

Competency-based training and assessment. Training and assessment that are

characterized by a performance orientation, emphasis on standards of performance
and their measurement, and the development of training to the specified performance
standards.

Competency element. An action that constitutes a task that has a triggering event
and a terminating event that clearly defines its limits, and has an observable outcome.

Competency framework. A competency framework consists of competency units,

competency elements, performance criteria, evidence and assessment guide and
range of variables. Competency units, competency elements and performance criteria
are derived from job and tasks analyses of procedure designers and describe
observable outcomes.

Competency unit. A discrete function consisting of a number of competency

elements.

Conceptual design. High-level graphical and/or textual description of the designer’s

interpretation of the stakeholders’ requirements.

Consultation. A conference between two or more people to consider a particular

question.

Data owner. refers to the organization (Airport Authorities, Surveyors, Charting

Agencies, ATS, CNS, MET, AIS, etc.) providing the document reference (Survey
reports, Weather Logs, Equipment Specifications, Aeronautical Charts, AIP, etc.) as
source of a data used in procedure design.

Datum. Any quantity or set of quantities that may serve as a reference or basis for the
calculation of other quantities (ISO 19104).

Decision altitude or decision height (DA/H). A specified altitude or height in a 3D

instrument approach operation at which a missed approach must be initiated if the
required visual reference to continue the approach has not been established.

1st Edition xii March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service

Note 1. - Decision altitude (DA) is referenced to mean sea level and decision height
(DH) is referenced to the threshold elevation.

Note 2. - The required visual reference means that section of the visual aids or of the
approach area which should have been in view for sufficient time for the pilot to have
made an assessment of the aircraft position and rate of change of position, in relation
to the desired flight path. In Category III operations with a decision height the required
visual reference is that specified for the particular procedure and operation.

Note 3. - For convenience where both expressions are used, they may be written in
the form “decision altitude/height” and abbreviated “DA/H”.

Designer. A person adequately trained who performs the design of an instrument flight
procedure.

Digital elevation model (DEM). The representation of a portion of the Earth’s surface
by continuous elevation values at all intersections of a defined grid, referenced to
common datum.

Note. - Digital terrain model (DTM) is sometimes referred to as DEM.

Elevation. The vertical distance of a point or a level, on or affixed to the surface of the
earth, measured from mean sea level.

Enabling objective. A training objective derived from performance criteria in the

competency framework. In order to achieve enabling objectives, a trainee requires
skills, knowledge and attitudes.

Error. An action or inaction by an individual that leads to deviations from organizational

or operational intention or expectation.

Error management. The process of detecting and responding to errors with

countermeasures that reduce or eliminate the errors or the consequence of errors.

Evidence and assessment guide. A guide that provides detailed information (e.g.
tolerances) in the form of evidence that an instructor or an evaluator can use to
determine if a candidate meets the requirements of the competency standard.

Flight inspection. The operation of a suitable equipped aircraft for the purpose of
calibrating ground based NAVAIDS or monitoring/evaluating the performance of the
Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS).

Flight procedure design (FPD). The complete package that includes all the
considerations that went into the development of an instrument flight procedure.

Flight procedure designer. A person responsible for flight procedure design who
meets the competency requirements as laid down by CAAP.

Note. – Flight procedure designer is sometimes simply referred to as “designer”.

March 2022 xiii 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service

Flight procedure design process. The process which is specific to the design of
instrument flight procedures leading to the creation or modification of an instrument
flight procedure.

Flight procedure inspectorate (FPI). Refers to the PANS-OPS Safety Inspectorate

unit under the Aerodromes and Air Navigation Safety Oversight Office (AANSOO)
designated to carry out the safety oversight activities in the area of development and
maintenance of visual and instrument flight procedures.

Flight procedure inspectorate staff. A person or persons assigned at the PANS-

OPS Safety Inspectorate unit responsible for the establishment of regulations
governing Instrument Flight Procedure Design Services, oversight of the process of
development and maintenance of visual and instrument flight procedures, evaluation
of 3rd Party Procedure Design Service Providers’ applications for authorizations, and
performance of safety regulatory surveillance of Procedure Design Service Providers’
activities.

Flight validation pilot (FVP). A person performing flight validation who meets the
competency requirements as laid down by CAAP.

Flight validation service provider (FVSP). A body that provides flight validation
services.

Flyability. The ability to keep an aircraft within predefined tolerances of designed

lateral and vertical flight track.

Height. The vertical distance of a level, a point or an object considered as a point,

measured from a specified datum.

Instrument approach operations. An approach and landing using instruments for

navigation guidance based on an instrument approach procedure. There are two
methods for executing instrument approach operations:
a) a two-dimensional (2D) instrument approach operation, using lateral
navigation guidance only; and
b) a three-dimensional (3D) instrument approach operation, using both
lateral and vertical navigation guidance.
Note. — Lateral and vertical navigation guidance refers to the guidance provided either
by:

a) a ground-based radio navigation aid; or

b) computer-generated navigation data from ground-based, space-based,
self-contained navigation aids or a combination of these.

Instrument approach procedure (IAP). A series of predetermined maneuvers by

reference to flight instruments with specified protection from obstacles from the initial
approach fix, or where applicable, from the beginning of a defined arrival route to a
point from which a landing can be completed and thereafter, if a landing is not

1st Edition xiv March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service

completed, to a position at which holding or en-route obstacle clearance criteria apply.

Instrument approach procedures are classified as follows:
Non-precision approach (NPA) procedure. An instrument approach procedure
designed for 2D instrument approach operations Type A.
Note. — Non-precision approach procedures may be flown using a continuous descent
final approach (CDFA) technique. CDFAs with advisory VNAV guidance calculated by
on-board equipment are considered 3D instrument approach operations. CDFAs with
manual calculation of the required rate of descent are considered 2D instrument
approach operations.
Approach procedure with vertical guidance (APV). A performance-based
navigation (PBN) instrument approach procedure designed for 3D instrument
approach operations Type A.
Precision approach (PA) procedure. An instrument approach procedure based
on navigation systems (ILS, MLS, GLS and SBAS Cat I) designed for 3D
instrument approach operations Type A or B.
Note. — Refer to CAR-ANS Part 6 for instrument approach operation types.

Instrument flight procedure. A description of a series of predetermined flight

maneuvers by reference to flight instruments, published by electronic and/or printed
means.

Instrument flight procedure design service (IFPDS). A service established for the
design, documentation, validation, continuous maintenance and periodic review of
instrument flight procedures necessary for the safety, regularity and efficiency of air
navigation.

Instrument flight procedure design service provider. A body that provides an

IFPDS. Also referred to as Procedure Design Service Provider (PDSP).

Instrument flight procedure process. The overarching process from data origination
to the publication of an instrument flight procedure.

Integrity (aeronautical data). A degree of assurance that an aeronautical data and

its value has not been lost or altered since the data origination or authorized
amendment.

Maintenance (continuous). The continuous maintenance of an instrument procedure

is an ongoing process triggered by the Aeronautical Information Services (AIS) through
notification of any critical changes to the instrument procedure environment that would
necessitate timely revision of the instrument procedure design. Examples of critical
changes would be the erection of an obstacle within a determined radius of an
Aerodrome Reference Point (ARP); the planned decommissioning of an associated
secondary navigation aid; or the planned extension/ reduction of a runway. It is
assumed that the AIS would respond by NOTAM to any unplanned critical change to
the instrument procedure environment. The AIS would notify the procedure designer
of the NOTAM action and would then expect the procedure designer to take
maintenance/corrective action as required.

March 2022 xv 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service

Maintenance (cyclical/periodic). The cyclical maintenance of an instrument

procedure is a planned systemic review at a predetermined interval of the procedure
design.

Mastery test. A test that evaluates a trainee’s ability to perform a terminal objective.
A mastery test should match as closely as possible the conditions, behaviors and
standards of terminal objectives.

Material-dependent training. A well-documented and repeatable training package

that has been tested and proven to be effective.

Minimum descent altitude or minimum descent height (MDA/H). A specified

altitude or height in a 2D instrument approach operation or circling approach operation
below which descent must not be made without the required visual reference.
Note 1. — Minimum descent altitude (MDA) is referenced to mean sea level and
minimum descent height (MDH) is referenced to the aerodrome elevation or to the
threshold elevation if that is more than 2 m (7 ft) below the aerodrome elevation. A
minimum descent height for a circling approach is referenced to the aerodrome
elevation.
Note 2. — The required visual reference means that section of the visual aids or of the
approach area which should have been in view for sufficient time for the pilot to have
made an assessment of the aircraft position and rate of change of position, in relation
to the desired flight path. In the case of a circling approach the required visual
reference is the runway environment.
Note 3. — For convenience when both expressions are used, they may be written in
the form “minimum descent altitude/height” and abbreviated “MDA/H”.

Minimum obstacle clearance altitude (MOCA). The minimum altitude for a defined
segment that provides the required obstacle clearance.

Modelling of criteria. A schematic description of criteria that accounts for its

properties and may be used for further study or application of its characteristics.

Navaid data. Data relating to both ground-based and space-based navigational aids
including service volume, frequency, identification, transmission power and limitations
of operation

Obstacle. All fixed (whether temporary or permanent) and mobile objects, or parts
thereof, that are located on an area intended for the surface movement of aircraft or
that extend above a defined surface intended to protect aircraft in flight.

Obstacle clearance altitude or obstacle clearance height (OCA/H). The lowest

altitude or the lowest height above the elevation of the relevant runway threshold or
the aerodrome elevation as applicable, used in establishing compliance with
appropriate obstacle clearance criteria.
Note 1. — Obstacle clearance altitude is referenced to mean sea level and obstacle
clearance height is referenced to the threshold elevation or in the case of non-precision
approach procedures to the aerodrome elevation or the threshold elevation if that is

1st Edition xvi March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service

more than 2 m (7 ft) below the aerodrome elevation. An obstacle clearance height for
a circling approach operation is referenced to the aerodrome elevation.
Note 2. — For convenience when both expressions are used, they may be written in
the form “obstacle clearance altitude/height” and abbreviated “OCA/H”.
Note 3.— See Part I, Section 4, Chapter 5, 5.4 for specific applications of this definition.

Obstacle data. Any man-made fixed or temporary object which has vertical
significance in relation to adjacent and surrounding features and which is considered
as a potential hazard to the safe passage of aircraft, or man-made fixed or temporary
objects that extend above a defined surface intended to protect aircraft in flight.

Obstacle/terrain data collection surface. A defined surface intended for the purpose
of collecting obstacle/terrain data.

Performance criteria. A simple, evaluative statement on a required outcome of the

competency element and a description of the criteria used to judge if the required level
of performance has been achieved. Several performance criteria can be associated to
a competency element.

Procedure design function. An element of a procedure design software executing a

predefined task and providing output to the procedure designer.
Note. - The description of a procedure design function needs to include all required
input (values, format, etc.) and a comprehensive description of the expected outputs.
For example, outputs may include:
a) result of checks for consistency of input with the applicable regulation;
b) results of various calculations (area width, MOCA, etc.); and
c) protection area drawing.

Procedure Design Service Provider (PDSP). a person or organization who engages

in the design, development, changes to, or modification of instrument flight procedures.
Note. – See also “Instrument flight procedure design service provider.”

Procedure design tool. Automation system that provides calculations and/or designs
and layouts in the field of procedure design.

Procedure owner. refers to the organization (airport authority, ATS, air operator, etc.)
indorsing procedure design work to a PDSP.

Process. A set of interrelated or interacting activities which transforms inputs into

outputs; hence “flight procedure design (FPD) process” or “instrument flight procedure
process”.

Procedure. A specified way to carry out an activity or a process (see ISO 9000:2000
Quality management systems – Fundamentals and vocabulary, section 3.4.5).

Progress test. A test that measures a trainee’s ability to meet key enabling objectives.

March 2022 xvii 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service

Quality record. Objective evidence which shows how well a quality requirement is
being met, or how well a quality process is performing. Quality records normally are
audited in the quality evaluation process.

Range of variables (conditions). The conditions under which the competency units
must be performed.

Raster map. An electronic representation of a cartographic map with properly

referenced terrain, hydrographic, hypsometric and cultural data.

Recognized source. A source of data that is either recognized by CAAP or a source

that has professional credentials to provide a specific type of data.

Reference geodetic datum. The numerical or geometrical quantity or set of such

quantities (mathematical model) which serves as a reference for computing other
quantities in a specific geographic region such as the latitude and longitude of a point.
A minimum set of parameters required to define location and orientation of the local
reference system with respect to the global reference system/frame.

Required navigation performance (RNP). A statement of the navigation

performance necessary for operation within a defined airspace.
Note. — Navigation performance and requirements are defined for a particular RNP
type and/or application.

Resolution. The number of units or digits to which a measured or calculated value is

expressed and used. The smallest difference between two adjacent values that can
be represented in a data storage, display or transfer system.

Review. An activity undertaken to determine the suitability, adequacy and

effectiveness of the subject matter to achieve established objectives (see ISO
9000:2000 Quality management systems – Fundamentals and vocabulary, section
3.8.7).

Significant obstacle. Any natural terrain feature or man-made fixed object,

permanent or temporary, which has vertical significance in relation to adjacent and
surrounding features and which is considered a potential hazard to the safe passage
of aircraft in the type of operation for which the individual procedure is designed.
Note. — The term “significant obstacle” is used in this document solely for the purpose
of specifying the objects considered in calculations of relevant elements of the
procedure and intended to be presented on an appropriate chart series.

Skills, knowledge, attitudes (SKA). The skills/knowledge/attitudes are what an

individual requires to perform an enabling objective derived from performance criteria.
A skill is the ability to perform an activity that contributes to the effective completion of
a task. Knowledge is specific information required for the trainee to develop the skills
and attitudes for the effective accomplishment of tasks. Attitude is the mental state of
a person that influences behavior, choices and expressed opinions.

1st Edition xviii March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service

Software environment. Software used to support an automation tool, such as an

operating system, or database management system.

Software validation. Acknowledgement, derived from a series of tests, of the

compliance of an automation system with the applicable standards. It may be one or a
combination of the following:
a) Functional validation - Confirmation of the correct implementation of
automation functions and of the compliance of the human machine
interface with the user requirements
b) Validation with reference to criteria - Confirmation through a series of tests
of the compliance of the results with reference to applicable criteria.

Stakeholder. An individual or party with vested interests in an instrument flight

procedure design.

Standard instrument departure (SID). A designated instrument flight rule (IFR)

departure route linking the aerodrome or a specified runway of the aerodrome with a
specified significant point, normally on a designated ATS route, at which the en-route
phase of a flight commences.

Standard terminal arrival (STAR). A designated instrument flight rule (IFR) arrival
route linking a significant point, normally on an ATS route, with a point from which a
published instrument approach procedure can be commenced.

Terminal arrival altitude (TAA). The lowest altitude that will provide a minimum
clearance of 300 m (1 000 ft) above all objects located in an arc of a circle defined by
a 46 km (25 NM) radius centered on the initial approach fix (IAF), or where there is no
IAF on the intermediate approach fix (IF), delimited by straight lines joining the
extremity of the arc to the IF. The combined TAAs associated with an approach
procedure shall account for an area of 360 degrees around the IF.

Terminal objective. A training objective derived from a competency element in the

competency framework which a trainee will achieve when successfully completing
instruction.

Terminating event. A cue or indicator that a task has been completed.

Terrain data. Data pertaining to the natural surface of the Earth excluding man-made
obstacles, and can be represented as a cartographic map, an electronic raster map,
an electronic vector data map or an electronic Digital Elevation Model (DEM).

Test. A basis for critical evaluation.

Traceability. The degree that a system or a data product can provide a record of the
changes made to that product and thereby enable an audit trail to be followed from the
end-user to the data originator.

Training objective. A clear statement that is comprised of three parts, i.e. the desired
performance or what the trainee is expected to be able to do at the end of particular

March 2022 xix 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service

stages of training, the performance standard that must be attained to confirm the
trainee’s level of competence and the conditions under which the trainee will
demonstrate competence.

Training provider. In the context of this MOS, a body that provides procedure
designer training.

Triggering event. A cue or indicator that a task should be initiated.

Validation. Confirmation, through the provision of objective evidence, that the

requirements for a specific intended use or application have been fulfilled. The activity
whereby the current value of a data element is checked as having a value that is fully
applicable to the identity given to the data element, or a set of data elements that is
checked as being acceptable for their purpose.

Verification. Confirmation, through the provision of objective evidence, that specified

requirements have been fulfilled. The activity whereby the current value of a data
element is checked against the value originally supplied.

Vector data. The digitized version of graphic or rasterized data, usually having three-
dimensional attributes.

Visual maneuvering (circling) area. The area in which obstacle clearance should be
taken into consideration for aircraft carrying out a circling approach.

Waypoint (WP) - A specified geographical location used to define an area navigation

route or the flight path of an aircraft employing area navigation. Waypoints are
identified as either:
a) Fly-by waypoint. A waypoint which requires turn anticipation to allow
tangential interception of the next segment of a route or procedure; or
b) Flyover waypoint. A waypoint at which a turn is initiated in order to join the
next segment of a route or procedure.

1st Edition xx March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service

ABBREVIATIONS

AANSOO Aerodrome and Air Navigation Safety Oversight Office

AC Advisory Circular
ADMS Aerodrome Development and Management Service
AFPDD Airspace and Flight Procedure Design Division
AIP Aeronautical Information Publication
AIRAC Aeronautical Information Regulation and Control
AIS Aeronautical Information Service
ALS Approach Lighting System
ANS Air Navigation Services
ANSP Air Navigation Service Provider
APV Approach Procedures with Vertical Guidance
ARINC Aeronautical Radio, Incorporated
ARP Aerodrome Reference point
ATC Air Traffic Control
ATCO Air Traffic Control Officer
ATM Air Traffic Management
ATMO Air Traffic Management Officer
ATMSID Air Traffic Management Safety Inspectorate Division
ATS Air Traffic Services
Baro-VNAV Barometric Vertical Navigation
CAAP Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines
CAD Computer Aided Design
CAR-ANS Civil Air Regulations for Air Navigation Services
CAR-SM Civil Air Regulations for Safety Management
CAT Category
CAT I/II/III Category of Approach
CDA Continuous Descent Approach
CDFA Continuous Descent Final Approach
CE Critical Element
CF Course to a Fix
CNS Communications, Navigation and Surveillance
COTS Commercial Off the Shelf
CRC Cyclic Redundancy Check
DA/H Decision Altitude/ Height
DEM Digital Elevation Model
DG Director General

March 2022 xxi 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service

DME Distance Measuring Equipment

Doc Document
DTM Digital Terrain Model
eTOD Electronic Terrain and Obstacle Data
EUROCAE European Organization for Civil Aviation Equipment
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAF Final Approach Fix
FAS Final Approach Segment
FICG Flight Inspection and Calibration Group
FIR Flight Information Region
FMS Flight Management System
FPA Flight Path Angle
FPAP Flight Path Alignment Point
FPD Flight Procedure Design
FPI Flight Procedure Inspectorate
FPIS Flight Procedure Inspectorate Staff
FRT Flight Readiness Test
FTP Fictitious Threshold Point
FV Flight Validation
FVP Flight Validation Pilot
FVSP Flight Validation Service Provider
GBAS Ground-Based Augmentation System
GIS Geographic Information System
GLS GLS GBAS Landing System
GNSS Global Navigation Satellite System
GP Glide Path
GPS Global Positioning System
GV Ground Validation
HA Holding/racetrack to an Altitude
HDOP Horizontal Position Dilution of Precision
HF Holding/racetrack to a Fix
HM Holding/racetrack to a Manual Termination
HMI Human Machine Interface
HPL Horizontal Protection Level
HRP Heliport Reference Point
IAC Instrument Approach Chart
IAP Instrument Approach Procedure

1st Edition xxii March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service

IAS Indicated Air Speed

ICA Initial Climb Area
ICARD International Codes and Route Designators
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
IELTS International English Language Testing System
IAF Initial Approach Fix
IF Intermediate Fix
IFP Instrument Flight Procedure
IFPDS Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
IFR Instrument Flight Rules
ILS Instrument Landing System
IR Instrument Rating
ISO International Standards Organization
LNAV Lateral Navigation
LOA Letter of Agreement
LOI Local Operation Instruction
LOC Localizer
LPV Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance
LTP Landing Threshold Point
MC Memorandum Circular
MDA/H Minimum Descent Altitude/ Height
MET Aviation Meteorology
MLS Microwave Landing System
MOC Minimum Obstacle Clearance
MOCA Minimum Obstacle Clearance Altitude
MOS Manual of Standards
MSA Minimum Sector Altitude
NAVAID Navigational Aid
NDB Non-directional Radio Beacon
NM Nautical Mile
NOTAM Notice to Airmen
NPA Non-precision Approach
OAS Obstacle Assessment Surface
OCA/H Obstacle Clearance Altitude/Height
OJT On-the-Job Training
OLS Obstacle Limitation Surface

March 2022 xxiii 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service

PA Precision Approach
PANS-OPS Procedures for Air Navigation Services – Aircraft Operations
PBN Performance-Based Navigation
PCAR Philippine Civil Air Regulations
PDF Portable Document Format
PDG Procedure Design Gradient
PDOP Position Dilution of Precision
PDSP Procedure Design Service Provider
PinS Point-in-Space
PV Pre-flight Validation
QM Quality Manual
QMS Quality Management System
RNAV Area Navigation
RNP Required Navigation Performance
RNP AR Required Navigation Performance Authorization Required
RPAS Remotely Piloted Aircraft System
RT Radiotelephony
RTCA RTCA (formerly Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics)
RVSM Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum
SAR Search and Rescue
SARPS Standards and Recommended Practices
SBAS Satellite-Based Augmentation System
SI International System of Units (Système International)
SID Standard Instrument Departure
SKA Skills, Knowledge and Attitude
SMS Safety Management System
SOP Standard Operating Procedure
STAR Standard Instrument Arrival
TAA Terminal Arrival Altitude
TAWS Terrain Awareness Warning System
TLS Target Level of Safety
TMA Terminal Area
TOEFL Test of English as a Foreign Language
TR Training Record
UTC Universal Time Constant
UTM Universal Transverse Mercator
VASIS Visual Approach Slope Indicator System

1st Edition xxiv March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service

VDOP Vertical Position Dilution of Precision

VMC Visual Meteorological Condition
VNAV Vertical Navigation
VOR Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Radio Range
VPL Vertical Protection Level
VSS Visual Segment Surface
WGS-84 World Geodetic System 1984
WP Waypoint

March 2022 xxv 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1st Edition xxvi March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

1.1.1 This Manual of Standards (MOS) is supplementary to CAR-ANS Part

16 – “Procedure Design Services” and discusses more in detail the
safety regulatory and oversight framework of CAAP for the provision of
an Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service (IFPDS).
Note. – Although not directly stated, the provisions herein, when
referring to design work, includes applicable provisions for both “visual
and instrument flight procedure design”.

1.1.2 This MOS also lays down the requirements and guidelines for the
Procedure Design Service Providers (PDSPs) in the following aspects
of IFPDS:
a) developing their work procedures and operations manual;
b) qualifications, training and competency for designers and flight
validation pilots;
c) process flow for the design, maintenance and implementation of
instrument flight procedures;
d) quality assurance in the elements of procedure design, such as
procedure design documentation, verification and validation
methods to ensure safety, flyability and design accuracy, including
strategies on the acquisition/processing of source information/data;
e) authorization of PDSP organizations engaged or intending to
engage in design works within Manila FIR;
f) approval of IFP design;
g) validation process of IFP design; and
h) FPD software validation.

1.1.3 It should be noted that CAAP oversight and the procedure design
service provision are two separate components which should work in
collaboration to ensure the safe development and maintenance of IFPs.

1.2 NATIONAL REGULATIONS FOR IFPDS

1.2.1 CAR-ANS Part 11 — Air Traffic Services, Chapter 11.2, 11.2.34, and
Appendix 11.7 contains the provisions concerning CAAP’s safety
oversight function in the area of IFPDS.

1.2.2 Appendix 11.7 of CAR-ANS Part 11 stipulates that CAAP may choose
to implement IFPDS in the following manner:
a) provide an instrument flight procedure design service; and/or
b) agree with one or more other Contracting State(s) to provide a joint
service; and/or
c) delegate the provision of the service to external agency(ies) or 3rd
Party PDSPs.

March 2022 1-1 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION

1.2.3 CAR-ANS Part 16 – provides for the general rules and regulations that
apply to person or organization who wants to become, or are,
authorized designers of instrument flight procedures. It also sets out
certain rules that apply to CAAP in administering procedure design
certificate of authorizations.

1.2.4 The manner in which the IFPDS is implemented is described in this

Manual of Standards (MOS).

1.3 APPROVAL AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR IFPs

1.3.1 In all cases in paragraph 1.2.2 above, CAAP approves and remains
responsible for all instrument flight procedures for aerodromes and
airspace under the responsibility of CAAP. It should be noted that cases
1.2.2 b) and c) are not about the delegation of responsibility, but the
delegation of the IFPDS function.

1.3.2 CAAP remains responsible for all IFPs to be implemented within the
Manila FIR. The process by which CAAP meets its obligation to approve
IFPs is also introduced in this MOS and described more in details in
Chapter 4.

1.3.3 There may be IFPs that are only available to operators or are airline
specific. The concerned operator should first request for special
authorization from CAAP prior to use of such IFPs.

1.3.4 CAAP remains responsible for all IFPs (including those mentioned in
1.3.3) and reserves the right to approve, disapprove, suspend or
recommend modifications to such procedures and publish such
procedures as necessary in the interest of safety of all the users of the
aerodromes and airspace concerned.

1.4 DESIGN CRITERIA

1.4.1 For global standardization, visual and instrument flight procedures must
be designed in accordance with the design criteria stipulated in PANS-
OPS, ICAO Doc 8168, Volume II (Procedures for Air Navigation
Services — Aircraft Operations, — Construction of Visual and
Instrument Flight Procedures) and any applicable standards set out or
referred to in ICAO approved documents and materials (e.g. ICAO Doc
9905 – RNP AR Procedure Design Manual) applying the latest
amendments thereto.

1.4.2 Any deviations from the criteria stipulated in the above-mentioned

documents may be established by CAAP only for the purpose of
enhancing safety. These deviations, if any, shall be promulgated in
CAAP regulations and published in the Aeronautical Information
Publication (AIP) Philippines in accordance with CAR-ANS Part 15 —
Aeronautical Information Services.

1.5 CAAP SAFETY OVERSIGHT

1.5.1 The PANS-OPS Safety Inspectorate unit under AANSOO is delegated

to ensure that PDSPs providing IFPDS as in 1.2.2 (or part of the service

1st Edition 1-2 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
as described in 3.2) intending to design instrument flight procedures for
aerodromes or airspace under the responsibility of CAAP meet(s) the
requirements in accordance with CAAP regulatory framework.

1.5.2 The functions of the PANS-OPS Safety Inspectorate unit enumerated

in 2.1.3.2 are distinct from the functions of the Airspace and Flight
Procedure Design Division (AFPDD) which is the PDSP established
under the ATS to provide IFPDS under CAAP, in accordance to 1.2.2,
(a).

1.6 SAFETY RISK ASSESSMENT

1.6.1 A safety risk assessment of an IFP is considered completed when the

flight procedure design is in compliance with CAAP regulatory
framework.

1.6.2 A safety risk assessment must be conducted and submitted to

AANSOO when there is a deviation from CAAP regulatory framework.

1.7 QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

1.7.1 The PANS-OPS Safety Inspectorate under AANSOO shall review

pertinent quality records (e.g. IFP Package) to ensure that PDSPs
providing IFPDS as in 1.2.2 (or part of the service) implement(s) a
quality management system at relevant stages of the instrument flight
procedure design process.
Note. — This requirement can be met by means of a quality assurance
methodology, such as that described in Chapters 4 and 5.

1.8 CONTINUOUS MAINTENANCE AND PERIODIC REVIEW

1.8.1 The PANS-OPS Safety Inspectorate unit ensures that continuous

maintenance and periodic review of instrument flight procedures for
aerodromes and airspace under the responsibility of CAAP are
conducted. A review of all instrument procedures implemented within
the aerodromes or airspace under the responsibility of CAAP must be
conducted periodically within intervals not exceeding every five (5)
years from date of publication.

1.8.2 Provided that a safety assessment acceptable to AANSOO was

submitted together with the IFP technical package, CAAP may approve
implementation of an IFP without publication in the AIP Philippines.
Such case occurs when the procedure is airline specific or owned by
privately operated aerodromes. As such, the review of the IFP must be
conducted periodically within intervals not exceeding every five (5)
years from date of approval. The safety assessment must demonstrate
that the procedure, not published or unknown to other users of airspace,
can be implemented within acceptable levels of safety.
Note. — Guidelines on continuous maintenance and periodic review is
contained in 3.4.2 and in Chapter 4.

1.9 TARGET AUDIENCE OF THE MOS FOR IFPDS

March 2022 1-3 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
1.9.1 This MOS is intended but not limited to be used by:
a) The PANS-OPS Safety Inspectorate unit responsible for the safety
oversight of an IFPDS;
b) PDSPs engaged or are intending to engage in design works to be
implemented within aerodromes or airspace under the
responsibility of CAAP;
c) Flight validation service providers and flight validation pilots
engaged in validation of flight procedure design;
d) Training organizations intending to provide flight procedure and
flight validation trainings;
e) FPD software developer intending to develop flight procedure
design tools;
f) FPD software validator intending to validate a flight procedure
design tool; and
g) Organizations or stakeholders, whose involvement in the
development and maintenance of IFPs, as referred to in this MOS,
are indispensable.
Note. - A PDSP can utilize this MOS as a parameter in establishing its
organization, procedures and operations manual. Chapter 3 of this
manual provides information intended to be used by PDSPs. In
addition, Chapter 2 can be utilized by the service provider for
preparation of an application for authorization from CAAP or an audit
by AANSOO. Practices and procedures are to be developed in
accordance with the established regulatory framework contained
herein. For this reason, it is essential that CAAP has knowledge of the
practices and procedures used by service providers.

1.10 STRUCTURE OF THE MANUAL

1.10.1 The following drafting conventions are used in this manual:

a) “must” and “shall” - indicates a statement of specification, the
compliance with which is required to achieve the implementation of
the specification;
b) “should” - indicates a recommendation or best practice; and
c) “may” - indicates an optional element.

1.10.2 This manual consists of the chapters and appendices described in

succeeding paragraphs:

1.10.2.1 Chapter 1, Introduction – provides the purpose of the MOS, the manner
in which to read the MOS and the description of the contents of the
MOS.

1.10.2.2 Chapter 2, CAAP Safety Oversight Function - provides the standards

and processes for CAAP to conduct safety oversight of PDSPs. It
provides an overview of CAAP’s responsibilities pertaining to IFPDS as
provided in CAR-ANS Parts 11 and 16, and a description of the
regulatory framework established by CAAP to meet the requirements
of CAR-ANS Parts 11 and 16.

1st Edition 1-4 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
1.10.2.3 Chapter 3, Procedure Design Service Provider Function – provides the
standard requirements and recommendatory practices for an
instrument flight procedure design service provider. This chapter
describes the process and procedures to be developed by a service
provider, including guidance on the expected contents and structure of
a PDSP’s operations manual. This chapter also includes a basic
description of the work items of service providers. More detailed
information on the work processes involved in FPD is contained in
Chapters 4 and 5.

1.10.2.4 Chapter 4, Flight Procedure Design Quality Assurance System -

prescribes the guidelines for the quality assurance in the elements of
procedure design, such as procedure design documentation,
verification and validation methods to ensure safety, flyability and
design accuracy, including strategies on the acquisition/processing of
source information/data. It also provides a generic process flow
diagram for the design and implementation of flight procedures.

1.10.3 Chapter 5, Validation of Instrument Flight Procedures – complements

Chapter 4 as it provides more detailed guidance on the implementation
of validation process of IFPs.

1.10.4 Chapter 6, Flight Procedure Design Software Validation – places the

requirements of CAAP for the validation (not certification) of procedure
design tools, notably with regard to application of design criteria. It also
provides guidance for PDSPs regarding implementation of an FPD
software validation program.

1.10.5 Appendix 1 — “3rd Party PDSP Authorization Process”, specifies the

requirements and process for the issuance of 3rd Party PDSP
Certificate of Authorization in accordance to the requirements
contained in CAR-ANS Part 16. It also includes the checklist employed
by the PANS-OPS Inspectorate as basis for recommending approval.

1.10.6 Appendix 2 – “IFP Quality Assurance Checklist”, specifies the form

employed by the PANS-OPS Safety Inspectorate for procedural
approval of IFPs.

1.10.7 Appendix 3 – “Sample PDSP Audit Protocol Questionnaire”, provides

an idea of the scope of an audit and a guide to the requirements to be
met by a PDSP. Only a sample is provided, the actual protocol
questions may vary during the actual audit. AANSOO normally provides
the auditee with a copy of the checklists together with the audit
notification at least one (1) month prior the scheduled audit activity. Any
modification to the checklist therefrom shall be forwarded to the auditee
at least two weeks before the first day of audit or during the entry
meeting and takes measures to protect any working documents that
involve confidential or proprietary information.

1.10.8 Appendix 4 – “Sample Pre-Implementation Checklists for Preparation

of IFP Implementation Safety Assessment”, provides a tool for IFP
validators (a designer not involved in the particular design to be
validated) to conduct internal quality assurance of the FPD and
determine whether a safety risk assessment is required to be
conducted prior to submission to AANSOO.

March 2022 1-5 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION

1.10.9 Appendix 5 – “Flight Validation Pilot Training and Evaluation”, contains

recommended minimum qualifications and training, as well as guidance
concerning the skills, knowledge and attitudes (SKA) to be addressed
in training and evaluation of flight validation pilots.

1.10.10 Appendix 6 – “Validation Templates for Fixed Wing Aircraft” provides a

sample template for generating a detailed written report of the results
of the pre-flight validation for fixed-wing aircraft.

1.10.11 Appendix 7 - “Validation Templates for Helicopters” provides a sample

template for generating a detailed written report of the results of the pre-
flight validation for helicopters.

1.10.12 Appendix 8 – “Human Factors” provides insight on human factors

consideration in validating IFPs, for the purpose of flight validation is to
determine whether a flight procedure is operationally safe, practical and
flyable for the target end user.

1.10.13 Appendix 9 – “Obstacle Assessment” provides detailed guidance

regarding obstacle assessment during validation of an IFP.

1.10.14 Appendix 10 – “Sample Validation Documentation” provides a template

for FPD software validation report.

1st Edition 1-6 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 2 – CAAP SAFETY OVERSIGHT FUNCTION
CHAPTER 2

CAAP SAFETY OVERSIGHT FUNCTION

2.1 STATE SAFETY OVERSIGHT SYSTEM

A State Safety Oversight System consists of eight critical elements (CE)

as described in the Safety Oversight Manual (ICAO Doc 9734), Part A
— The Establishment and Management of a State Safety Oversight
System, Chapter 3. The following sections describe CAAP’s
implementation of each of the critical elements with regards to IFPDS.

2.1.1 CE-1: Primary aviation legislation

2.1.1.1 Republic Act 9497 – “An Act Creating the Civil Aviation Authority of the
Philippines”, Chapter VII, Section 35 under the Powers and Functions
of the Director General, establishes the responsibility of CAAP for the
safety of instrument flight procedures, referred thereto as “airways” or
“air routes”, to be inspected, and to determine suitability in the interest
of safety for the aerodromes and airspace under its authority.

2.1.2 CE-2: Specific operating regulations

2.1.2.1 CAAP’s specific operating regulations for IFPDS are contained in the
following publications;
a) CAR-ANS Part 16, governing Procedure Design Services (PANS-
OPS), contains the general requirements for PDSPs intending to
engage in design works within Manila FIR,
b) CAAP Citizens Charter issued pursuant to Republic Act 11032 –
“Anti-Red Tape Act of the Philippines”, referring to the “Issuance of
Authorization for Third (3rd) Party Procedure Design
Organizations”
c) This MOS for:
i) 3rd-Party authorization process (Appendix 1);
ii) design criteria as specified in 1.4.;
iii) qualification and competencies of PDSPs’ technical
personnel in 3.6;
iv) Visual and IFP approvals (4.4.11 and Appendix 2);
v) Visual and IFP design process in Chapters 4 and 5;
vi) quality assurance of IFPs in Chapters 4 and 5;
vii) requirements and guidelines for periodic reviews and
continuous maintenance of IFPs in 3.4.2 and Chapter 4;
viii) requirements and guidelines for ground and flight validations
of IFPs in 4.4.8, 4.4.9 and Chapter 5;
d) general regulatory criteria to develop procedures for the
establishment of aerodrome operating minima, if applicable;
e) ATMSID Inspectors Handbook for qualification and competencies
of PANS-OPS safety inspectors; and

March 2022 2-1 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 2 – CAAP SAFETY OVERSIGHT FUNCTION
f) other relevant CAAP Memorandum Circulars (MC 49-13).
Note 1. - CAAP surveillance processes (planning inspections, audits,
and monitoring activities) of PDSPs are also contained in the Air Traffic
Management Safety Inspectorate Division (ATMSID) Handbook.
Note 2. - The term “regulations” is used in a generic sense and includes,
but is not limited to, instructions, rules, edicts, directives, sets of laws,
requirements, policies and orders.
Note 3. - CAAP is not required to establish State minima. However,
once CAAP minima are established, the minima must be published in
the AIP Philippines in accordance with CAR-ANS Part 15, 15.6.2.1 and
MOS-AIS Appendix 2.

2.1.3 CE-3: State system and functions

2.1.3.1 Compliance to General Requirements

2.1.3.1.1 The Air Traffic Service under CAAP has established as one of its units,
the Airspace and Flight Procedure Design Division (AFPDD). 3rd-Party
PDSPs may also provide IFPDS to CAAP provided they hold the proper
authorization issued by CAAP or belonging to categories (b) and (c) as
stated in 16.4.1 of CAR-ANS Part 16. Further, CAAP may agree with
one or more other ICAO Contracting State(s) to provide a joint service
in accordance to established agreements. These authorities,
organizations or agencies, as appropriate, must be supported by
sufficient and qualified personnel and provided with adequate financial
resources for the management of safety in flight operations. CAAP
ensures these through the conduct of oversight activities over these
PDSPs.

2.1.3.1.2 Consistent with the provisions of Sec. 31 Chapter V of Republic Act

9497, the discharge of the oversight functions of the Director General
was delegated to AANSOO by virtue of CAAP MC 15-09 –
“Establishment and Institution of the Aerodrome and Air Navigation
Safety Oversight Office (AANSOO)”. Further, CAAP Authority Order
307-2019 – “Establishment of the Ad Hoc PANS-OPS Safety
Inspectorate Section under the ATMSIDAANSOO”, created the FPI for
CAAP.

2.1.3.1.3 It should be noted that CAAP oversight and the procedure design
service provision are two separate components with different specific
functions and should work in collaboration to ensure the safe
development and maintenance of IFPs.

2.1.3.2 Functions and responsibilities of the PANS-OPS Safety Inspectorate

2.1.3.2.1 The PANS-OPS Safety Inspectorate shall have the following functions
and responsibilities;
a) develop and amend national regulations governing the
development and maintenance of visual and instrument flight
procedures subject to approval of the DG;
b) oversee the process of development and maintenance of visual
and instrument flight procedures;

1st Edition 2-2 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 2 – CAAP SAFETY OVERSIGHT FUNCTION
c) verify the validity of application made by 3rd Party PDSPs in
accordance with regulations embodied in CAR-ANS Part 16, and
make appropriate recommendations for the approval/
disapproval, amendment, suspension or revocation of
Certificates of Authorization of 3rd Party PDSPs;
d) carry out safety inspections and audits to determine compliance
with the requirements prescribed in applicable national
regulations;
e) ensure continuous maintenance of the procedure are performed
by concerned stakeholders concerned such as ADMS, ATS,
CNS, AIS, Aerodrome Operators, etc., to ensure that significant
changes to obstacles, aerodrome, aeronautical and navigational
aid data are assessed for their impact on the IFP;
f) conduct ground validation of IFP to verify validation reports
submitted by the PDSP as part of the approval process of IFPs,
g) ensure establishment and implementation of a quality system for
the entire flight procedure process. AANSOO shall collect all
pertinent documents and evidences of each stage in the IFP
process prior to endorsement for approval by the Director General
of CAAP,
h) may participate in different activities involved in the process such
as ground and flight validation, safety assessment and pertinent
reviews of the procedures, as appropriate or as necessary,
i) perform such other tasks as may be assigned by the Director
General or the Chief of the AANSOO and ATMSID.

2.1.3.2.2 The PANS-OPS Safety Inspectorate should be provided with the

necessary resources, both human and financial, to be able to effectively
carry out oversight obligations on behalf of CAAP.

2.1.3.2.3 Job description of PANS-OPS Safety Inspectors

2.1.3.2.3.1 The PANS-OPS Safety Inspector is responsible for performing safety

oversight functions of PDSPs. The inspector ensures compliance of
rules, regulations, standards, directives related to PANS-OPS
provision. The primary functions include:
a) Developing and amending PANS-OPS regulations, standards,
directives and guidance materials required for aviation safety
related to IFPDS provision;
b) Ensuring that the process of development and maintenance of
visual and instrument flight procedures are properly implemented
thru the established quality assurance system of CAAP;
c) Conducting audits and regularly inspecting the adequacy of
PDSPs in terms of operational procedures, practices, manpower
numbers, equipment/facilities, and personnel
training/development/licensing to ensure the proper
implementation of safe procedures;
d) Process application for authorization of 3rd-Party PDSPs in
accordance with applicable regulations, standards, written
procedures and other relevant directives issued by CAAP;

March 2022 2-3 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 2 – CAAP SAFETY OVERSIGHT FUNCTION

2.1.3.2.3.2 Inspectors assigned at the PANS-OPS Safety Inspectorate Section

may also be delegated to perform other regulatory tasks of the civil
aviation system (e.g. the ATS, AIS/ Charting Safety Inspectorate, MET,
SAR).

2.1.3.3 Resources for the PANS-OPS Safety Inspectorate

2.1.3.3.1 CAAP shall ensure that funds, in the amount as may be justified by
AANSOO, must be readily available to enable the PANS-OPS
Inspectorate to effectively fulfill its functions and responsibilities
including, trainings to ensure competencies of the PANS-OPS
inspectors as well as for obligations imposed by other legislation such
as those that may involve industry visits.
Note. - In some States, the cost for the activities of the FPI is
compensated from fees paid by the service providers for certifications,
surveillance activities, etc.

2.1.4 CE-4: Qualified technical personnel

2.1.4.1 The established minimum qualification requirements, trainings and

competencies for the ATM Safety Inspectors (ATS, PANS-OPS, MET,
AIS/Charting and SAR inspectors) performing oversight and safety-
related functions are described in general under Parts 3 and 4 of the
ATMSID Inspectors Training Manual.
Note. - minimum qualification requirements, trainings and
competencies as prescribed by CAAP for designers and flight validation
pilots is specified in 3.6 of this MOS.

2.1.4.2 CAAP ensures that the established qualifications and experience

requirements are met by all PANS-OPS Safety Inspectors.

2.1.4.3 The ATMSID Inspectors Training Manual contains the training program
and training plan for PANS-OPS Safety Inspectors within an
established period (usually 5 years). The training includes initial
(introduction, basic specialization), on-the-job training (OJT),
continuation (recurrent, refresher, advance specialized courses),
requalification and advanced training for senior inspectors.

2.1.4.4 The training program must be appropriately implemented in accordance

with the periodic training plan detailing and prioritizing the type of
training needed over a specified time frame.

2.1.4.5 The system to maintain training records of all PANS-OPS Safety

Inspectors is also included in the ATMSID Inspectors Training Manual.

2.1.4.6 PANS-OPS Safety Inspectors competency, as described in the

ATMSID Inspectors Training Manual and ATMSID Inspectors
Handbook, generally follows:
a) technical expertise as a civil aviation safety inspector which
requires the capability to apply and improve technical knowledge
and skills to perform safety oversight duties for PDSPs;

1st Edition 2-4 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 2 – CAAP SAFETY OVERSIGHT FUNCTION
b) expertise in instrument flight procedure design to optimize the
quality of the safety oversight duties for PDSPs; and
c) safety inspectors’ attributes or behavior.

2.1.5 CE-5: Technical guidance, tools and provision of safety-critical

information

2.1.5.1 CAAP provides appropriate facilities, comprehensive and up-to-date

technical guidance material and procedures, safety-critical information,
tools and equipment, and transportation means, as applicable, to the
PANS-OPS safety inspectors to enable them to perform their safety
oversight functions effectively and in accordance with established
procedures in a standardized manner described in this MOS and the
ATMSID Inspectors Handbook.

2.1.5.2 CAAP also provides technical guidance to the aviation industry on the
implementation of relevant regulations thru forums or symposiums and
thru the issuance of guidance materials that may be in the form of
Advisory Circulars (ACs).

2.1.5.3 Such material includes information on how to process an application for

initial compliance of a PDSP (Appendix 1), including detailed
procedures and checklists, which takes the form of an “authorization”.
Procedures and checklists for ongoing surveillance activities, e.g.
inspections and audits (ATMSID Inspectors Handbook and Appendix
3). A third component would be the procedures and checklists to be
used by the FPI in the process of approving IFPs (Appendix 2 and
Chapter 4).
Note. –This MOS in itself contains certain stipulations providing
technical guidance for both the PANS-OPS Safety Inspectorate and the
PDSPs as some provisions herein recommends or prescribes practices
for them to implement applicable regulations.

2.1.5.4 The PANS-OPS Safety Inspectorate should be provided with adequate

tools to enable the effective accomplishment of its tasks, such as
transportation as applicable, adequate offices, relevant software and
office equipment, telephones and other communication facilities.
Access to the Internet to supplement a technical library has become a
necessity in today’s world of information and communication
technology.

2.1.6 CE-6: Authorization and approval obligations

2.1.6.1 CAAP issues Certificates of Authorization to qualified PDSPs in

pursuant to the requirements of CAR-ANS Part 16 and in accordance
to the process stipulated in Appendix 1.

2.1.6.2 CAAP, prior to allowing a PDSP to engage in design works ensures that
the service provider complies with the regulatory requirements in force.
The PDSP organization is then subject to continuing surveillance to
ensure that the requirements continue to be met.

2.1.6.3 Unsatisfactory conditions noted by the PANS-OPS Safety Inspectorate

should be brought to the attention of the applicant or holder of the

March 2022 2-5 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 2 – CAAP SAFETY OVERSIGHT FUNCTION
authorization. In the case of deficiencies or weaknesses, an opportunity
is provided for the applicant to correct the problem, and the applicant is
given an opportunity to reapply or implement corrective actions to
address the deficiencies. The processes involved in audit/inspection
including the elimination of findings are detailed in the ATMSID
Inspectors Handbook.

2.1.6.4 As part of this process, CAAP established standards for the required
competency level for technical personnel in charge of flight procedure
design, flight validation, and others (see 3.6).

2.1.6.5 CAAP ensures that PDSPs develop a job description, training program,
training plan, and a system of maintaining training records for their
designers and flight validation pilots.
Note. - See ICAO Doc 9906, Volume 2 for guidance on flight procedure
designer training, and Volume 6 for guidance on flight validation pilot
training.

2.1.7 CE-7: Surveillance obligations

2.1.7.1 In the interest of safety, and to promote a reasonable degree of

standardization, it is the intention of CAAP, to the greatest degree
possible, to implement the provisions in PANS-OPS in a consistent
manner, using processes that will minimize the possibility of errors,
identify errors that do occur before they impact safety, and provide for
continuous improvement of the procedure design process in order to
eliminate or reduce future errors. This is especially important in the
modern aviation environment, where increasing reliance is placed on
computers and the data they process, for navigation and obstacle
awareness.

2.1.7.2 CAAP ensures that all published instrument flight procedures to be

implemented within the Manila FIR can be flown safely by the relevant
aircraft and can safely be integrated into the ATM environment. Safety
is not only accomplished by application of the technical criteria in
PANS-OPS, associated ICAO provisions, and national regulations but
also requires measures that control the quality of the process used to
apply that criteria, which may include air traffic monitoring, ground
validation and flight validation. These measures shall ensure the quality
and safety of the procedure design product through review, verification,
coordination, and validation at appropriate points in the process, so that
corrections can be made at the earliest opportunity in the process.

2.1.7.3 CAAP implements documented audit/inspection processes, as detailed

in the ATMSID Inspectors Handbook, to proactively assure that
authorization and/or approval holders continue to meet the established
requirements. The said handbook also contains the mechanism to
ensure competency of the PANS-OPS safety inspectors and
effectiveness of the audit/ inspection process employed by AANSOO to
perform safety oversight functions on behalf of CAAP.

2.1.7.4 As part of the surveillance activities for PDSPs, the PANS-OPS Safety
Inspectorate develops periodic surveillance plans as described in the
ATMSID Inspectors Handbook.

1st Edition 2-6 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 2 – CAAP SAFETY OVERSIGHT FUNCTION

2.1.7.5 The surveillance activities are carried out using standardized

procedures and checklists (Appendix 3). Among other items, the
procedures and checklists pay particular attention to the following:
a) Design criteria: CAAP ensures that PDSPs develop IFPs in
accordance with the design criteria promulgated by CAAP, (in this
case the criteria as adopted from ICAO Doc. 8168 Vol 2 and ICAO
Doc. 9905 as appropriate).
i) CAAP ensures that the service provider responsible for
developing flight procedures establishes obstacle clearance
altitudes/heights (OCA/H) in accordance with CAAP
approved design criteria.
Note. - This requirement is normally accomplished through the
verification of design documents and related evidences (“Oversight by
Process”). However, CAAP also checks the output itself by other means
such as flight validation (“Oversight by Output”).
ii) CAAP is yet to require aerodromes to determine their
aerodrome operating minima. However, where aerodrome
operating minima have been established by the aerodrome,
CAAP must ensure that the PDSP responsible for developing
flight procedures has established specific operating minima
(e.g. visibility, minimum descent altitude/height (MDA/H),
decision altitude/height (DA/H)) for the IFPs developed at
aerodromes.
b) Quality Management System (QMS): CAAP ensures that the QMS
used by the PDSP is effective. To be effective, a systemic quality
assurance process should be part of this system. Data quality
management, personnel training, and validation of software are all
integral elements of a quality assurance program. CAAP ensures
that PDSPs retain all procedure design documentation for which it
is responsible, so as to allow any data anomalies or errors found
during the production, maintenance or operational use of the
procedure to be corrected in accordance with CAAP’s regulatory
framework.
c) Continuous maintenance and periodic review: Oversight functions
are applied even after the initial promulgation of flight procedures.
CAAP ensures that published IFPs are maintained continuously
and reviewed periodically to ensure they continue to comply with
current criteria and assessed user requirements.
d) Oversight of the validation process: As part of the quality assurance
process, CAAP ensures that a validation process is conducted by
the PDSPs. The validation process is subdivided into ground
validation and flight validation.
Note. ― Procedures for validation is contained in Chapters 4 and 5.

2.1.8 CE-8: Resolution of safety issues

2.1.8.1 ATMSID Inspectors Handbook documents the process to take

appropriate actions, up to and including enforcement measures, to
resolve identified safety issues. CAAP ensures that identified safety
issues are resolved in a timely manner through a system which

March 2022 2-7 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 2 – CAAP SAFETY OVERSIGHT FUNCTION
monitors and records progress, including actions taken by the PDSPs
in resolving such issues.

2.1.8.2 The ATMSID Inspectors Handbook includes a mechanism/system with

a time frame for elimination of any deficiency identified by the PANS-
OPS Safety Inspectorate. While CAR-ANS Part 16 grants CAAP the
exclusive authority and responsibility to suspend or revoke the PDSPs’
design privileges, if a deficiency is not corrected within the established
time frame.

1st Edition 2-8 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 3 – PROCEDURE DESIGN SERVICE PROVIDER
FUNCTION
CHAPTER 3

PROCEDURE DESIGN SERVICE PROVIDER FUNCTION

3.1 GENERAL

3.1.1 This chapter provides guidelines for service providers, conducting

IFPDS or a part of it, in developing their processes, procedures and
organizations, in accordance with SARPs, PANS and CAAP
regulations. This MOS emphasizes that PDSPs and the PANS-OPS
Safety Inspectorate are partners and that in collaboration, ensure the
safety and quality of IFPDS.

3.1.2 PDSPs need to clearly understand the roles of PANS-OPS Safety

Inspectorate and their expectations for PDSPs. This would allow
PDSPs to better prepare their processes and documentation to be able
to demonstrate to CAAP that the established requirements are met on
an initial and continuous basis.

3.2 SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY A PDSP

3.2.1 General Services

3.2.1.1 A PDSP may provide any or all of the following services;

a) (Initial) design,
b) continuous maintenance,
c) periodic review,
d) documentation process,
e) FPD validation process,
f) FPD software validation, and
g) IFPD training.

3.2.2 Design Services

3.2.2.1 A PDSP may offer to design any or all of the following type of visual and
instrument procedure, whether conventional or Performance-Based
Navigation;
a) En-route,
b) Standard Terminal Arrival Route,
c) Standard Instrument Departure,
d) Instrument Approach Procedures (see definition for further
classification),
e) Visual Approach Procedures including Visual with Prescribed
Track, and
f) Helicopter Point-in-Space (PinS).
Note: Holding, Circling and Missed Approach procedures are
incorporated in the above procedures.

March 2022 3-1 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 3 – PROCEDURE DESIGN SERVICE PROVIDER
FUNCTION
3.2.3 Validation Services

3.2.3.1 A PDSP may offer any or all of the following services for the purpose of
FPD validation:
a) validation of newly designed flight procedures;
b) periodic validation (with its interval for each type of flight
procedure);
c) validation upon amendment of flight procedures; and
d) other validation conducted for special needs.
Validation services may cover ground validation, flight validation or
both.

3.3 PROCESS AND PROCEDURES TO BE ESTABLISHED FOR A

PDSP

The service provider shall establish its own process and procedures in
accordance with this MOS. If a process and procedure is not covered
by this MOS, the PDSPs’ process and procedures should be
established in accordance with the latest versions of applicable ICAO
SARPs and PANS documents.

CAAP understands that PDSPs that will be allowed to provide services

for CAAP may not be domestically based, and therefore, may be
covered by the laws of their respective States. It is however, important
that the international standards and recommended practices set by the
ICAO be given credence and be observed as faithfully as practicable to
establish commonality between different States.
Note. – Chapter 4 provides guidelines for establishing an FPD process.

3.3.1 PDSP OPERATIONS MANUAL

3.3.1.1 One of the responsibilities of PDSPs as specified under CAR-ANS Part

16, 16.6 is the development and maintenance of their own operations
manual. CAR-ANS Part 16, 16.11 enumerates the minimum information
to be incorporated in a PDSP’s operations manual. The operations
manual should be customized to the unique qualities of each
organization.

3.3.1.2 CAAP understands that PDSPs providing services for others States
may have to comply with the regulatory framework of their respective
States.

3.3.1.3 The operations manual, in as much as practicable, should be in the

English Language for easy understanding by CAAP Inspectors. Table
3-1 provides guidance in the development of a PDSP’s operations
manual.

1st Edition 3-2 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 3 – PROCEDURE DESIGN SERVICE PROVIDER
FUNCTION
Table 3-1. Sample contents of an operations manual for a service provider

PART / Chapter Contents

PART: Administrative
Chapter: Responsibility for ● Describe
revision of the  Under whom the operations manual is established
operations manual  The person responsible for the technical contents
● Version control
PART: General Provisions and Organization
Chapter: General ● Purpose of the operations manual
● Precedence of the operations manual
● Scope of the operations manual
● Functions to be performed by the PDSP
Chapter: Roles and ● Describe the roles and responsibilities of the department,
responsibilities section and/or position (Descriptions for each department,
section and/or position).
Chapter: Staffing ● Describe the staffing requirements such as:
requirement  number of personnel per procedure, or
 number of procedures which can be designed by a
designer
(The statement does not have to be quantitative; a
statement such as “a sufficient number of qualified staff
is required…” may be acceptable.)
● Define the hierarchy – e.g. supervisor, chief designer,
senior designer, designer, trainee designer (depending on
each organization)
● Provide organizational chart.
Chapter: Training and ● Provisions concerning training and qualification of
qualification personnel, including checking of staff and how that
information is being tracked
● Appointment of special position (e.g. chief or supervisor)
● Describe types of training and their contents, duration,
interval (frequency)
Chapter: Facility and ● Define the facilities and resources to be utilized to
resources perform the task such as:
 building, office, table, and other equipment
 reference material, personnel records
 software and design tool
 aircraft and on-board equipment (for PDSPs
providing flight validation service)
● Define how these facilities, reference materials,
personnel records and equipment are maintained
Chapter / Appendix: ● Define the procedures and/or rules to establish
Agreements with other agreements with other organizations (AIS, Flight
organizations Validation Organizations, Aerodrome Authorities, etc.)
including procurement of service and/or goods (software
provider, training organizations, etc.) (Reference to
another document is acceptable, such documents should
be readily available for CAAP inspectors)
Chapter: Compliance ● Define the processes to comply with regulations and
verification (Reference to another document is acceptable)

March 2022 3-3 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 3 – PROCEDURE DESIGN SERVICE PROVIDER
FUNCTION
● Describe how to demonstrate the compliance
Chapter: Operational ● Define the methodology to provide operational
instructions instructions to staff members such as:
 circular
 information bulletin
 amendment to existing document
(including notification of changes in design criteria)
Chapter: Services to be ● Define the services (and/or product) to be provided by
provided the organization such as those listed under 3.2.1
● Define the types of flight procedure to be provided by the
organization such as those listed under 3.2.2
● Define the types of flight validation to be provided by the
organization such as those listed under 3.2.3
● Describe the criteria needed to determine the necessity
of these types of service
● Describe the criteria needed to determine the necessity
of simulator evaluation
Contingency measures ● Define plans in the event of part or total system failure
for which the PDSP provides a service
Security arrangements ● Define a security plan to ensure that pertinent data,
documents, equipment are protected from theft and
other malicious intent
PART: Flight procedure design process
Chapter: Design process ● Define the process to be followed
Chapter: Acquisition of data/ ● Define
information  types of data/information required for the design
of instrument flight procedures
 how to acquire such data/information
 from whom/where to acquire such
data/information
Chapter: Consultation with ● Identify stakeholders
stakeholders ● Describe
 on which matters consultation with stakeholders is
needed
 with whom
 when
 how
Chapter: Environmental ● Describe what should be considered in the design of flight
consideration procedures
Chapter: Documentation ● Describe
 how to record the activities
 how to maintain documents
● Define the period of maintenance of records
Chapter: Format ● Provide the format (template) for design documents to
record:
 rationale for the design
 controlling obstacle
 summary of calculation process
● Provide the format (template) for flight validation report
(for flight validators)
Chapter: Validation ● Describe:

1st Edition 3-4 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 3 – PROCEDURE DESIGN SERVICE PROVIDER
FUNCTION
 who validates the procedures
 how the procedures are validated
● Define the process to be followed
● Define the items (charts, aeronautical data, obstacle,
flyability, Navaid/lighting) to be validated for each type of
validation
● Define tolerance
● Define the type of result (pass, pass on condition, fail)
 what are the actions to be taken for failed
procedure
Chapter: Preparation of ● Define the types of material to be submitted to AIS
publication (depending on the protocol with AIS)
● Define the timing of submission
PART: Safety and Quality
Chapter: SMS and QA system ● Define how to be involved in the SMS (e.g. the SMS of an
entire
ANSP)
● Provide a reference to the organization’s quality manual
● Define policy and procedures for fault and defect
reporting
● Provide a statement on the resolution of safety/quality-
related issues
Chapter: Oversight by ● Describe how to manage the oversight activities
regulator

3.3.2 QUALITY MANUAL

3.3.2.1 Organizations with a QMS will have their own quality manual (QM). In
this case, the procedure design process is also subject to this QM.
Chapter 4 provides basic guidelines to establish a quality assurance
system for IFPDS.

3.3.2.2 The QM may be a part of the PDSP’s operations manual.

Note. - Considering the characteristics of an IFPDS, implementation of
a QMS can be achieved by implementing specific safety assurance
methodologies developed for this service. Provisions to establish a
quality assurance methodology are contained in PANS-OPS, Volume
II, Part I, Section 2, Chapter 4 — Quality Assurance, enforced by CAAP
as stipulated in CAR-ANS Part 16 and 3.5 of this MOS.

3.4 PROVISION OF SERVICE

3.4.1 Design and publication of new procedures

3.4.1.1 IFPs must be designed in accordance with the design criteria specified
in 1.4, as adopted by CAAP. If deviation from the criteria is required,
consultation with the regulator for approval is needed.

3.4.1.2 The PDSP should establish its own work process and describe it in its
operations manual (see Table 3-1), in accordance with CAAP
regulations. For details on the FPD process, see Chapter 4.

March 2022 3-5 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 3 – PROCEDURE DESIGN SERVICE PROVIDER
FUNCTION
3.4.1.3 In accordance with CAR-ANS Part 11, any significant safety-related
change to the air traffic services (ATS) system, including the
implementation of a reduced separation minimum or a new procedure,
must be put in effect only after a safety assessment has demonstrated
that an acceptable level of safety will be met and users have been
consulted. When appropriate, the PANS-OPS Safety Inspectorate may
require the PDSP to conduct post implementation monitoring to verify
that the defined level of safety continues to be met. Depending on the
organizational arrangements, either a PDSP or the organization that
requested a procedure design (ANSP, aerodrome, air operator, etc.)
may be responsible for a safety assessment that would be submitted to
AANSOO to support the approval of the IFP for publication.

3.4.2 Periodic review

3.4.2.1 All published IFPs must be subject to a periodic review. Upon periodic
review, the following tasks are to be conducted:
a) Assessment of the impact of all changes to obstacle data. This may
be conducted by applying amended obstacle data to the design
data (design document, design file, etc.) of the published IFP. For
example, if the minimum obstacle clearance (MOC) is not ensured
due to a newly developed obstacle, amendment to the existing IFP
is required.
b) Assessment of the impact of all changes to aerodrome,
aeronautical and navaid data. In most cases, changes to this data
will require amendment to the existing IFP.
c) Assessment of the impact of all criteria amendments and changes
to depiction standards. It is intended that all IFPs be maintained to
current design criteria and depiction standards in accordance with
CAAP’s regulatory framework time frame. CAAP depiction
standards are described in CAR-ANS Part 4 and MOS-
Aeronautical Charts. The existing IFP can be maintained even
upon the amendment of design criteria and/or depiction standards
if it is determined that these amendments are not safety-related
issues. However, even if the resulting IFP depiction is unchanged,
the design file may be amended and updated to current criteria to
facilitate IFP maintenance.
d) Assessment of the impact of all changes to user requirements.
Such changes to user requirements include, but are not limited to:
i) fleet type (performance)
ii) scheduled service route
iii) ATM procedures
iv) airspace.
Even if the user requirements are not a safety-related issue, IFP
amendments and/or new IFPs may be needed to satisfy current user
requirements.

3.4.2.2 In order to conduct a periodic review efficiently, it is essential to obtain

and store design data.

1st Edition 3-6 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 3 – PROCEDURE DESIGN SERVICE PROVIDER
FUNCTION
3.4.2.3 If it is determined that any action is required, such as amendment to the
existing IFP, due to new obstacle and/or changes in design criteria
which have a safety impact, return to the “initiation” step (Step no. 1 in
the FPD process, see Chapter 4) to reinitiate the FPD process.

3.4.2.4 Periodic review must be conducted in accordance to 1.8 and 4.4.17.

3.4.2.5 A level of procedure design competency equivalent to that necessary

for the design of a new procedure is required to conduct a periodic
review.

3.5 QUALITY ASSURANCE

3.5.1 A PDSP shall establish and comply with an appropriate quality

assurance methodology. Chapter 4 provides guidelines to establish a
quality assurance methodology for IFPDS.

3.5.2 The safety of air navigation is highly dependent on the quality of

aeronautical data. Processes for data quality assurance, from data
origination to publication in the Aeronautical Information Publication
(AIP) Philippines, are also detailed in Chapter 4.

3.6 TRAINING AND QUALIFICATIONS

A PDSP must establish and comply with its own scheme for training
and qualification of its procedure designers and its flight validators in
accordance with this MOS. ICAO Doc 9906, Volumes 2 and 6 provide
guidance for establishing a training scheme for both flight procedure
designers and flight validation pilots which also served as a basis of
CAAP in the development of CAAP’s regulatory framework aligned with
the aim to promote a reasonable degree of standardization in IFPDS.

While ICAO Doc 9906, Volume 2 focuses on the competency

requirements that a flight procedure designer should achieve, it should
be understood that the designer’s work depends on other personnel
(Surveyors, AIS personnel, ground validation personnel, flight
validation pilots) also meeting competency standards.

3.6.1 Competency-based approach in general

3.6.1.1 The development of competency-based training and assessment must

be based on a systematic approach whereby competencies and their
standards are defined; training is based on the competencies identified
and assessments are developed to determine whether these
competencies have been achieved. Competency-based approaches
include mastery learning, performance-based training, criterion-
referenced training and instructional systems design.

3.6.1.2 Competency-based approaches to training and assessment must

include at least the following features:
a) the justification of a training need through a systematic analysis
and the identification of indicators for evaluation;
b) the use of a job and task analysis to determine performance
standards, the conditions under which the job is carried out, the

March 2022 3-7 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 3 – PROCEDURE DESIGN SERVICE PROVIDER
FUNCTION
criticality of tasks, and the inventory of skills, knowledge and
attitudes;
c) the identification of the characteristics of the trainee population;
d) the derivation of training objectives from the task analysis and their
formulation in an observable and measurable fashion;
e) the development of criterion-referenced, valid, reliable and
performance-oriented tests;
f) the development of a curriculum based on adult learning principles,
with a view to achieving an optimal path to the attainment of
competencies;
g) the development of material-dependent training; and h) the use of
a continuous evaluation process to ensure the effectiveness of
training and its relevance to line operations.
h) the use of a continuous evaluation process to ensure the
effectiveness of training and its relevance to line operations.

3.6.2 The competency framework for procedure designers

3.6.2.1 The competency framework for procedure designers consists of

competency units, competency elements, performance criteria,
evidence and assessment guide, and range of variables. The
competency framework for procedure designers must be based on the
following competency units:
a) Design departure procedure;
b) Design en-route procedure;
c) Design arrival route procedure;
d) Design approach procedure;
e) Design reversal and holding procedures; and
f) Review instrument flight procedures.

3.6.2.2 Competency units, competency elements and performance criteria

must be derived from job and task analyses of procedure designers and
describe observable outcomes.
Note. - Definitions of competency units, competency elements and
performance criteria are provided in the Definitions section.

3.6.2.3 In general, work involved in each design stage corresponds to some

competency elements in the competency framework. However, they
are not identical. For instance, one single competency element is
applicable to multiple work stages.

3.6.2.4 The performance criteria make use of action verbs. For example:
a) Apply criteria. Applying criteria is the action of defining and
assessing areas of airspace intended for use as an aircraft flight
path, length of segment, angle of turn, etc., in accordance with
CAAP-approved instrument procedure design criteria.

1st Edition 3-8 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 3 – PROCEDURE DESIGN SERVICE PROVIDER
FUNCTION
b) Collect. The action of bringing together, collating, assembling,
editing and formatting from recognized sources data required for
the development of an instrument procedure design.
c) Incorporate. As in to incorporate electronic and/or paper data
into a procedure design file, to create congruency with other design
data.
d) Plot. The action of determining, positioning and drawing over top
of terrain, aeronautical, aerodrome and obstacle data the optimal
flight path of a procedure design, its associated fixes, assessment
airspace, assessment surfaces and minimum safe altitudes.
e) Promulgate. The action of submitting to CAAP, an instrument
procedure design package for distribution to the international
aviation community via CAAP-published Aeronautical Information
Regulation and Control (AIRAC) document.
f) Originate. The process of creating a data element or amending
the value of an existing data element.
Note: Refer to Table 2-1. “Competency framework of flight procedure
designer” of ICAO Doc. 9906 Vol. 2 – “Flight Procedure Designer
Training” for evidence and assessment guide for applicable
competency elements.

3.6.3 Training phases for procedure designers to be included in the

PDSP Training Program

3.6.3.1 Ab initio training for procedure designers

3.6.3.1.1 Before conducting initial training, the skills and knowledge of the
trainees are assessed. Procedure designers can be recruited from
different domains (ATM, AIS, engineer, technician, pilots, just to name
a few) therefore their skills and knowledge vary, and ab initio training
may be necessary to meet the entry level required in the different
domains to be able to successfully complete initial training (see
3.6.3.2). Ab initio training will not cover any procedure design technique
or criteria, but basic skills and knowledge that need to be mastered prior
to commencing initial training. The purpose of ab initio training is to
harmonize trainees’ entry skills and knowledge before they start initial
training. The program for this phase of training should not be developed
from the competency framework.

3.6.3.2 Initial training for procedure designers

3.6.3.2.1 Initial training is the first phase of training where actual procedure
design topics and criteria are covered. The purpose of initial training is
to provide basic skills and knowledge to procedure designers who have
been recently recruited or transferred from another job. The curriculum
of initial training is derived from the competency framework. The
associated duration and mastery test are relevant to the program.

3.6.3.2.2 Initial training should be followed by on-the-job training in order to

ensure that the acquired skills and knowledge from initial training are
consolidated.

March 2022 3-9 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 3 – PROCEDURE DESIGN SERVICE PROVIDER
FUNCTION
3.6.3.3 On-the-job training (OJT) for procedure designers

3.6.3.3.1 While on-the-job training cannot be considered a specific training

course in the formal sense, it is an essential phase in a training
program. Its purpose is to reinforce formal training and support the
achievement of competency standards.

3.6.3.3.2 Similar to initial training, the on-the-job training curriculum will be

derived from the competency framework and driven by training
objectives. If appropriate, OJT phases can also follow advanced or
refresher training.

3.6.3.4 Advanced training for procedure designers

3.6.3.4.1 The purpose of advanced training is to augment the skills and

knowledge of active procedure designers in dealing with more complex
procedure design problems. The curriculum of advanced training
should be derived from the competency framework.

3.6.3.5 Recurrent training for procedure designers

3.6.3.5.1 The purpose of recurrent training is to address changes in the available

criteria and regulations. It is essential that the procedure designer
updates his or her knowledge and skills in accordance with the latest
criteria and technologies and benchmarks his or her usual design
process against identified best practices. Regular recurrent training
should therefore be planned accordingly.

3.6.3.6 Refresher training for procedure designers

3.6.3.6.1 The purpose of refresher training is to strengthen skills and knowledge

that have weakened through disuse and the passage of time. Given the
safety-critical nature of the flight procedure design function, it is strongly
recommended that designers identify skills and knowledge that have
weakened with time and that refresher training be planned accordingly.

3.6.3.6.2 The refresher training curriculum should be derived from the

competency framework.

3.6.4 Minimum qualification for flight validation/ inspection pilots

3.6.4.1 Flight validation pilots should at least have a commercial pilot license
with instrument rating, or an equivalent authorization from CAAP
meeting the PCAR Part 2 knowledge and skill requirements for
issuance of the commercial pilot license and instrument rating, in the
aircraft category (e.g. airplane or helicopter) appropriate for the
procedure to be validated. If the flight validation pilot is not the pilot-in-
command of the flight validation aircraft, then the provisions of this
paragraph also apply to the pilot-in-command of the flight validation
aircraft.

3.6.4.2 In order to achieve the safety and quality assurance objectives of the
flight validation, CAAP through oversight activities, shall ensure that

1st Edition 3-10 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 3 – PROCEDURE DESIGN SERVICE PROVIDER
FUNCTION
flight validation pilots have acquired and maintain the required
competency level through training and supervised on-the-job training.
Note 1. - Recommended qualifications and training, as well as guidance
concerning the skills, knowledge and attitudes to be addressed in the
training and evaluation of flight validation pilots can be found in
Appendix 5 of this MOS.
Note 2. - Additional detailed information and guidance concerning flight
inspection, as well as qualifications and certification of flight inspectors,
can be found in the ICAO Manual on Testing of Radio Navigation Aids,
Volumes I, II, and III (ICAO Doc 8071).

3.6.5 The competency framework for flight validation pilots

3.6.5.1 The competency framework for flight validators also consists of

competency units, competency elements, performance criteria,
evidence and assessment guide and range of variables. The
competency framework for flight validation pilots should be based on
the following competency units:
a) Conduct pre-flight validation;
b) Conduct flight preparation;
c) Conduct simulator evaluation (as required);
d) Conduct flight evaluation (as required); and
e) Conduct post-flight analysis.

3.6.5.2 Competency units, competency elements and performance criteria are

derived from job and task analysis of flight validation pilots and describe
observable outcomes.
Note. - Definitions of competency units, competency elements and
performance criteria are provided in the Definitions section.

3.6.5.3 In general, work involved in flight validation (see Figure 5-1 of ICAO
Doc. 9906 Vol. 5 —“Validation of Instrument Flight Procedures”)
correspond to some competency elements in the competency
framework. However, they are not identical. For instance, one single
competency element is applicable to multiple work stages.

3.6.5.4 The table in 2.4 “Competency framework for flight validation pilots
(FVP)” of ICAO Doc. 9906 Vol. 5 — “Validation of Instrument Flight
Procedures” provides evidence and assessment guide for applicable
competency elements.

3.6.6 Training phases for flight validators to be included in the FVSP

Training Program

3.6.6.1 Initial training

3.6.6.1.1 Initial training is the first phase of training where actual procedure
design topics and criteria are covered. The purpose of initial training is
to provide basic skills and knowledge to flight validation pilot trainees.
The curriculum of initial training is derived from the competency

March 2022 3-11 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 3 – PROCEDURE DESIGN SERVICE PROVIDER
FUNCTION
framework. The associated duration and mastery test are relevant to
the program.

3.6.6.2 On-the-job training (OJT)

3.6.6.2.1 While on-the-job training cannot be considered a specific training

course in the formal sense, it is an essential phase in a training
program. Its purpose is to reinforce formal training and support the
achievement of competency standards. Similar to initial training, on-the-
job training curriculum will be derived from the competency framework
and driven by training objectives. If appropriate, OJT phases can also
follow recurrent and refresher training.

3.6.6.3 Recurrent training

3.6.6.3.1 The purpose of recurrent training is to address changes in the available

criteria and regulations. It is essential that the flight validation pilot
updates his or her knowledge and skills in accordance with the latest
criteria, technologies, and benchmarks from his/her usual flight
validation activity against identified best practices. Regular recurrent
training should therefore be planned accordingly. It is recommended
that recurrent training be conducted at least once every two years.

3.6.6.4 Refresher training

3.6.6.4.1 The purpose of refresher training is to strengthen skills and

knowledge that have weakened through disuse and the passage
of time. Given the safety critical nature of the flight validation
function, it is strongly recommended that FVSPs identify skills and
knowledge that have weakened with time and that refresher
training is planned accordingly. Refresher training curriculum
should be derived from the competency framework and can be
combined with recurrent training.

3.7 SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (SMS)

3.7.1 The ATS provider’s interfaces with IFPDS can make a significant
contribution to the safety of its products or services. Therefore, the SMS
aspects of IFPDS products would be normally Included as part of an
ATS provider’s SMS.

3.7.2 A safety risk assessment of an IFP is considered completed when the

IFPD is in compliance with CAAP regulatory framework.

3.7.3 A safety risk assessment must be conducted and submitted to

AANSOO when there is a deviation from CAAP regulatory framework.
Note 1. - Guidance on interface management as it relates to SMS is
provided in the Safety Management Manual (SMM) (ICAO Doc 9859).
Note 2. – A sample form for Pre-Implementation Checklists for
Preparation of IFP Implementation Safety Assessment is in Appendix
4.

1st Edition 3-12 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 4 – FLIGHT PROCEDURE QUALITY ASSURANCE
SYSTEM
CHAPTER 4

FLIGHT PROCEDURE DESIGN QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEM

4.1 GENERAL

4.1.1 This chapter addresses two levels of processes:

a) A high-level process, called the instrument flight procedure (IFP)
process, covers all elements from initiation to publication of the
procedure and the relevant maintenance, safety, validation and
flight inspection activities. The process does not end with
publication. Feedback from users must be considered in the
improvement process; and
b) A second specific process, for the design of the instrument flight
procedure — the flight procedure design (FPD) process — is part
of the IFP process.

4.1.2 Although not always specifically mentioned in this MOS, all process
steps are followed by a verification and validation step in order to
guarantee the quality of the resulting elements of each step.

4.1.3 This chapter describes the measures CAAP endorses to assure the
quality of the process used to apply procedure design criteria (Also see
4.4.11 and Appendix 2 - “IFP Quality Assurance Checklist”). These
measures ensure the quality and safety of the procedure design
product through a more focused review, verification, coordination and
validation by the concerned PDSP (final validation of FPD by PDSP
must be conducted by a designer not involved in the specific design
project) at appropriate points in the process, so that corrections can be
made at the earliest opportunity. Quality records or evidence that
quality control was conducted following each process steps must be
submitted to AANSOO as part of the IFP technical package.

4.1.4 AANSOO, specifically the PANS-OPS Safety Inspectorate under the

ATMSID, upon submission of the IFP technical package also conducts
review, verification, coordination and validation of the resulting IFP to
ensure that all processes were accomplished and that quality control
procedures were implemented. CAAP process for approval of an IFP is
discussed more in detail under 4.4.11.

4.2 THE NEED FOR QUALITY

4.2.1 With the advent of new navigation systems, the IFP process and its
products have become key enablers of the worldwide air traffic
management (ATM) system. They must therefore be managed
effectively to ensure that quality assured procedures are provided in
support of ATM operations.

4.2.2 The quality of an IFP is flight critical. The en-route structure, departure,
arrival, holding and approach procedures are derived from an IFP
process which covers various steps from collection of user
requirements to AIP publication to the integration into airborne systems.
In consequence, the FPD and the resulting IFP, from data origination

March 2022 4-1 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 4 – FLIGHT PROCEDURE QUALITY ASSURANCE
SYSTEM
SYSTEM through publication to incorporation into an end-user system, must be
quality assured.
Note - This chain involves various organizations which should apply
quality assurance processes as stated in the existing applicable
Standards, notably CAR-ANS Part 15, for the origination of data and
MOS AIS for the processing and release of aeronautical data (see
Figure 4.1).

4.2.3 The development of an IFP follows a series of steps from the origination
of data through survey to the final publication of the procedure and
subsequent coding of it for use in an airborne navigation database (refer
to Figures 4.2 and 4.3). There should be quality control procedures in
place at each step to ensure that the necessary levels of accuracy and
integrity are achieved and maintained. The process involved in the
overall IFP implementation is illustrated in Figure 4.3.

Figure 4.1 Participants in the development of an IFP

The procedure design chain is as follows

4.2.4 Checks must be carried out throughout the whole chain by each
“participant” (organization) to ensure that the final procedure meets
quality requirements. In particular, the accuracy, resolution and integrity
of data elements, together with any changes to the data, need to be
addressed. The preferred method for the transmission of the data
elements is by electronic means, as this preserves the integrity of the
data.

1st Edition 4-2 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 4 – FLIGHT PROCEDURE QUALITY ASSURANCE
SYSTEM

Figure 4.2 IFP process flow diagram

March 2022 4-3 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 4 – FLIGHT PROCEDURE QUALITY ASSURANCE
SYSTEM
SYSTEM

Figure 4.3 Over-all IFP Implementation Process

4.3 THE INSTRUMENT FLIGHT PROCEDURE PROCESS

4.3.1 Overview

4.3.1.1 The instrument flight procedure process encompasses: the initiation

and collection of requirements and constraints, the acquisition of data,
the FPD, ground validation, flight validation and flight inspection (when
required), approval and publication.

4.3.1.2 This process includes review, verification and validation processes

which are necessary to minimize the possibility of errors. It considers
the safety analysis necessary prior to implementation. The process also
incorporates the periodic review of data, criteria and feedback from
operational implementation.

4.3.1.3 The process covers the entire lifespan of an IFP, from the initial
development up to the withdrawal, recognizing that some of the process
steps, such as AIP publication and procedure regulation, might belong
to other organizations.

4.3.1.4 This process is reviewed every 5 years and may be amended by

AANSOO as necessary to ensure continuous improvement, particularly
after the release of updates to ICAO reference materials.

4.3.1.5 This process if properly applied, should provide consistent results with
an appropriate level of quality.

4.3.2 Output of the Quality Process

4.3.2.1 Although the process covers the entire life cycle of an IFP, from the
original requirement to final withdrawal, the aim of the process is not
the decommissioning of IFPs.

1st Edition 4-4 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 4 – FLIGHT PROCEDURE QUALITY ASSURANCE
SYSTEM
4.3.2.2 The decommissioning of the IFP is the termination of the quality
process (except for the archiving requirements).

4.3.2.3 Throughout the life cycle of the procedure, several outputs are
generated and evolve to a next level in the “production line”.

4.3.2.4 Listed below from the beginning of the process are the main outputs:
a) A formal written approval to proceed with the development of the
IFP design;
b) An approved conceptual design, including planned implementation
dates, and resources needed to achieve the task;
c) The FPD, including the procedure layout, the relevant technical
report containing calculation outputs, data used in the design,
coordinates of points including obstacles identified, coding tables
(if applicable), textual description of the intended procedure and
the determined level of safety impact and/or a safety
documentation;
d) Validation and verification reports for the IFP;
e) Approval of the procedure by the Director General of CAAP;
f) Documentation throughout the various stages from the input
through the publication process; and
g) The released AIP publication (charts, texts, coordinates, path
terminators and any other pertinent information relevant to the
procedure).

4.3.2.5 At the end of the life cycle, a decision to withdraw the procedure will be
issued (and documented). All changes permitting the withdrawal will be
included in the quality documentation but will also be part of the
replacement procedures' (if any) documentation.

4.3.3 Process Description

Step 1 - INITIATION
At the starting point a “pre-design” request is made for a new FPD or a
“modification” request to an existing FPD resulting from feedback,
continuous maintenance or periodic review (see steps Nos. 12 to 14).
Description
Justification for the FPD must be clearly stated and must be in accordance
with the airspace concept and CAAP navigation strategy. It is a managerial
responsibility to make a decision at this point to “go” or “no go”.
 Request from a stakeholder for a new or a modified procedure.
 Review of an existing procedure.
Input  Navigation strategy considerations.
 Resource planning.
 Feedback on Existing procedure.
Managerial decision to set up the procedure design process or to
Output
discontinue the activity.
Parties Stakeholders.
involved
Quality  A formal written approval/ service order/ signed contract to proceed with
Records the development of the IFP design.

March 2022 4-5 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 4 – FLIGHT PROCEDURE QUALITY ASSURANCE
SYSTEM
SYSTEM  Pertinent documents, studies, assessments, implementation plans
supporting the decision made.
ISO 9001:2000: section 7.2.1 “Determination of requirements related to the
product”; section 7.2.2 “Review of requirements related to the product”;
References
section 7.3.1 “Design and development planning”; and section 7.3.2
“Design and development inputs”.
Step 2 - COLLECT AND VALIDATE ALL DATA
 Specific ATS stakeholders’ requirements: local traffic patterns (altitude,
direction, airspeed), feeder/transitions, arrival/departures, preferred
routes, ATS routes, communication facilities, time, restrictions and any
ATS needs, restrictions or problems.
 The designer is to collect from recognized sources, validate for resolution,
integrity, reference geodetic datum and effective dates, and incorporate
the following data into a design file:
 Terrain data: electronic raster and/or vector data or paper
cartographic maps.
 Obstacle data: man-made and natural (tower/tree/vegetation
height).
 Aerodrome/heliport data: ARP/HRP, runway, lighting, magnetic
Description variation and rate of change, weather statistics, altimetry source.
 Aeronautical data: airspace structure, classifications (controlled,
uncontrolled, Class A, B, C, D, E, F, G, name of controlling agency),
airways/air routes, altimeter transition altitudes/flight levels, other
instrument procedure assessed airspace, area of magnetic
unreliability.
 Navaid data: coordinates, elevation, service volume, frequency,
identifier, magnetic variation.
 Existent waypoints significant to the planned navigation.
 Data collected by the PDSP which do not coincide with data published in
the AIP must be coordinated immediately to the data owner who will in-
turn coordinate with the AIS for amendment of published information in
accordance to CAR-ANS Part 15 and MOS AIS.
 All stakeholder requirements
 Previous designs
Input  Data from sources recognized by CAAP (e.g. AIP, ADMS Survey Airfield
Update Report, Obstacle Survey from aerodromes not operated by CAAP)
 All other data.
Preliminary work file containing summary of stakeholder requirements,
Output
summary of all data.
 Designer
 ATM
 AIS
Parties
involved
 Stakeholders
 Airport Authorities
 Data sources (e.g. CNS, ADMS, surveyors, charting agencies, MET offices,
etc.)
 Summary of stakeholder requirements that can be verified thru minutes
Quality
of meetings, emails and other forms of correspondence.
Records
 Duly signed obstacle surveys.

1st Edition 4-6 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 4 – FLIGHT PROCEDURE QUALITY ASSURANCE
SYSTEM
 Summary of collected data stating the source document and the person/
organization that validated the data and the method thru which data was
validated (e.g. ground validation and simulation/ flight validation).
 Safety Management Manual (ICAO Doc 9859).
 This MOS
 MOS AIS
 MOS for Charting
 Quality Assurance Manual for Flight Procedure Design (ICAO Doc 9906).
References
 ISO 9001:2000.
 CAR-ANS 11, 15 and CAR Aerodromes.
 World Geodetic System-1984 (WGS-84) Manual (ICAO Doc 9674).
 Guidelines for electronic terrain, obstacle and aerodrome mapping
information (ICAO Doc 9881).
Step 3 - CREATE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
A conceptual design is drafted with the key elements considering the
Description
overall strategy.
Input Preliminary work file.
Output Conceptual design (textual description and proposed procedure layout).
Parties Designer.
involved
 Proposed procedure layout of the conceptual design.
Quality  Textual description of the conceptual design.
Records  Summary of stakeholder requirements that can be verified thru minutes
of meetings, emails and other forms of correspondence.
 ICAO Doc 8168 (or applicable criteria).
 Required Navigation Performance Authorization Required (RNP AR)
References
Procedure Design Manual (Doc 9905) (or applicable criteria).
 ISO 9001:2000: section 7.3.1 “Design and development planning”.
Step 4 - REVIEW BY STAKEHOLDERS
Formal agreement and approval of the conceptual design is sought at this
stage. If agreement and approval are not possible then either the designer
Description
must redesign the conceptual design or the stakeholders must reconsider
their requirements.
 Work program to serve as basis for decision, including the scope of the
Input activity to be performed.
 Conceptual design.
 Formally approved conceptual design or formal decision to discontinue,
updated with any consequential changes, if applicable.
Output
 Planned implementation AIRAC date, based on available resources and
any other technical/ operational/ training constraints.
 PDSP.
 Concerned stakeholders (Air Operator, Airport Operator, ATS).
Parties
 Designer and management.
involved
 AIS for planned publication date with reference to AIRAC calendar.
 AANSOO for any regulatory clarifications that may be raised (optional).
Formally approved conceptual design or formal decision to discontinue,
updated with any consequential changes, if applicable. (stakeholders-
Quality
approved proposed procedure layout annotating any amendments from
Records
the original proposal or the textual description of the procedure with
affixed signatures of stakeholders is acceptable)

March 2022 4-7 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 4 – FLIGHT PROCEDURE QUALITY ASSURANCE
SYSTEM
SYSTEM ISO 9001:2000: section 7.3.1 “Design and development planning”; and
References
section 7.3.4 “Design and development review”.
Step 5 - APPLY CRITERIA
Description Using the stakeholder-approved conceptual design, apply criteria.
 Preliminary work file.
 Formally approved conceptual design.
Input
 Planned implementation AIRAC date.
 Resource allocation for the design and planning for publication.
 FPD.
 Draft procedure layout.
 Report.
Output
 Calculation outputs
 Coordinates.
 Textual description of the procedure.
Parties Designer.
involved
Quality None
Records
 ICAO Doc 8168 (or applicable criteria).
References  ICAO Doc 9905 (or applicable criteria).
 ISO 9001:2000: section 7.3 “Design and development”.
Step 6 - DOCUMENT AND STORE
 For traceability, complete necessary submission / calculation forms in
paper and / or electronic formats.
 Create a draft instrument procedure graphical depiction (same as the
output in Step 5).
 Provide a summary of the logic and decisions used in the step-by-step
Description design of the procedure.
 Gather all information used and created in the design of the procedure
and assemble into a submission package.
 Obtain traceability of consensus from stakeholders via signatures.
 Store submission package in a secure format and area, easily accessible
for future considerations.
 FPD.
 Draft procedure layout.
 Report.
Input
 Calculation outputs.
 Coordinates.
 Textual description of the procedure.
 Data store FPD containing:
 all calculations;
 all forms and reports, including consensus from stakeholders;
Output  all charts/maps AIRAC textual description (used in the design and not
necessarily created for the design);
 path terminators (if applicable);
 and procedure plate (draft graphical depiction).
Parties Designer.
involved
Quality  PDSP Operations Manual detailing procedure for data storage.
Records  Implementation to be verified and documented during industry visits.

1st Edition 4-8 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 4 – FLIGHT PROCEDURE QUALITY ASSURANCE
SYSTEM
 ICAO Doc 8168 (or applicable criteria).
 ICAO Doc 9905 (or applicable criteria).
References  CAR-ANS Parts 4 and 15.
 ICAO Doc 9906.
 This MOS.
Step 7 - CONDUCT SAFETY ACTIVITIES
 Determine Level of Safety Impact
 Perform an assessment of the magnitude of change to determine the
amplitude needed for the safety case.
 Develop Safety Documentation
Description
 Safety documentation to be provided for the implementation of a
new procedure should be agreed at this stage. Normally the Safety
Management System to be used is defined for the ANSP affected by
the change or by CAAP in case the PDSP falls under 1.2.2 (b).
FPD containing draft procedure layout, report, calculation outputs,
Input
coordinates, textual description of the procedure.
Formal statement on the significance of change, allowing to determine the
Output
amplitude of the safety case that needs to be performed.
Parties Quality and safety officer, affected stakeholders, supported by designers.
involved
 Pre-Implementation Checklists for Preparation of IFP Implementation
Quality Safety Assessment (Appendix 4).
Records  Safety Assessment or hazard identification and safety risk assessment
form (See Appendix 4)
 ICAO Doc 9859.
 ISO 9001:2000.
References  CAR Safety Management.
 AC AN/ATM-SRM-01-14 – “Guidelines for Preparing Safety Arguments
Covering CAR-ANS Part 11(ATS).
Step 8 - CONDUCT GROUND VALIDATION AND CRITERIA VERIFICATION
 Validate all data used in the procedure design (i.e. data resolution and
format).
Description  Validate the “intended use” of FPD as defined by stakeholders and
described in the conceptual design.
 Verify that the criteria have been properly and accurately applied.
 FPD package.
Input
 Safety case.
Output Ground validated and Criteria verified IFP.
 Designer.
Parties
involved
 Validation team or another designer not involved in the particular design
project.
 Results of ground validation (Ground Validation Report signed by
Quality validator).
Records  Results of criteria verification (Criteria Verification Report signed by
verifier).
 ICAO Doc 8168 (or applicable criteria).
References  ICAO Doc 9905 (or applicable criteria).
 CAR-ANS Parts 4 and 15.
Step 9 - CONDUCT FLIGHT VALIDATION AND DATA VERIFICATION
Description  To be performed as necessary (see 4.4.8)

March 2022 4-9 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 4 – FLIGHT PROCEDURE QUALITY ASSURANCE
SYSTEM
SYSTEM  Verify for accuracy of terrain data, obstacle data, aerodrome data,
aeronautical data, navaid data.
 Validate the “intended use” of FPD as defined by stakeholders and
described in the conceptual design.
 Validate flyability and/or human factors.
 Validate safety case.
 Ground validated/ Criteria verified IFP.
Input
 Safety documentation.
Output Validated IFP.
 Designer.
Parties  All concerned stakeholders.
involved  Flight validation organization.
 Flight inspection organization.
Quality  Results of flight validation (Flight Validation Report signed by FVP).
Records  Results of flight inspection (when performed).
 ICAO Doc 8168 (or applicable criteria).
References  Manual on Testing of Radio Navigation Aids (ICAO Doc 8071).
 This MOS.
Step 10 - CONSULT WITH STAKEHOLDERS
Present all pertinent information to all relevant stakeholders for
Description
consultation.
Input Validated IFP.
Output Stakeholder endorsement/ approval.
 Designer.
Parties
 Relevant stakeholders.
involved
 AANSOO for any regulatory clarifications that may be raised (optional).
 Stakeholder endorsement/ approval.
Quality
Records
 A written statement from those entities, or other proof of concurrence
(duly signed minutes of meetings by those entities, emails, etc.).
References This MOS.
Step 11 – Approve IFP
 Submit IFP documentation to AANSOO for validation of the
Description “completeness” of the IFP implementation process prior to the approval
of the DG.
 IFP Technical Package
 Validated IFP.
Input  Procedure lay-out.
 Stakeholder endorsement.
 Other relevant quality records.
 Approved IFP to be forwarded by AANSOO to owner of the procedure or
the PDSP, whoever submitted the FPD Package for approval.
Output
 Endorsement from procedure owner for the AIS to create draft chart/s of
approved IFP/s.
Parties  Designer.
involved  AANSOO.
 Quality Assurance Report.
Quality
Records
 Formal approval of the FPD for new procedures (or for relevant changes
on existing procedures).
References This MOS.

1st Edition 4-10 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 4 – FLIGHT PROCEDURE QUALITY ASSURANCE
SYSTEM
Step 12 - CREATE DRAFT PUBLICATION
Provide FPD package, including a graphical depiction, to the AIS to create a
Description
draft publication.
Approved IFP for publication, including the procedure layout from PDSP
Input
and coding tables (if applicable).
Output Draft publication.
Parties  Designer.
involved  AIS.
Quality None
Records
 CAR-ANS Parts 4 and 15.
 MOS AIS
References  MOS-Aeronautical Charts
 ISO 9001:2000 section 4.2 “Documentation requirements” section 7.3.5
“Design and development verification”.
Step 13 - VERIFY DRAFT PUBLICATION
Description Verify the draft publication for completeness and consistency.
 Draft publication.
Input
 Validated FPD.
 Cross-checked draft publication.
Output
 Decision for publication release.
 Designer.
 Procedure owners.
 AANSOO for any regulatory clarifications that may be raised (optional)
Parties
involved  AIS.
Note: “Aviation Authority” referred to in Step 13 under ICAO Doc 9906
Vol.1 applies only when the publication is delegated to another entity
aside from the AIS operated by the state authority.
Quality  Coordination/ communication/ correspondence between designer and
Records AIS.
 Regional regulation/ agreement.
 This MOS.
 MOS AIS.
References  ICAO Doc 8168 Volumes I and II (or applicable criteria).
 All applicable CAR-ANS, ICAO Annexes and Docs.
 ISO 9001:2000 section 7.3.5 “Design and development verification”; and
section 7.3.6 “Design and development validation”.
Step 14 - PUBLISH IFP
Description AIS initiates the AIRAC process.
 Cross-checked draft publication.
Input
 Decision for publication release.
Output AIP chart, documentation.
Parties AIS.
involved
Quality Published charts.
Records
References CAR-ANS Parts 4 and 15.
Step 15 - OBTAIN FEEDBACK FROM STAKEHOLDERS
 Request and analyze feedback from stakeholders on the acceptability of
Description
the work performed.

March 2022 4-11 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 4 – FLIGHT PROCEDURE QUALITY ASSURANCE
SYSTEM
SYSTEM  Cross-check the AIP chart, documentation.
 AIP chart, documentation.
Input
 Reports from stakeholders.
Output Decision for ongoing activities.
 AIS
Parties  Manager of the PDSP.
involved  Stakeholders.
 AANSOO for any regulatory clarifications that may be raised (optional).
Quality Formal order/ decision for the ongoing activities.
Records
References  MOS AIS
Step 16 - CONDUCT CONTINUOUS MAINTENANCE
 On a continuous basis ensure that:
 significant changes to obstacles, aerodrome, aeronautical and navaid
data are assessed.
Description  significant changes to criteria and design specification that affect
procedure design are assessed to determine if action is required
prior to the periodic review.
 If action is required, return to Step No. 1 to reinitiate process.
Significant changes in the FPD environment or design criteria changes that
Input
are safety related.
Output Revision as required.
 AIS.
 Designer.
Parties  AANSOO.
involved  Procedure owner.
 Airport authorities, if the procedure owner is another organization.
 Pilots (when applicable and possible).
Quality
 If modifications or amendments, the reason(s) for the change(s).
Records
 ICAO Doc 8168 (or applicable criteria).
 ICAO Doc 9905 (or applicable criteria).
References  CAR-ANS Parts 4 and 15.
 CAR Safety Management.
 This MOS.
Step 17 - CONDUCT PERIODIC REVIEW
 On a periodic basis (every 5 years) ensure:
 that all changes to obstacles, aerodrome, aeronautical and navaid
data are assessed; and
Description
 that all changes to criteria, user requirements and depiction
standards are assessed.
 If action is required, return to Step No. 1 to reinitiate process.
Input All changes in the FPD environment, design criteria or depiction standards.
Output Revisions as required.
 Designer.
 AANSOO (as oversight)
Parties  AIS.
involved Note: “Aviation Authority” referred to in Step 13 under ICAO Doc 9906
Vol.1 applies only when the publication is delegated to another entity
aside from the AIS.

1st Edition 4-12 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 4 – FLIGHT PROCEDURE QUALITY ASSURANCE
SYSTEM
Quality  Results of the periodic review.
Records  If modifications or amendments, the reason(s) for the change(s).
 ICAO Doc 8168 (or applicable criteria) or ICAO Doc 9905 (or applicable
criteria).
References  CAR-ANS Parts 4 and 15.
 CAR - SM
 This MOS.

4.3.4 Related Processes

The FPD and the IFP processes should not be considered as stand-
alone processes. It is important to consider the supporting processes
(mostly activities that are performed once, such as the software
validation, or on a regular schedule, such as training) and the upstream
and downstream processes that trigger or are triggered by the FPD and
IFP processes.

4.3.4.1 Supporting processes

This section describes various activities that should be performed prior

to the procedure design process.

4.3.4.1.1 Use and validation of procedure design software tools

4.3.4.1.1.1 Software-based tools provide automated functions for calculations

and/or designs and layouts and include products such as spreadsheets,
commercial computer-aided design (CAD) packages and custom-made
software packages. They can facilitate the design work through a
certain level of automation in calculation and procedure layout
generation. Procedure design tools may be used throughout the
procedure design process, from initial data input to final procedure
output, maintaining the data integrity throughout the entire process.

4.3.4.1.1.2 Consequently, the use of procedure design tools is encouraged in the

framework of the quality process of IFP design. However, it is of
paramount importance to note that the use of automation does not
replace the procedure designer's expertise. Additionally, the use of
software should not prevent designers from using manual techniques.

4.3.4.1.1.3 The user requirements (e.g. type of functions, coverage of the tool in
reference to the applicable criteria, adequacy of human-machine
interface (HMI) should be captured and taken into consideration during
the selection of the software solution. This selection should consider
the needs of the end user and should be based on the volume,
complexity and type of flight procedure(s) to be designed or maintained
by the flight procedures design unit.

4.3.4.1.1.4 To address specific issues that might appear later during the
operational use of the software, a close relationship between the user
and the software provider is encouraged.

4.3.4.1.1.5 Although procedure design tools provide a significant step toward

improved quality assurance in FPD, there is a risk that software errors
or non-compliance with criteria can result in poor quality, or even

March 2022 4-13 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 4 – FLIGHT PROCEDURE QUALITY ASSURANCE
SYSTEM
SYSTEM dangerous flight procedures. When automation is used during the
procedure design process, CAAP requires that automation functions
have been validated to ascertain compliance of the final results with
applicable criteria. Chapter 6 of this MOS — Flight Procedure Design
Software Validation provides guidance on such validation processes
and details one method that may be employed for validation of
procedure design tools.

4.3.4.1.2 Training

4.3.4.1.2.1 Training is a key element of a quality management system (QMS) (ISO

9001:2000 Quality management systems — Requirements, section
6.2.2 “Competence, awareness and training”). Delivering training is one
element of a training program. Other elements include identifying
training requirements, developing a training curriculum and maintaining
training records.

4.3.4.1.2.2 Identifying training requirements is a process that includes defining

required competencies (knowledge and skills). Ensuring the procedure
design staff possess and maintain the competencies requires a
review(s) of an individual's qualifications which may include prior
training, education level and experience. As required competencies
evolve, new and/or recurrent training may be indicated to ensure that
procedure designers maintain the required level of competency. Each
procedure design organization must establish required competency
levels and maintain records of personnel training, qualification and
experience as a means of tracking individual competency in
accordance to 3.6 of this MOS.
Note. –In addition to the provisions in this MOS regarding trainings,
ICAO Doc. 9906 – Quality Assurance Manual for Flight Procedure
Design, Volume 2 — Flight Procedure Designer Training may be used
for guidance for both PDSPs and for procedure design training
organizations.

4.3.4.1.2.3 Training records (TRs) provide historical tracking of activities that

support the qualification of a person to do a specific task. TRs are the
evidence of due diligence by an organization to keep its staff competent
for assigned tasks or functions. Training and TRs by themselves do not
demonstrate competency. Competency is demonstrated through the
actions of performing a task and must be monitored through a
management process.

4.3.4.2 Upstream and downstream processes

This section describes various activities that trigger or are triggered by

the IFP process.

4.3.4.2.1 Data origination

4.3.4.2.1.1 Quality assurance for the IFP process starts at the point of data
origination. Data origination addresses the functions performed by
requesting authorities and originating authorities, surveyors and any
other third-party organizations supplying aeronautical data to procedure

1st Edition 4-14 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 4 – FLIGHT PROCEDURE QUALITY ASSURANCE
SYSTEM
designers. Such functions include, for example, surveying coordinates
of the runway end or of navigation aids.

4.3.4.2.1.2 The data origination phase is one of the most critical stages of the data
chain, as some errors cannot be easily detected in the subsequent
steps of the process.

4.3.4.2.1.3 Historically, most aeronautical data are originated by CAAP. Other

originators may supplement CAAP-originated data or originate data that
are independent of CAAP. Examples of other data chain participants
that may originate aeronautical data include, but are not limited to,
airlines, aircraft manufacturers, airport authorities, defense mapping
agencies and communication service providers.

4.3.4.2.1.4 CAR-ANS Part 15 provides the regulations relating to the horizontal

(WGS-84) and vertical (MSL/EGM-96) reference system as well as
terrain and obstacle data.
Note. - For more details refer to ICAO Doc 9674 (the WGS-84 Manual)
and the Guidelines for Electronic Terrain, Obstacle and Aerodrome
Mapping Information (ICAO Doc 9881).

4.3.4.2.2 Aeronautical Information Service (AIS)

4.3.4.2.2.1 The FPD process is closely linked to the AIS process, since one of the
objectives of the design is to have the procedure published in the AIP.
For this purpose, the procedure design process includes a phase
related to the preparation of the elements to be published. These may
include basic elements being provided to the AIS office in the
preparation of a detailed (draft) procedure chart to be subsequently
processed by AIS. The AIS office is responsible for the integration of
the designed procedure in the official CAAP publication (AIP),
according to the regulations laid down in CAR-ANS Part 4 and
CARANS Part 15.

4.3.4.2.2.2 The AIS office may have to process the elements forwarded by the
procedure designer, including the procedure layout of the design, in
order to make them compliant with the applicable regulations and
consistent with the national publication standards, as appropriate. The
outcome from this process may be different from the original
submission of the procedure designer. It is therefore essential that the
procedure designer review the outcome of the AIS process prior to
publication. This review must include a check of completeness and of
consistency of the publication with the result of the FPD.

4.3.4.2.2.3 The processes between the procedure design office and the AIS office
shall be defined and formalized, for example, through a quality process
or through a service level agreement.

4.3.4.2.3 Data integration

4.3.4.2.3.1 When the completed IFP is published, it should be forwarded to the

commercial database suppliers so they may encode the IFP into a
database for airborne applications. The database suppliers encode the

March 2022 4-15 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 4 – FLIGHT PROCEDURE QUALITY ASSURANCE
SYSTEM
SYSTEM IFP according to the ARINC 424 Navigation System Database
Standard which is the international industry standard. When the IFP is
loaded by each database supplier, numerous edit checks are
performed to ensure that when flown in airborne navigation units the
procedure will function as designed by the procedure designer. These
edit checks, however, do not check for information such as altitudes,
compliance with PANS-OPS or procedure design

4.3.4.2.3.2 The database suppliers consider submitted path/terminators to be

advisory when included with RNAV IFPs. Database suppliers enter both
RNAV and conventional procedures into airborne databases to
automatically fly the IFPs in the manner in which they were intended to
be flown. For new IFPs, or IFPs that have had significant modifications,
it is recommended that the procedures be forwarded to the database
suppliers significantly in advance of the aeronautical information
regulation and control (AIRAC) date to assist in providing time to
exchange information regarding inconsistencies that may be found
during the database coding process.

4.3.4.2.3.3 There are three significant layers of standards in the ARINC 424
document. The first is the standardization of the fields that contain
various items of aeronautical information. The next level is the
standardization of what attributes are assigned to each type of
information, e.g., VORs include frequency, coordinates, class of navaid.
The next level is the standardization of each record of information, e.g.,
VOR records include in column one whether the navaid is standard or
tailored, and columns two through four include the geographical area of
the world.

4.3.4.2.4 Data packing

4.3.4.2.4.1 When the database supplier completes the coding of the database and
the ARINC 424 compliant database is created for the next AIRAC cycle,
the next step of the process is to create the airborne database for the
specific avionics system, specific airline, specific geographical
coverage and various other parameters. This process of converting
ARINC 424 data into airborne databases is typically known as the
packing process. The packing process is sometimes performed by the
avionics manufacturers and sometimes by the database supplier using
software created and maintained by the avionics manufacturer.

4.3.4.2.4.2 There is typically an earlier information cut-off date for the database
suppliers since the creation of the ARINC 424 compliant database must
be followed by the packing process and then sent to the airlines. Most
airlines need at least seven days to ensure that all their airplanes get to
a location where the next data cycle can be loaded before the effective
date.

4.3.4.2.4.3 Because avionics systems using databases have been in use since the
early 1970s, there are many differences in the capability of the systems
in operation today.

4.3.4.2.4.4 It is important to note that some of the packing processes will make
modifications to the ARINC 424 compliant database to ensure it will
work in the target avionics system.

1st Edition 4-16 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 4 – FLIGHT PROCEDURE QUALITY ASSURANCE
SYSTEM

4.4 STEP-BY-STEP DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE

PROCESS

The following subsections reflect all the steps of the process flow in
Figure 4.2 and provide additional comments and explanations. All of the
steps relate to the same number of the process (for example, 4.4.1
Initiation relates to process Step 1 — Initiation).

4.4.1 INITIATION (STEP 1)

4.4.1.1 The IFP process (origination or modification of an IFP) is generally

initiated upon request from one of the stakeholders specified in 4.4.1.7.
The development of the airspace concept for a particular airspace can
also trigger this process.

4.4.1.2 A formal written approval/ service order/ signed contract to proceed with
the development of the IFP design and a copy of the formal request
from stakeholders (if such is the reason for initiation) stands as the
quality record valid for submission as evidence that Step 1 has been
appropriately implemented.

4.4.1.3 The necessity for a change can also ensue from the need to review
existing procedures. Published procedures must be subjected to a
periodic review to ensure that they continue to comply with changing
criteria and meet user requirements. The interval for this review is five
years.

4.4.1.4 The main reasons for the request must be stated, e.g., safety
enhancement, efficiency of operations, environmental considerations.
The request may be tied to a change in the aerodrome infrastructure or
airspace structure.

4.4.1.5 Key objectives associated with the request must be identified.

Examples of objectives include, but are not limited to, reduction of
minima, improving the access to an aerodrome, implementation of a
new procedure type corresponding to an overall program or strategy,
reorganization of the airspace, or response to flight calibration results.

4.4.1.6 As far as possible, indicators associated with the key objectives should
be provided (Example: reduction of the minima by [xx] ft).

4.4.1.7 Stakeholders

4.4.1.7.1 A request for initiation or modification of an IFP may be submitted by

any of the IFP stakeholders including CAAP regulatory bodies
(AANSOO and FSIS), air navigation or air traffic service providers, air
operators, airport authorities, aviation associations,
municipal/civil/military authorities, environmental authorities and the
procedure designer. Additionally, requests from other sources such as
industry or environmental committees may be considered for
submission by the appropriate authority.

March 2022 4-17 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 4 – FLIGHT PROCEDURE QUALITY ASSURANCE
SYSTEM
SYSTEM
4.4.1.7.2 If the request for the initiation of an IFP is submitted with a
predetermined solution that might not fit into the global picture,
discussions with the involved stakeholders should take place. The final
request should be an agreed consensus, as far as possible, between
the stakeholders including the procedure designer.

4.4.1.8 Required information

The request should specify:

a) the nature of the changed or new IFP*;
b) the reason for the change; the expected benefits*;
c) the expected users*;
d) required operational implementation date;
e) consequences of not achieving the implementation date;
f) additional external partners and activities needed (such as flight
validation and checking);
g) resource planning (human and financial, if possible, with a funding
plan);
h) what coordination has been carried out with other stakeholders; and
i) what responses have been received from other stakeholders.
* - Minimum required information.

4.4.1.9 Approval of request

4.4.1.9.1 The request should be submitted to a formal review by the organization

responsible for approving the initiation of the IFP process, usually the
procedure owner or the concerned ATS. This approval process should
consider the request in the light of all outstanding requests and when
making a decision should take account of the available resources, the
expected benefits and the urgency of the requirement.

4.4.1.9.2 The review process should also ensure that the proposed change:
a) fulfils the expected operational requirements;
b) meets the needs of the airspace users;
c) complies with the requirements of relevant government
departments (such as Transport and Environment);
d) is achieved within the proposed timescale;
e) is adequately resourced; and
f) does not conflict with any other airspace plans.

4.4.1.10 Documentation

The IFP request and the results of the formal review, including reasons
for approval or rejection, should be fully documented. Copies of the
document should be retained by the reviewing organization, the
originator and within the IFP work file. An overall plan for all outstanding

1st Edition 4-18 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 4 – FLIGHT PROCEDURE QUALITY ASSURANCE
SYSTEM
requests and ongoing IFP projects with assigned priorities should also
be maintained and made available to all stakeholders.

4.4.2 COLLECT AND VALIDATE ALL DATA (STEP 2)

4.4.2.1 The procedure designer must ensure that specific ATS requirements
related to local traffic patterns (altitude, direction and airspeed),
feeder/transitions, arrival/departures, preferred routes, ATS routes,
communication facilities, time, restrictions and any ATS needs,
restrictions or problems are available from the ATS provider.

4.4.2.2 The designer must collect the following data from recognized sources,
validate for accuracy, resolution, integrity, reference geodetic datum
and effective dates, and incorporate them into the design
documentation:
a) terrain data: electronic raster and/or vector data or paper
cartographic maps;
b) obstacle data: man-made and natural with their coordinates and
elevation;
c) aerodrome/heliport data, e.g. ARP/HRP and runway(s) with their
coordinates and elevation, lighting, magnetic variation and rate of
change, weather statistics, altimeter source;
d) aeronautical data: airspace structure, classifications (controlled,
uncontrolled, Class A, B, C, D, E, F, G, name of controlling
agency), airways/air routes, altimeter transition altitudes/flight
levels, neighboring instrument procedures, area(s) of magnetic
unreliability;
e) navaid data: coordinates, elevation, service volume, frequency,
identifier, magnetic variation; and
f) existing significant points to local navigation.

4.4.2.3 User requirements

The IFP is the interface between all the stakeholders. It is important to

have a common agreement on the requirements to change or to create
an IFP. These may be addressed under the following headings:

4.4.2.3.1 Air Traffic Control (ATC)

Compatibility of the IFP with existing ATS procedures for the elected
location and for the immediate surroundings if several aerodromes
operate IFPs.

4.4.2.3.2 Users
a) Need to shorten trajectories;
b) Enhanced guidance;
c) Availability of vertical guidance;
d) Lower minima; and
e) Enhanced flyability.

March 2022 4-19 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 4 – FLIGHT PROCEDURE QUALITY ASSURANCE
SYSTEM
SYSTEM
4.4.2.3.3 Airspace design
a) Constraints given by existing airspaces;
b) Requirements for additional / restructured airspace; and
c) Danger / restricted and prohibited areas.

4 4.4.2.3.4 Environmental constraints

a) Avoidance of populated areas;
b) Avoidance of sensitive areas (such as chemical, nuclear or other
facilities); and
c) Noise abatement procedures, when applicable.

4.4.2.3.5 Schedule

a) Timing of the foreseen implementation with regard to the

complexity of existing airspace structure.
b) Additional constraints might result from:
i) the need for training on the ANSP side for the integration of
the new traffic flows;
ii) the implementation schedule of new CNS/ATM systems; and
iii) the requirements of the airline operators.

4.4.2.4 Data/metadata inputs to the procedure design process

The term metadata refers to information “about” the data rather than the
data themselves. For example, the quality characteristics associated
with a data value are metadata. As an example: an accuracy definition
of plus or minus one meter for runway length is metadata about the
actual value of the runway length. The use of the term “data” below
addresses both actual data values and metadata.

4.4.2.5 Data quality requirements

4.4.2.5.1 Defined data quality requirements for inputs to the FPD process are key
elements to ensure proper safety margins required by procedure design
criteria. For example, appropriate obstacle clearance altitude/heights
can only be determined if the accuracy of the input data is known.

4.4.2.5.2 Accuracy, resolution and integrity are the key quality requirements
related to the data inputs to the FPD process as defined in CAR-ANS
Part 11 – “Air Traffic Services”, CAR Aerodromes, CAR-ANS Part 15 –
“AIS” and MO- AIS.

4.4.2.5.3 Ensuring the quality of aeronautical data is the responsibility of the

“owner” of the data:
a) AIS – as the owner of published data is required to have
established quality assurance system;

1st Edition 4-20 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 4 – FLIGHT PROCEDURE QUALITY ASSURANCE
SYSTEM
b) Aerodrome operator/ Land surveyors – as data originators for
aerodrome and obstacle data should ensure that the data in the
publication is valid and updated;
c) CNS Office - as data originators for navaid data should ensure that
the data in the publication is valid and updated;
d) Other Stakeholders (i.e. ATS and Air Operator) – provides user
requirements and other concerns that should be valid and
justifiable; and
e) Other data owners include MET service provider for MET
information, ATS for data on the airspace environment, etc.

4.4.2.5.4 To ensure quality of aeronautical data from data origination, a formal

arrangement (Service Level Agreement) shall be established between
AIS and its data originators in relation to the timely and complete
provision of aeronautical data and aeronautical information as
stipulated in 1.2.1. CAR-ANS Part 15.

4.4.2.5.5 The “validation” of the data collected from the list above, is the
responsibility of the IFP designer in such a way that he/she gains
sufficient confidence of the quality (integrity, accuracy and resolution),
of data necessary for IFP design. Data collected by the IFP designer
which do not coincide with data published in the AIP must be
coordinated immediately to the data owner who will in-turn coordinate
with the AIS for amendment of published information in accordance to
CAR-ANS Part 15 and MOS AIS.

4.4.2.5.6 The vector or the mechanism used to transmit the data is critical to
maintain data integrity. PDSPs should as much as practicable minimize
manual human intervention in transmitting/ encoding data.

4.4.2.6 Procedure design data acquisition

The acquisition of data for the FPD process must ensure that the
acquired data’s quality characteristics are known and adequate, or that,
in the case where the data’s quality characteristics are unknown or
inadequate (invalid), that appropriate data verification (see verification,
section 4.4.2.8) occurs prior to use.

4.4.2.7 Data sources and supplier status

4.4.2.7.1 All data sources must be identified. The status of the suppliers of critical
and essential data elements should be established and reviewed on a
regular basis.

4.4.2.7.2 Additionally, if a supplier does not have an approved quality

management system, the supplied data must be considered to be of
unknown quality characteristics (invalid against the data requirements)
and must be verified as described in 4.4.2.8.

4.4.2.7.3 The AIP Philippines, being required to have undergone a QMS process
for publication is endorsed by CAAP, as a reliable source of quality
data.

March 2022 4-21 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 4 – FLIGHT PROCEDURE QUALITY ASSURANCE
SYSTEM
SYSTEM
4.4.2.8 Incoming data verification and validation

4.4.2.8.1 All data received from a supplier that will be used in the FPD process
must be validated against the data quality requirements. If the data are
validated as having met the data quality requirements, then the data
may be used without additional verification.

4.4.2.8.2 Where a supplier is unable to state data quality characteristics, or the

quality characteristics are below the stated requirements, the data must
be replaced with data of known and adequate quality characteristics, or
be verified as adequate to the specifics of the procedure being
designed. Data verification or mitigation for use in the FPD process can
take many approaches including, but not limited to:
a) analysis against other data of known quality characteristics such
as control points;
b) imposition of appropriate buffers based on the actual procedure;
c) a determination of negligible effect on the actual procedure; or
d) flight validation / checking.

4.4.2.8.3 The validation of the data quality requirements must be documented

and can serve in later studies.

4.4.2.9 Documentation

Required documentation to support the processing of incoming data for

the FPD process must pertain to incoming inspection of the data quality
characteristics, disposition of the incoming data (valid or invalid),
updating of the data source and supplier status documentation, and for
non-verified data, clear documentation indicating the need for
appropriate verification prior to use in the FPD process. All
documentation needs to be clearly labelled as to the data it applies to,
versioned and stored as necessary.

4.4.3 CREATE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN (STEP 3)

4.4.3.1 Once the collection of requirements and constraints has been

completed and all necessary data have been acquired and verified, the
designer can commence with the conceptual design.

4.4.3.2 An individual designer should be nominated as the designer

responsible for the design concept and for the development of the
actual design.

4.4.3.3 Coordination with interested/affected stakeholders should continue

throughout the conceptual phase and the subsequent design phase of
this process.

4.4.3.4 The procedure designer may, as an input for this activity, draw on
earlier designs if available and use the outputs of the previous steps
such as presentation notes containing design objectives and indicators
as well as the requirements and constraints and the verified data
collated in the previous steps.

1st Edition 4-22 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 4 – FLIGHT PROCEDURE QUALITY ASSURANCE
SYSTEM
4.4.3.5 The intention would then be to develop a design strategy for the
procedure based on PANSOPS (ICAO Doc 8168) and/or other
applicable criteria (e.g. ICAO Doc 9906 for RNP AR) as well as the key
inputs stated above.

4.4.3.6 In a more complex design environment, it might be helpful or even

necessary to develop one or more design alternatives in order to
provide sufficient input for the review of the design concept.

4.4.4 REVIEW BY STAKEHOLDERS (STEP 4)

4.4.4.1 The conceptual design is reviewed by the stakeholders. It is important

that the stakeholders, including the AIS, the designer and the designer's
management agree on the conceptual design and on the planned
implementation AIRAC date. This will allow a common understanding
of the development stages of the design and will also increase the
chances of a successful implementation.

4.4.4.2 At least two (2) AIRAC cycles from the cut-off date shall be considered
for the planned effective date.
Example: For an IFP with a target date of effectivity on December 31,
2020, the complete data shall be submitted to the AIS before the cut-
off date, August 21, 2020.

4.4.5 APPLY CRITERIA (STEP 5)

Once the relevant data have been collected and the conceptual IFP has
been approved, the design activity can commence. An individual
designer should be nominated as the responsible designer. Continued
coordination with interested/affected stakeholders should be
maintained throughout the design phase.

4.4.5.1 Criteria

4.4.5.1.1 CAAP adopts the international procedure design criteria detailed in the
current applicable version of PANS-OPS (ICAO Doc 8168), Volume II.
Procedure design criteria for Required Navigation Performance
Authorization Required (RNP AR) IFPs can be found in the RNP AR
Procedure Design Manual (ICAO Doc 9905). ICAO regularly reviews
and amends these criteria.

4.4.5.1.2 It is important that the current applicable criteria be used by all

personnel involved in the FPD process in order to ensure international
harmonization.

4.4.5.1.3 Whenever changes to the criteria are published, the procedure design
organization should review these to determine an appropriate
implementation plan. If the change in the criteria is deemed to be a
safety-critical element, it should be carried out immediately.

4.4.5.1.4 CAAP may also elect to define national procedure design criteria for
use with existing PANSOPS criteria as applicable in the interest of
aviation safety. Such additional or alternate design criteria should never

March 2022 4-23 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 4 – FLIGHT PROCEDURE QUALITY ASSURANCE
SYSTEM
SYSTEM be used together with PANS-OPS criteria unless they have been
developed specifically for that purpose.

4.4.5.1.5 In both cases, such criteria should be fully documented, regularly

reviewed and reflected in the AIP Philippines.

4.4.5.1.6 Under no circumstances may a mixture of different sets of criteria be

used in the design of an IFP.

4.4.5.2 Methods and tools

4.4.5.2.1 In order to make sure that a procedure design tool is appropriate for the
FPD concept, it must be subjected to both a validation process (for
compliance with applicable criteria) and an assessment of compliance
with user requirements (concerning available functions, HMI and
documentation).

4.4.5.2.2 The design methods employed during the FPD process should be
thoroughly validated and clearly documented. Procedure designers
should receive adequate training in applying the approved methods.
Care should be taken that only the approved methods are applied
during the FPD process.

4.4.5.2.3 Software tools should be used, where appropriate, to ensure design

consistency. All software tools should be validated in accordance to
Chapter 6 of this MOS.

4.4.5.2.4 Calculation and construction techniques should comply with the

guidelines contained in the relevant ICAO documentation or in the
relevant national criteria (if any is published in the AIP Philippines).

4.4.5.3 Design methods

4.4.5.3.1 Procedures may be designed using one or a combination of three

possible methods:
a) Manual method. The manual method involves the use of paper
charts, tracing paper, paper/plastic templates (Such as OAS
templates, as detailed in PANS-OPS, Volume II and Holding,
Reversal and Racetrack templates, as detailed in the “Template
Manual for Holding, Reversal and Racetrack Procedures” (ICAO
Doc 9371), pencils or drawing pens and calculators/spreadsheets.
Photocopies or low-grade reproductions of charts should not be
used;
b) COTS software method. The COTS method involves the use of
commercial off-the-shelf software, such as CAD packages, and
imported, or manually input, electronic topographic, aeronautical
and obstacle data. Tool-specific macros and templates may be
developed and used, after appropriate validation; and
c) Custom-made software method. The custom-made method
involves the use of specialist software tools developed specifically
for supporting the FPD process. These tools must have been
validated in accordance with Chapter 6 and must be used in
accordance with the published user manual.

1st Edition 4-24 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 4 – FLIGHT PROCEDURE QUALITY ASSURANCE
SYSTEM

4.4.5.3.2 To enhance the integrity throughout the design process, the use of
automated or semi-automated tools is recommended.

4.4.5.4 Documentation

4.4.5.4.1 On the basis of these activities, the resulting FPD usually comprises
one or several draft procedure layouts, a textual description of the
procedures as well as calculations and coordinates. These documents
are then used as a basis for the design verification and are the input for
the determination of the “level-of-safety” impact of the design.

4.4.5.4.2 All aspects of the FPD process should be documented including:

a) version of applicable design criteria;
b) all data sources;
c) service volume coverage analysis (Many navigation signals can be
received outside of the design service volume. The service
volumes are determined by an analysis of many factors including
the minimum transmission strength, the worst-case receiver
sensitivity, worst case signal to noise ratio, etc. Often the
requirements can be met at greater distances than the service
volume and when needed by the procedure or airway, they are
flight tested at the required additional distances. When they are not
required for use outside of the service volume, then flight testing is
restricted to verifying that the criteria is met inside of the service
volume.);
d) all calculations including transformation parameters used (i.e. the
parameters used to convert from a local datum to WGS 1984 or
another geocentric datum.);
e) all parameters used (speeds, bank angles, wind velocity,
temperature, descent gradient, climb gradient, timings, height loss
margins, obstacle assessment surface (OAS) coefficients, etc.);
f) specific validation requirements (e.g. flyability, service volume
coverage confirmation);
g) flight inspection results (if required);
h) full design rationale;
i) design assumptions and constraints;
j) alternative designs that were considered and the reasons for their
rejection;
k) stakeholder feedback during the design process;
l) document version and date;
m draft elements for publication (when available), including coding
) advice (when applicable); and
n) any other pertinent points of interest resulting from the FPD
process, e.g. software tools used for the design; advantages and
drawbacks of the assessed scenarios; potential difficulties for the
execution of certain phases of the procedure; environmental
issues; financial aspects.

March 2022 4-25 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 4 – FLIGHT PROCEDURE QUALITY ASSURANCE
SYSTEM
SYSTEM
4.4.5.4.3 The documentation should include a clear statement of compliance with
CAAP-approved criteria together with detailed notes on any deviations
and evidence of approval for each deviation. There should also be a
record of each design review and sign-off.

4.4.6 DOCUMENT AND STORE (STEP 6)

4.4.6.1 Traceability is the key element in the design of a new IFP. All
assumptions made and methods used in the implementation of a new
or modified FPD should be documented in a uniform manner and kept
available at least during the lifetime of the IFP.

4.4.6.2 All supporting documentation, such as spreadsheets, drawing files and

other relevant files should, as far as practicable, remain in a common
location, and for the lifetime of the procedures, be stored in an
exploitable method.

4.4.6.3 The IFP designer has to document:

a) Necessary data used as input for the design;
b) IFP design file;
c) Design criteria and rationale;
d) Calculations;
e) Parameters;
f) Publication drafts (or the data to be put in AIP);
g) Tools and SW;
h) Stakeholder feedback;
i) Ground and flight validation reports;
j) IFP related studies (such as the safety assessment); and
k) Results of Maintenance and Periodic Reviews.

4.4.6.4 After the withdrawal of a procedure, the PANS-OPS Safety

Inspectorate of the ATMSID-AANSOO shall archive the withdrawn IFP
package, containing the data that were used during the FPD process.
The PDSP in-charge of the design should also keep an archive of such
data. The archived data should remain available in CAAP permitting a
repetition or validation of the process in a later stage or for other
purpose such as, for incident/ accident investigation or for a legal or
liability case.

4.4.6.5 The minimum period of time during which this documentation must
remain available after a full re documentation following a review of the
procedure or a withdrawal of the existing procedure shall be no less
than five (5) years from the official date of review or withdrawal.

4.4.7 CONDUCT SAFETY ACTIVITIES (STEP 7)

1st Edition 4-26 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 4 – FLIGHT PROCEDURE QUALITY ASSURANCE
SYSTEM
This section provides a minimum of information on safety activities. For
more detailed information please refer to the CAR - SM or Safety
Management Manual (ICAO Doc 9859).

4.4.7.1 Safety concepts

4.4.7.1.1 Safety definition

Safety is generally defined as “freedom from unacceptable risk “. From

a formal point of view, a system can only be considered to be safe for
operational use if its inherent risks have been identified, assessed and
agreed to be below predefined limits. If such a commitment is reached,
the system can be considered as acceptably safe.

4.4.7.1.2 Safety assessment

A safety assessment is a formal process by which an organization may

ensure that risks associated with a system change have been properly
identified and mitigated prior to going into operation. The results and
conclusions of a safety assessment are usually described in a safety
case. Broadly, the safety case is the documented assurance of the
achievement and maintenance of safety.

4.4.7.1.3 Demonstrating safety

Primarily, the safety case is a matter of the organization assuring itself

that its operations are safe. Only secondarily is it a matter of
demonstrating the safety of the operation to a regulatory body.

4.4.7.1.4 Safety targets

The aim should be to provide safety assurance based on an appropriate

combination of the following general criteria:
a) the so-called absolute approach - compliance with a target level
of safety (TLS);
b) the relative approach - indication that the risk will be no higher
than, or (where a safety improvement is required) substantially
lower than, the pre-change situation; and
c) the minimal approach - that the risk will be reduced as far as
reasonably practicable.

4.4.7.1.5 Safety system

When considering the ATM system lying within managerial control, it is

important to understand the word system as the aggregation of the
human (H) making use of the supporting equipment (E) based on
appropriate procedures (P) in order to deliver safe and efficient services
in a particular operational environment. This kind of “system-thinking”
approach is of utmost importance to guarantee consistency of safety
assessments.

4.4.7.1.6 Safety assessment of safety issues

March 2022 4-27 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 4 – FLIGHT PROCEDURE QUALITY ASSURANCE
SYSTEM
SYSTEM A “safety assessment of changes” must be systematically and formally
conducted each time an element is changed or newly introduced in the
ATM system lying within the Air Traffic Service Provider's managerial
control. However, existing elements not being affected by modifications
may also be questioned in respect to safety. In such cases, the trigger
is different but a “safety assessment of safety issues” may be
conducted based on the usage and application of similar tools and
principles.

4.4.7.1.7 Assessing the type of safety case needed

4.4.7.1.7.1 To assess the impact on safety of the change, conduct a preliminary

hazard analysis to determine the likely hazards that may arise from the
change.

4.4.7.1.7.2 It is important to assess the level of the safety impact. Determining this
may be accomplished by measuring the impact in various domains,
such as:
a) operational consequences of the change;
b) operational consequences for external partners;
c) level of new functionality introduced in contrast to the existing
systems;
d) number of technical systems affected by the change;
e) amount of training or amount of additional staffing needed; and
f) complexity of the transition from the existing system.

4.4.7.2 Implication of safety in the flight procedure design process

4.4.7.2.1 It is impossible for an individual to possess the background and an

entire understanding of all the criteria contained in the relevant ICAO
and/or CAAP documentation. For this reason, it should be accepted
that the criteria, as long as applied completely in accordance with the
reference material, are safe.

4.4.7.2.2 Safety assessments for the FPD should therefore focus on two main
elements. These are:
a) application of methods for the design of a flight procedure, looking
at the methods from the reception of the requests, the application
of the criteria, the handling of data throughout the process, the
design aspects, including cross-checking, the publication process,
etc.; and
b) the implementation of a procedure, looking at the interface with
other procedures available in that location, the complexity and the
workload imposed on ATC, cockpit workload, flyability, etc.

4.4.7.2.3 The overall aim should be to address the following five (5) safety
assurance goals:
a) show that the underlying concept of the whole procedure is
intrinsically safe — i.e. that it is capable of satisfying the safety

1st Edition 4-28 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 4 – FLIGHT PROCEDURE QUALITY ASSURANCE
SYSTEM
criteria, assuming that a suitable design could be produced — and
what the key parameters are that make it so;
b) show that everything necessary to achieve a safe implementation
of the procedure — related to equipment, people and airspace
design issues — has been specified;
c) the design is correct — meaning, for example, that:
i) the design is internally coherent — It is consistent in
functionality (in equipment, procedures and human tasks),
and in use of data, throughout the system;
ii) all reasonably foreseeable normal operational conditions
have been identified, including such elements as adjacent
procedures and airspace; and
iii) the design is capable of meeting the safety criteria under all
reasonably foreseeable normal operational conditions/range
of inputs (in the absence of failure);
d) show that the design is robust — meaning that:
i) the system can react safely to all reasonably foreseeable
external failures; and
ii) the system can react safely to all other reasonably
foreseeable abnormal conditions in its environment;
e) show that the risks due to internal failure have been mitigated
sufficiently such that, overall, the safety criteria are still satisfied.
This typically needs to show that:
i) all reasonably foreseeable hazards not directly linked to the
safety case but possibly impacting the safety case have been
identified (e.g. loss of communication, loss of navigational
capabilities);
ii) the severity of the effects from each hazard has been
correctly assessed, taking account of any mitigations that
may be available / could be provided external to the system;
iii) safety objectives have been set for each hazard such that the
corresponding aggregate risk is within the specified safety
criteria;
iv) all reasonably foreseeable causes of each hazard have been
identified;
v) safety requirements have been specified (or assumptions
stated) for the causes of each hazard, taking account of any
mitigations that are/could be available internal to the system,
such that the safety objectives are satisfied; and
vi) those safety requirements are realistic — i.e. they are
capable of being satisfied in a typical implementation of
aircraft and ground equipment, people and procedures.

4.4.7.3 Safety implications for new procedures

New IFPs may be designed in accordance with the reference

documentation and be, as a stand-alone procedure, fully acceptable
with respect to the target level of safety. The publication of a new IFP

March 2022 4-29 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 4 – FLIGHT PROCEDURE QUALITY ASSURANCE
SYSTEM
SYSTEM and its implementation in the existing ATM environment might trigger
safety issues. These safety issues should be considered and
adequately mitigated prior to the operational use.

4.4.7.4 Safety team

The safety assessment should not be performed by a sole individual,

but should ideally be conducted by a team comprised of all relevant
stakeholders. This allows consideration of the full implications of all
interactions and possible hazards resulting from the operational use of
a procedure. Normally, safety studies should not be led by the designer,
but they can be the one in-charge of organizing or convening such an
activity.

The designer is normally an active participant in the creation of the

safety documentation.

4.4.8 CONDUCT GROUND VALIDATION AND CRITERIA VERIFICATION

(STEP 8)

4.4.8.1 Prior to the ground validation, a designer (can be a designer from

another organization) who was not involved in the original design
should perform a review of the procedure (Criteria Verification). This
review of the FPD may be done by sampling or by a complete review
based on complexity and downstream verification and validation
processes. It should include a review of the subjective logic employed
by the procedure designer. The use of independent methods and tools
adds to the verification effectiveness.

4.4.8.2 The purpose of criteria verification is to ensure the IFP design is

complete and correct.

4.4.8.3 The verification should contain both;

a) a review of the design criteria that were used;
i) Confirm correct application of criteria,
ii) Confirm data accuracy and integrity,
iii) Verify the graphical procedure lay-out and the textual
description of the procedure,
iv) Conform the procedure is correctly coded (if applicable),
b) an assessment of the subjective logic of the designed IFP (the IFP
designer “choices”).

4.4.8.4 The “verifier” designer should endorse the IFP design technical report.

4.4.8.5 Validation is the necessary final quality assurance step in the procedure
design process (FPD), prior to publication. The purpose of validation is
to verify all obstacle and navigation data, and assess the flyability of the
procedure. Validation normally consists of ground validation and flight
validation. Ground validation must always be undertaken as arranged
by the designer. When CAAP can verify, by ground validation, the
accuracy and completeness of all obstacle and navigation data
considered in the procedure design, and any other factors normally

1st Edition 4-30 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 4 – FLIGHT PROCEDURE QUALITY ASSURANCE
SYSTEM
considered in the flight validation, then the flight validation requirement
may be dispensed with.
Note. - Obstacle and navigation data verified by CAAP may be in the
form of recently updated AIP and duly signed Airfield Update Reports
as attested by data owners (i.e. aerodrome operator, ADMS Survey
Team, CNS service provider) thoroughly reviewed and endorsed by
AANSOO for publication.

4.4.8.6 Ground validation is a review of the entire instrument flight procedure

package by a person or persons trained in procedure design and with
appropriate knowledge of flight validation issues. It is meant to catch
errors in criteria and documentation, and evaluate on the ground, to the
extent possible, those elements that will be evaluated in a flight
validation. Issues identified in the ground validation should be
addressed prior to any flight validation.

4.4.8.7 The ground validation will also determine if flight validation is needed
for modifications and amendments to previously published procedures.
The ground validation should also:
a) Review IFP design outputs:
i) Obstacle data,
ii) Navigation data to be published / airport infrastructure,
iii) ARINC 424 data and coding proposal,
iv) Flyability of the trajectories,
v) Charting information,
vi) Operational characteristics and minima (wind, speed, bank
angles, gradients…), and
vii) Crew training or aircraft equipment requirements;
b) compare the intended use of the IFP to the initial stakeholder
expectations and to the conceptual design; and
c) consider the outcome of the safety activities in regards to correct
application.

4.4.8.8 Ground validation may include the use of desktop simulation tools
and/or require the use of flight simulators. For RNP AR designs, the use
of flight simulator prior to the actual flight validation is a must.

4.4.8.9 Flight validation should be conducted if:

a) the flyability of a procedure cannot be determined by other
means;
b) the procedure requires mitigation for deviations from design
criteria;
c) the accuracy and/or integrity of obstacle and terrain data cannot
be determined by other means;
d) the new IFP differs significantly from existing IFPs;
e) the IFP is RNP AR;

March 2022 4-31 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 4 – FLIGHT PROCEDURE QUALITY ASSURANCE
SYSTEM
SYSTEM f) the IFP is Helicopter PinS; and
g) required by CAAP (see 4.4.11).

4.4.8.10 Should flight validation be found necessary, the result of ground

validation including identified issues that may affect the conduct of flight
validation must be communicated with the flight validation pilot/ team
so as to provide insights on what to expect during the actual flight
validation.
Note. - Data validation and the documentation of the validation
methodology are normally documented and stored as a quality record.

4.4.8.11 The results of the validation can trigger changes to the initial design.
The changes can be communicated to the original designer for review
and incorporation, or, the verifier may make the changes and submit
them to the designer for verification. It is important that any changes
made are clearly documented and traceable.

4.4.8.12 Chapter 5 of this MOS provides a more detailed description of the

processes involved in validation of instrument flight procedures.

4.4.9 CONDUCT FLIGHT VALIDATION AND DATA VERIFICATION (STEP

9)

4.4.9.1 Flight inspection and flight validation

4.4.9.1.1 For the purposes of quality assurance in the procedure design process,
flight inspection and flight validation are separate activities that, if
required, may or may not be accomplished by the same entity. Flight
inspection is conducted with the purpose of confirming the ability of the
navigation aid(s) upon which the procedure is based to support the
procedure in accordance with the standards in CAR-ANS Part 10 —
Aeronautical Telecommunications and guidance in the Manual on the
Testing of Radio Navigation Aids (ICAO Doc 8071). Flight validation is
concerned with factors, other than the performance of the navigation
aid, that may affect the suitability of the procedure for publication.

4.4.9.1.2 The PDSP does not normally have the expertise necessary to
determine under which conditions flight inspection and/or flight
validation may be necessary. CAAP is responsible for the overall
performance of the procedure, as well as for the quality and suitability
of the procedure for publication. For this reason, CAAP, may require a
review of the procedure by the FICG or other flight inspection and flight
validation organizations as part of the procedure design approval
process. This function can also be accomplished during the ground
validation if the personnel performing the ground validation are suitably
qualified to make determinations concerning flight inspection and/or
flight validation requirements. FVPs may participate in the conduct of
ground validation as much as IFP designer can participate to the flight
validation/inspection activities.

4.4.9.1.3 Chapter 5 of this MOS provides a more detailed description of the

processes involved in validation of instrument flight procedures.

1st Edition 4-32 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 4 – FLIGHT PROCEDURE QUALITY ASSURANCE
SYSTEM
4.4.9.1.4 Personnel performing flight inspection duties should be qualified and
certified in accordance with applicable ICAO Doc 8071, Volume I,
Testing of Ground-Based Radio Navigation Systems. 3.6 of this MOS
contains the prescribed minimum qualifications, competency and
training requirements for flight validation pilots, including those flight
inspection pilots that perform flight validation of IFPs. 3.6 of this MOS
also contains the establish standards for the required competency for
flight validation pilots. Appendix 5 contains qualifications and training,
as well as guidance concerning the skills, knowledge and attitudes
(SKA) to be addressed in training and evaluation of flight validation
pilots.

4.4.9.2 Data verification

4.4.9.2.1 Where the FPD involves a complex new procedure or a significant

change to existing procedures/routes in a complex airspace, CAAP
should liaise with the major commercial navigation datahouses prior to
promulgation.

4.4.9.2.2 This liaison should provide the datahouses with additional advance
notice of the proposed changes and should allow them to review the
proposed procedures, clarify any outstanding questions and advise
CAAP of any technical issues that may be identified.

4.4.9.2.3 Advanced notification of procedures should contain the following

elements:
a) graphical layout of the procedure;
b) textual description of the procedure;
c) coding advice, when applicable; and
d) coordinates of fixes used in the procedure.

4.4.10 CONSULT WITH STAKEHOLDERS (STEP 10)

4.4.10.1 At this stage of the development, all stakeholders should be consulted

to get their opinion on the proposed procedure. Gathering their input at
this stage allows the creation of a statement on the fulfilment of the
initially agreed requirements.

4.4.10.2 At this stage, those areas of specific competency that the PDSP does
not possess should be validated by the stakeholders competent in that
domain. A written statement from those entities, or other proof of
concurrence (duly signed minutes of meetings by those entities, emails,
etc.) will serve for the approval process of the IFP.

4.4.11 APPROVE IFP (STEP 11)

4.4.11.1 Procedure approval is not the same as operational approval. AANSOO

is the office delegated by CAAP to process the approval of IFPs to
ensure the that the procedure is quality assured and can safely be
integrated in the ATM or aerodrome environment. Whereas, the FSIS
oversees operational approval to ensure that the aircraft and its flight
crew is qualified to fly the procedure.

March 2022 4-33 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 4 – FLIGHT PROCEDURE QUALITY ASSURANCE
SYSTEM
SYSTEM
4.4.11.2 The IFP must be approved by CAAP, prior to publication and use. The
approval process is meant to ensure that all the appropriate steps within
the IFP process have been completed, documented and signed off by
the competent authority.

4.4.11.3 Approval of the IFP is a formal decision of CAAP that endorses not just
the overall implementation process but also the following “control steps”
contained within the process ensuring that performance does not
deviate from standards:
a) set standards;
b) measure performance;
c) compare performance to standards;
d) determine the reasons for deviations; and then
e) take corrective action as needed.

4.4.11.4 AANSOO validates the “completeness” of the IFP implementation

process through a high-level verification process ensuring that the
documents are duly signed and that they correspond to what they are
meant to be.
a) Approval/ order to proceed;
b) Stakeholders acceptance of the conceptual design;
c) IFP design report;
d) Signature of validator who is a designer not involved in the design
project or signed ground validation reports;
e) Flight validation reports;
f) Safety assessment;
g) Stakeholders endorsement of the design intended for approval;
h) Graphical procedure lay-out;
i) Textual description of the procedure; and
j) coding proposal (if applicable).

4.4.11.6 Verification by AANSOO does not focus on the substance of these

documents, but more on the veracity that the processes involved in the
development and maintenance of an IFP have been conducted by the
appropriate qualified and competent staff. See Appendix 2 – “IFP
Quality Assurance Checklist” for the checklist employed by AANSOO
in performing tasks related to IFP approval.

4.4.11.7 The PANS-OPS safety inspectors may participate in any or all activities
in the process as deemed necessary by AANSOO, or as requested by
a stakeholder. Further, the PANS-OPS safety inspectors may conduct
its own criteria verification, ground validation and/or employ the
services of an FVSP to verify validation reports submitted by the PDSP
as part of their tasks related to CAAP approval obligations.

4.4.12 CREATE DRAFT PUBLICATION (STEP 12)

1st Edition 4-34 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 4 – FLIGHT PROCEDURE QUALITY ASSURANCE
SYSTEM
4.4.12.1 This step commences when the IFP is approved by the DG or an
endorsement from AANSOO is received to proceed with the creation of
draft publication.

4.4.12.2 At this stage of the process, all the elements for the draft publication
are available.

4.4.12.3 IFP designer forwards the following items produced during the design:
a) A procedure lay-out or draft of the chart to be published or
b) at least the data to be published;
i) Drawing of the IFP,
ii) Obstacle/terrain,
iii) Navaids/Comms,
iv) Textual information,
v) Coding tables (if applicable),
vi) List of points (waypoints/ reporting points) and coordinates,
vii) Restrictions/ requirements and additional ATC procedures,
and
viii) Other pertinent data to be published.

4.4.12.4 The AIS or charting group develops the chart taking into account all
relevant requirements for the safe operation of the procedure.

4.4.12.5 The charting must comply with CAR-ANS Part 4. Additional

requirements valid for CAAP in which the procedure is to be
implemented should also be considered.

4.4.13 VERIFY DRAFT PUBLICATION (STEP 13)

4.4.13.1 The draft of the new chart developed by the AIS should also be
submitted to all stakeholders, particularly the designer and the
procedure owner. Once all corrections, comments and suggestions
solicited from the stakeholders, the designer and the procedure owner
are aggregated, the drafting of the final chart for publication can
proceed in consideration of the corrections, comments and
suggestions.

4.4.13.2 The designer has to cross-check the final draft of the instrument flight
procedure chart must be verified as to completeness and correctness.
It is recognized that this may be considered an AIS responsibility also.
Note. - AANSOO may participate in this activity for any regulatory
clarifications that may be raised.

4.4.14 PUBLISH IFP (STEP 14)

4.4.14.1 The stakeholders should also receive a copy of the draft publication at
this stage to facilitate the data integration and packing while the AIRAC
publication process is being implemented.

March 2022 4-35 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 4 – FLIGHT PROCEDURE QUALITY ASSURANCE
SYSTEM
SYSTEM
4.4.14.2 Publication will be in accordance to applicable exiting national
regulations.

4.4.15 OBTAIN FEEDBACK FROM STAKEHOLDERS (STEP 15)

4.4.15.1 CAAP enjoins stakeholders (datahouses, ATC and pilots) to forward

feedback on the actual use of the IFP via the formal correspondence
(mail or e-mail) to the following addresses:
a) ATMSID-AANSOO, CAAP, Old MIA Road, Pasay City, 1300,
Philippines; or
b) atmid.caap.gov.ph; or
c) Stakeholders may also provide feedback regarding published
aeronautical information through the Philippine AIS HELPDESK:
AIS HELPDESK AIS Operations
Postal Address Ground Floor Philippine Air Traffic
Management Center, Civil Aviation
Authority of the Philippines, MIA Road,
Pasay City 1300, Philippines
Telephone (632) 8672-7710, 8672-7782, 8672-7785
Fax (632) 8672-7783
Hours of Operation H24
AFTN RPLLYOYX
Official E-mail Addresses phil.aisops@gmail.com (Primary)

4.4.15.2 PDSPs are advised to communicate the above information to the

stakeholders.

4.4.15.3 CAAP appreciates any feedback from these stakeholders and shall
treat it as particularly relevant.

4.4.15.4 CAAP also enjoins the PDSPs to conduct regular meetings and/or
consultation (questionnaires) with stakeholders for the purpose of
soliciting feedbacks regarding use of an IFP. Feedbacks solicited thru
these means shall be forwarded to CAAP in the same manner
described in 4.4.15.1.

4.4.15.5 In addition, CAAP gathers feedbacks regarding use of an IFP thru

safety reports (mandatory or voluntary).

4.4.15.6 Feedback from stakeholders directly forwarded to CAAP shall be

communicated to the concerned PDSP management. The
management of the PDSP should then analyze the feedback. Elements
that generate positive feedback should be considered for other
procedures. Negative feedback should be evaluated. Any problems
encountered or implementation issues identified should be carefully
assessed with the procedure designers so that corrective action can be
initiated as appropriate. The corrective action can range from minor
corrections to the publication to a complete revision of the procedure.

1st Edition 4-36 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 4 – FLIGHT PROCEDURE QUALITY ASSURANCE
SYSTEM
4.4.15.7 Any decision/action by the PDSP management brought about by the
feedback from stakeholders shall be documented and advised to
AANSOO.

4.4.16 CONDUCT CONTINUOUS MAINTENANCE (STEP 16)

4.4.16.1 Continuous maintenance of the procedure shall be the joint

responsibility of all the stakeholders concerned such as ADMS, ATS,
CNS, AIS, Aerodrome Operators, etc., the PDSPs (as determined and
notified by AIS) ensure that significant changes to obstacles,
aerodrome, aeronautical and navaid data are assessed for their impact
on the IFP. If action is required, return to Step 1 to reinitiate the process.

4.4.16.2 An authorized designer’s responsibility for maintaining an IFP as

designed under the designer’s certificate of authorization or as
delegated by CAAP in the case of AFPDD shall be in accordance to the
processes and requirements stipulated. Herein, unless stipulated under
CAR-ANS Part 16, 16.21.4.

4.4.16.3 Criteria changes are assessed only if required or during the next
periodic review. Criteria changes may also be considered in cases
where there would be a significant advantage to the user.

4.4.16.4 The airport or aerodrome authority takes responsibility for updating

relevant data (e.g. aerodrome data) and the protection of the Obstacle
Limitation Surfaces (OLS). When there is new or updated data or when
the OLS are infringed, close cooperation with the Aeronautical
Information Services (AIS) and designer for obstacle assessment on
the IFP is needed. It is important to set up an agreement for relevant
airport/obstacle data to be provided to the procedure designer. In the
case where an obstacle will not infringe OLS surfaces, the procedure
designer should also conduct an obstacle assessment to ensure that
the procedures will not be affected.

4.4.16.5 Continuous maintenance of the procedure shall be the joint

responsibility of all the stakeholders concerned such as ADMS, ATS,
CNS, AIS, aerodrome operators, air operators, etc. It is also vital that
agreements between the PDSPs and the other stakeholders be
developed to ensure that significant changes and safety issues
encountered during implementation of an IFP be provided to the PDSP
responsible for the particular IFP.

4.4.16.6 The review of IFP during this step focuses only on a relevant particular
part of the IFP.

4.4.16.7 Maintenance differs from the periodic review as it has no specific time
for implementation, but rather is triggered for specific reason, such as
but not limited to:
a) Feedback from users/stakeholders (see 4.4.15);
b) ATS wants modified trajectories for flow segregation and other
ATC concerns;
c) Pilots not satisfied with final approach gradient;

March 2022 4-37 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 4 – FLIGHT PROCEDURE QUALITY ASSURANCE
SYSTEM
SYSTEM d) Design criteria update/modification that is safety critical and there
is significant advantage to the user;
e) Change in input data with safety critical impact;
f) Change in length of runway;
g) Change in PAPI slope; and
h) Others.

4.4.16.8 Basically, amendment or a redesign of an IFP may be implemented if

there is immediate need, otherwise, amendment or redesign of an IFP
may be initiated after the periodic review (4.4.17) to allow more
accurate and updated data to come in therefore waste of efforts and
resources can be avoided.

4.4.17 CONDUCT PERIODIC REVIEW (STEP 17)

4.4.17.1 In accordance to 1.8, the PDSPs should review the IFPs they
developed and are tasked to maintain. The PDSPs should ensure that
all changes to obstacles, aerodrome, aeronautical and navaid data,
changes to criteria, user requirements and depiction standards are
assessed. If action is required, return to Step 1 to reinitiate the process.

4.4.17.2 An authorized designer’s responsibility for periodic review of an IFP

under the designer’s certificate of authorization or as delegated by
CAAP in the case of AFPDD is designated to the PDSP in charge of
the initial design or latest amendment thereto in accordance to the
processes and requirements stipulated herein, unless in the evet
specified under CAR-ANS Part 16, 16.22.4.

4.4.17.3 It is important to note that the IFP process, as such, does not have an
“end” box. The quality process extends over the entire life cycle of the
procedure. When the procedure is decommissioned, specific activities
are needed to allow the withdrawal of an active procedure.

4.4.17.4 The quality assurance activities can be discontinued when the

procedure has been removed from the publications and is no longer
available for operation.

4.4.17.5 It is required to keep the quality assurance documentation for at least

five (5) more years to allow traceability for later purposes.

4.4.17.6 CAAP through AANSOO’s oversight activities will verify that this step is
being implemented.
Note. – See also 3.4.2.

1st Edition 4-38 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 5 – VALIDATION OF INSTRUMENT FLIGHT
PROCEDURES
CHAPTER 5

VALIDATION OF INSTRUMENT FLIGHT PROCEDURES

5.1 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE

5.1.1 The purpose of validation is to obtain a qualitative assessment of

procedure design including obstacle, terrain and navigation data, and
provide an assessment of flyability of the procedure so as to ensure a
proper standard for all publications.

5.1.2 The objective of conducting validation is to ensure safety, data

accuracy and integrity and flyability of the instrument flight procedure.
The validation process applies to fixed wing and helicopter instrument
flight procedures.

5.2 VALIDATION PROCESS

5.2.1 The full validation process includes ground validation and flight
validation.

5.2.2 Ground validation must always be undertaken. It encompasses a

systematic review of the steps and calculations involved in the
procedure design as well as the impact on flight operations by the
procedure. It must be performed by a person(s) trained in flight
procedure design and with appropriate knowledge of flight validation
issues.

5.2.3 Ground validation consists of an independent IFP design review and

a pre-flight validation. Flight validation consists of a flight simulator
evaluation and an evaluation flown in an aircraft. An overview of the
necessary steps in the validation process can be found in Figure 5-1.
The validation process of IFP(s) must be carried out as part of the
initial IFP design as well as an amendment to an existing IFP.

5.2.4 When CAAP can verify, by ground validation, the accuracy and
completeness of all obstacle and navigation data considered in the
procedure design, and any other factors normally considered in the
flight validation, then the flight validation requirement may be
dispensed with.
Note. - Obstacle and navigation data verified by CAAP may be in the
form of recently updated AIP and duly signed Airfield Update Reports
as attested by data owners (i.e. aerodrome operator, ADMS Survey
Team, CNS service provider) thoroughly reviewed and endorsed by
AANSOO for publication.

5.2.5 Flight validation is required under the following conditions:

a) the flyability of a procedure cannot be determined by other
means;
b) the procedure requires mitigation for deviations from design
criteria;

March 2022 5-1 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 5 – VALIDATION OF INSTRUMENT FLIGHT
PROCEDURES
FUNCTION c) the accuracy and/or integrity of obstacle and terrain data cannot
be determined by other means;
d) the new IFP differs significantly from existing IFPs;
e) the IFP is RNP AR;
f) the IFP is Helicopter PinS; and
g) required by CAAP (see 4.4.11).

5.2.6 The validation process flow diagram in the context of the flight
procedure design process is as follows:

Figure 5-1. Validation process flow chart

5.3 VALIDATION REPORT AND DOCUMENTATION

5.3.1 As part of the flight procedure design documentation, a validation

report should be completed at the end of the process including reports
of individual steps performed. The minimum requirements are the:
a) name and signature of the validation experts (flight procedure
designer and/or flight validation pilot),

1st Edition 5-2 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 5 – VALIDATION OF INSTRUMENT FLIGHT
PROCEDURES
b) date,
c) activities performed,
d) type of simulator or aircraft,
e) any findings and flight validation pilot comments and operational
recommendations.

5.3.2 If a flight validation is performed, a printed graphic and/or electronic

file of sufficient detail that depicts the flight track flown must be
included in the report. Such a file should show procedure fixes, the
maximum and minimum altitude, ground speed, climb rate and climb
gradient and a comparison of the actual track flown with the desired
track of the instrument flight procedure.

5.4 VALIDATION PROCESS DESCRIPTION

Phase STEP 1 Conduct Independent IFP Design Review

Ground Description Review of the IFP design package by a flight procedure
Validation designer other than the one who designed the procedure.
 Confirm correct application of criteria
 Confirm data accuracy and integrity
 Verify mitigations for deviations from design criteria
 Verify draft chart is provided and correct
 Confirm correct FMS behavior through the use of
desktop simulation tools (if required)
 Perform obstacle assessment for cases where
obstacle/terrain data accuracy and integrity cannot be
guaranteed (if required) (see Appendix 9)
Input Detailed report of IFP design
Output Approval to proceed forward in the validation process
Parties  Flight procedure designer
Involved  Any other appropriate stakeholder, such as:
 FVP
 ARINC 424 database coder
 Airports
 Airspace designers
Quality GV report
Records
References  ICAO Doc 8168, Volumes. I and II
 CAR-ANS Parts 4, 10, 11, 15, CAR Aerodromes
 PCAR Part 8
 ICAO Doc 9368
 ARINC 424
 This MOS
 AIP Philippines
 Applicable CAAP regulations
Phase STEP 2 Conduct Pre-Flight Validation
Ground Description Determination of impact of IFP on flight operations by a
Validation person(s) with appropriate knowledge of flight validation
issues (best practice: flight validation pilot). The goal of PV is
to familiarize and identify potential issues in the procedure

March 2022 5-3 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 5 – VALIDATION OF INSTRUMENT FLIGHT
PROCEDURES
FUNCTION design from a flight operational perspective. The necessary
further steps in the validation process are determined.
 Inventory and review IFP package
 Evaluate ARINC 424 data and coding
 Review special operational and training requirements
 Coordinate operational issues
 Determine required further steps in the validation
process
Input  IFP package including:
 IFP graphical depiction
 Submission forms
 Charts/ maps
 Flight inspection records for navaids/sensors used in
the development of IFP
 Safety assessment report as applicable
Output  Approval to proceed with the validation process. If
correction is required, return IFP to designer to
reinitiate validation process after correction.
 Determination of further steps in the validation
process
 Crew and required aircraft scheduling
 Determination of required weather minima and
navaids to proceed to FV
 Determination of FI requirements in conjunction to FV
 Determination of simulator evaluation requirements
 Input to final safety assessment report as applicable
Parties  FVP
Involved  Flight procedure designer
 Any other appropriate stakeholder, such as:
 ATC
 Airports
 Flight inspection/validation service provider
Quality PV report
Records
References  CAR-ANS Parts 4, 10, 11, 15, CAR Aerodromes
 PCAR Part 8
 ICAO Doc 8071
 ICAO Doc 8168, Volumes I and II
 Quality Assurance Manual for Flight Procedure Design
(ICAO Doc 9906)
 ARINC 424
 Applicable CAAP regulations
 CAAP forms (see appendices)
Phase STEP 3 Conduct Simulator Evaluation
Flight Description Recommended step for complex procedures or procedures
Validation requiring waiver/mitigation for deviations from design criteria.
 Verify chart depictions and details
 Assess flyability and Human Factors
 Conduct associated validation tasks
 Record flight validation

1st Edition 5-4 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 5 – VALIDATION OF INSTRUMENT FLIGHT
PROCEDURES
 Document the results
Input  IFP graphical depiction
 ARINC 424 IFP database
Output  Flyability validation
 Input to final safety assessment report as applicable
 Recorded data
 Findings and operational mitigations
Parties  FVP
Involved  Flight procedure designer as appropriate
Quality  Flight simulator evaluation report
Records  Findings and operational mitigations
References  Quality Assurance Manual for Flight Procedure Design
(ICAO Doc 9906)
 This MOS
Phase STEP 4 Conduct Flight Evaluation
Flight Description Perform flight evaluation in order to:
Validation  Verify data
 Verify chart depictions and details
 Assess obstacle infrastructure
 Assess airport infrastructure
 Assess flyability and Human Factors
 Conduct associated validation tasks
 Record flight validation
Input  FV package
 SIM evaluation report (if available)
Output  Validated IFP
 Findings and operational mitigations
 Input to final safety assessment report as applicable
 Recorded data
Parties  FVP
Involved  Flight procedure designer as appropriate
Quality  Findings and operational mitigations
Records  Recorded data
References  Manual on Testing of Radio Navigation Aids (ICAO Doc
8071)
 Quality Assurance Manual for Flight Procedure Design
(ICAO Doc 9906)
 CAR-ANS Part 4 and MOS-Aeronautical Charts
 ICAO Doc 8168, Volume II
Phase STEP 5 Produce Validation Report
Ground Description This final step is to assure proper completeness of all forms
Validation and reports to validate the entire FPD package. The validation
report should consist of individual reports of all steps
performed in the validation process.
Input  Findings and operational mitigations
 Recorded data
Output  Validation report
 Flight Inspection report (when performed)

March 2022 5-5 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 5 – VALIDATION OF INSTRUMENT FLIGHT
PROCEDURES
FUNCTION
Parties  FVP and/or
Involved  Flight procedure designer
Quality  GV report
Records  FV report
 Flight inspection report (when performed)
References  Quality Assurance Manual for Flight Procedure Design
(ICAO Doc 9906)
 CAAP forms (see appendices)

5.5 PREPARATION FOR VALIDATION

This section describes various activities that should be performed

prior to the validation process.

5.5.1 Procedure package

5.5.1.1 The procedure package, provided by the procedure design service

provider, must contain the following minimum data in an acceptable
format to conduct a validation.

5.5.1.2 The IFP package includes:

a) IFP summary;
b) proposed instrument procedure chart/depiction of sufficient detail
to safely navigate and identify significant terrain, obstacles and
obstructions;
c) proposed ARINC 424 path terminators (for PBN procedures only);
d) list of relevant obstacles, identification and description of
controlling obstacles and obstacles otherwise influencing the
design of the procedure, waypoint fix lat/long, procedural
tracks/course, distances and altitudes;
e) airport infrastructure information, such as visual aids (ALS,
VASIS);
f) information on aerodrome obstacle limitation/safeguarding
processes applied;
g) any special local operational procedure (e.g., noise abatement,
non-standard traffic patterns, lighting activation);
h) detailed listing of deviations from design criteria and safety
assessment with proposed mitigation;
i) For non-standard IFP: training, operational or equipment
procedure specific requirements; and
j) appropriate validation checklist and report forms.

5.5.2 Flight inspection

Flight inspection may be required to assure that the appropriate

navigation system (radio navigation aid/navigation sensor, GBAS data
broadcast and/or final approach segment (FAS) data) adequately
supports the procedure. Flight inspection is carried out as part of the

1st Edition 5-6 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 5 – VALIDATION OF INSTRUMENT FLIGHT
PROCEDURES
program detailed in ICAO Doc 8071 and CAR-ANS Part 10. Flight
inspection must be performed by a qualified flight inspector using a
suitably equipped aircraft.

5.5.3 Data integrity and ARINC encoding requirements

Flight procedures to be validated should be contained in the suitable

navigation system (i.e. FMS). The procedure may be on a pre-
production custom navigation database. It could be downloaded from
an electronic media with adequate data integrity protection such as
CRC wrapping. If no other means exist manual entry is permissible if
sufficient mitigation means have been considered and implemented.
All procedure coding data must originate from the official data source.

5.5.3.1 Custom navigation database (preferred method)

A navigation database can be customized by an official database

supplier to include procedures for flight validation. A customized
navigation database is the most desirable source because it will
contain a normal operational navigation database and new official
source coded flight procedures for validation/inspection.

The custom navigation database should be updated on a periodic

schedule.

5.5.3.2 Electronic media

Some procedure design tools output an electronic ARINC 424 code

of the final procedure that can be input to commercial aircraft flight
management systems. This process, when used with cyclic
redundancy checks, ensures that the procedure design remains
unchanged through the final production chain thus ensuring a high
degree of data integrity.

5.5.3.3 Manual entry

This method of entry should be limited to LNAV procedures only. It

should be used sparingly and requires additional verification steps to
confirm proper data entry. If the navigation system used allows
manual input of ARINC path/terminators they should be used. It is
recommended that the coded procedure provided by an official
database supplier be used as soon as available, to confirm
appropriate coding prior to public use.

5.6 STEP BY STEP DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE

PROCESS

The validation process consists of two phases, namely; ground

validation and flight validation. Ground validation must always be
performed. Each phase consists of several important steps as
illustrated in Figure 5-1. The following subsections reflect all the steps
of the process flow shown in Figure 5-1 and provide additional
comments and explanations.

5.6.1 Step 1, Conduct Independent Procedure Design Review

March 2022 5-7 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 5 – VALIDATION OF INSTRUMENT FLIGHT
PROCEDURES
FUNCTION
A flight procedure designer other than the one who designed the
procedure must perform this step. The designer can be assisted by
specialists in other fields of expertise as necessary.

5.6.1.1 Confirm correct application of criteria

The use of the correct design criteria in PANS-OPS, Volume II or

ICAO Doc 9905 and their correct application should be assured.
Depending on the complexity and downstream verification and
validation processes involved in the design, this step can be achieved
by assessing and recalculating every single element of the procedure
design or by performing selected checks and calculations as
appropriate.

5.6.1.2 Confirm data accuracy and integrity

The origin of any data (airport data, navigation aids data, waypoints
data, obstacles data, terrain data) should be known. Using data from
a known source usually allows the accuracy and the integrity of the
data to be determined. If data from unknown sources is used or if data
accuracy and/or integrity cannot be adequately determined, the data
should be validated. This can be done through flight validation or
through CAAP-approved ground-based methods (see 5.6.1.6).
Note: - Obstacle and navigation data verified by CAAP may be in the
form of recently updated AIP and duly signed Airfield Update Reports
as attested by data owners (i.e. aerodrome operator, ADMS Survey
Team, CNS service provider) and thoroughly reviewed and endorsed
by AANSOO for publication.

5.6.1.3 Verify mitigations for deviations from design criteria

If deviations from procedure design criteria are used, mitigations must

provide an acceptable level of safety. A flight evaluation should be
performed to verify the acceptability of previously performed safety
studies.

5.6.1.4 Verify a draft chart (if required) is provided and is correct

A draft chart is required to conduct a flight validation. It should be

verified that a draft chart is provided and contains the required
elements to perform the flight validation efficiently.

5.6.1.5 Confirm correct FMS behavior using desktop software simulation tools
(if required)

The correct translation of a procedure into ARINC 424 code can

initially be assessed with a desktop simulation tool. Such tools provide
feedback of the correct selection of ARINC 424 path terminators as
well as any issues with the choice of waypoint positions and segment
lengths (e.g. route discontinuity).

5.6.1.6 Perform obstacle assessment with CAAP-approved ground-based

methods (if required)

1st Edition 5-8 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 5 – VALIDATION OF INSTRUMENT FLIGHT
PROCEDURES

5.6.1.6.1 For cases where obstacle and/or terrain data accuracy and/or integrity
cannot be guaranteed, ground-based obstacle assessment methods
can provide an alternative to an assessment with an aircraft. Ground-
based methods acceptable to CAAP includes on-site obstacle survey
using industrial-grade handheld GPS and range finders with vertical
accuracy of at least ± 3meters and lateral accuracy of at least ± 3meter
under ideal conditions. The use of drones is encouraged, provided,
the drone operation is conducted in accordance to CAAP regulations
on the use of RPAS. The ground validation report should include, the
individual/ group who conducted the on-site survey, their signatures,
the findings of the activity, a description of the methodology employed
with the accuracy specifications of the equipment used.

5.6.1.6.2 Contracting of surveyors, geodetic engineers are also accepted, as

long as the designer or the verifier of the IFP is present during the
surveying activity to ensure that the correct areas of concern are
properly assessed for completeness and correctness of obstacle data.

5.6.2 Step 2, Conduct Pre-Flight Validation

Pre-flight validation must be conducted by a person(s) trained in flight

procedure design and with appropriate knowledge of flight validation
issues. This may be a joint activity by flight procedure designers and
pilots. The pre-flight validation should identify the impact of a flight
procedure to flight operations, and any issues identified should be
addressed prior to the flight validation. The pre-flight validation
determines the subsequent steps in the validation process.

5.6.2.1 Conduct inventory and review IFP package

The person(s) performing the pre-flight validation must ensure that the
IFP documentation is complete and all necessary charts, data and
forms are available. As a minimum, the following tasks must be
performed:
a) Ensure completeness of package (all forms, files and data
included) as described in 5.5.1 of this MOS.
b) Ensure charts and maps are available in sufficient detail for
assessment of the IFP during the FV.
c) Familiarize with target population of the procedure (e.g. aircraft
categories, type of operation).
d) Discuss the procedure package with the procedure designer, as
necessary.
e) Verify procedure graphics and data match.
f) Compare the IFP design, coding and relevant charting
information against the navigation database used for flight
validation.
g) Verify that controlling obstacles and obstacles otherwise
influencing the design of the procedure are properly identified.
h) Review airport infrastructure and special airport regulations.

March 2022 5-9 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 5 – VALIDATION OF INSTRUMENT FLIGHT
PROCEDURES
FUNCTION i) Review the navigation infrastructure used by the procedure.
j) Review pertinent flight inspection documentation, if required.

5.6.2.2 Evaluate data and coding

5.6.2.2.1 For an IFP based on area navigation, the true course to next waypoint,
distances, and altitudes that reflect the flight procedure design must
be verified. Leg segment data accuracy must be evaluated by
comparison of the procedural waypoint data to the flight plan waypoint
data.

5.6.2.2.2 When evaluating CF legs or holding legs (HM, HF, HA), aircraft
navigation performance with the instrument procedure design must be
compared. Any tolerance to course-to-fix values cannot be applied.
Confirmation of proper ARINC coding must be accomplished with
either an appropriately equipped aircraft, or by a desktop evaluation
of the current navigation database.

5.6.2.2.3 Out-of-tolerance values or questionable ARINC 424 coding must be

resolved.

5.6.2.2.4 For an IFP based on ground-based navigation aids, the course,

distances, and the FPA indicated on the IFP depiction and submission
form of the procedure design should be verified. Where positive
course guidance is required by the IFP design, it must be confirmed
that the performance of navigation aids meets all required flight
inspection tolerances in conjunction with the flight validation.

5.6.2.2.5 Steps to evaluate data and coding:

a) Prepare loadable data and coding.
b) Compare true courses and distances for segments between data
file and procedural data.
c) Compare ARINC 424 coding for legs and path terminators
between data file and procedural data.

5.6.2.2.6 Where the flight procedure design involves a complex new procedure
or a significant change to existing procedures/routes in a complex
airspace, CAAP shall liaise with the major commercial navigation data
houses prior to promulgation. This liaison should provide the data
houses with additional advance notice of the proposed changes and
should allow them to review the proposed procedures, clarify any
outstanding questions and advise CAAP of any technical issues that
may be identified. Advance notification of procedures should contain
the following elements:
a) graphical layout of the procedure;
b) textual description of the procedure;
c) coding advice, when applicable; and
d) coordinates of fixes used in the procedure.

5.6.2.3 Review special operational and training requirements

1st Edition 5-10 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 5 – VALIDATION OF INSTRUMENT FLIGHT
PROCEDURES
a) Review deviations from criteria and equivalent level of safety
provided by waivers/mitigations.
b) Review safety case supporting the waiver/mitigation.
c) Assess restricted procedures for special training and equipment
requirements.

5.6.2.4 Document the results of the pre-flight validation

a) Determine if flight inspection is necessary.
b) Determine need for flight simulator evaluation, especially where
there are special or unique design considerations.
c) Determine need for flight evaluation in the aircraft, especially
where there are special or unique design considerations, when
accuracy/integrity of data used in the IFP design and/or the
aerodrome environment is not assured.
d) Record specific additional actions required in a flight validation (if
required).

5.6.2.4.1 A flight validation (simulator and/or aircraft as required) is required

when conditions listed under 5.2 exists.

5.6.2.4.2 However, a flight evaluation is required in the following cases:

a) procedures where runway or landing location infrastructure have
not been previously assessed in flight for instrument operations;
and
b) as determined by CAAP.
i) Provide a detailed written report of the results of the pre-
flight validation. (See Appendix 6 for fixed wing sample
report forms. See Appendix 7 for helicopter sample report
forms.)

5.6.2.5 Coordinate operational issues (if flight evaluation is required)

a) Consideration should be given to temperature and wind
limitations, air speeds, bank, angles, climb/descent gradients,
etc.
b) Determine aircraft and equipment required to complete the flight
validation of the IFP.
c) Determine airport infrastructure and navigation aid/sensor
availability.
d) Check weather minima and visibility required for the flight
validation. Initial assessment must be conducted in daylight
conditions in VMC in each segment with visibility requirements
sufficient to perform obstacle assessment.
e) Assess the need for a night evaluation in the case of at least one
of the following circumstances:
i) IFP developed for airport with no prior IFR procedures;

March 2022 5-11 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 5 – VALIDATION OF INSTRUMENT FLIGHT
PROCEDURES
FUNCTION ii) IFP to newly constructed runways or to runways lengthened
or shortened;
iii) addition or reconfiguration of lights to an existing system
already approved for IFR operations; and
iv) circling procedures intended for night use.
f) Coordinate with ATS and other stakeholders, in accordance with
the instrument flight procedure process.

5.6.3 Step 3, Conduct Simulator Evaluation

5.6.3.1 A simulator evaluation must be accomplished by a qualified and

experienced flight validation pilot (FVP), certified or approved by
CAAP.

5.6.3.2 To provide an initial evaluation of database coding, flyability, and to

provide feedback to the procedure designers, a simulator assessment
might be necessary. Simulator evaluation must not be used for
obstacle assessment. Preparation for the simulator evaluation should
include a comprehensive plan with description of the conditions to be
evaluated, profiles to be flown and objectives to be achieved. A review
of the results of the simulator evaluations should be completed before
the flight evaluation.

5.6.3.3 The simulator used, should be suitable for the validation tasks to be
performed. For complex or special procedures where simulator
evaluation is desired, the evaluation should be flown in a simulator,
which matches the procedure requirements. When the procedure is
designed for a specific aircraft model or series and specific FMS and
software, the simulator evaluation should be flown in a simulator with
the same configuration used by the operator in daily operations.

5.6.3.4 Required navigation performance authorization required (RNP AR)

IFP(s) must always undergo simulator evaluation.

5.6.3.5 Simulator steps:

a) Evaluate the suitability of simulator equipment
i) FMS and avionics.
ii) Simulator type and/or category.
b) Conduct simulator evaluation
i) Evaluate flyability.
ii) Evaluate database coding and accuracy.
iii) Verify that waivers/mitigations for deviations from design
criteria do not compromise safety.
iv) Where permitted by the simulator, evaluate any other
factors (such as wind, temperature, barometric pressure
etc.) that may be pertinent to the safety of the procedure.
c) Document the results of the simulator evaluation

1st Edition 5-12 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 5 – VALIDATION OF INSTRUMENT FLIGHT
PROCEDURES
i) Assess whether the IFP is ready for further processing in
the validation process.
ii) Provide a detailed written report of the results of the
simulator evaluation.

5.6.3.6 Assess flyability and human factor

5.6.3.6.1 To assess the flyability and human factor issues, at least one on-
course/on-path of the proposed procedure in an appropriate aircraft
capable of conducting the procedure should be flown. If different
minima are provided for the same final segment (e.g. LNAV,
LNAV/VNAV, LPV), the evaluation of the final segment must be
accomplished on separate runs. See Appendix 8 for more detailed
Human Factors information.

5.6.3.6.2 The objectives of flyability assessment of instrument flight procedures

are:
a) evaluate aircraft maneuvering areas for safe operations for each
category of aircraft for which the procedure is intended; and
b) review the flyability of the instrument procedure as follows:
i) Fly each segment of the IFP on-course and on-path.
ii) Validate the intended use of IFP as defined by stakeholders
and described in the conceptual design.
iii) Evaluate other operational factors, such as charting,
required infrastructure, visibility, intended aircraft
categories, etc.
v) iEvaluate the aircraft maneuvering area for safe operations
for each category of aircraft to use the IFP.
v) Evaluate turn anticipation and the relationship to standard
rate turns and bank angle limits.
vi) Evaluate the IFP complexity, required cockpit workload,
and any unique requirements.
vii) Check that waypoint spacing and segment length are
suitable for aircraft performance.
viii) Check distance to runway at decision altitude/height or
minimum descent altitude/height that are likely to be applied
by operators and evaluate the ability to execute a landing
with normal maneuvering.
ix) Evaluate required climb or descent gradients, if any.
x) Evaluate the proposed charting for correctness, clarity, and
ease of interpretation.
xi) Evaluate TAWS warnings.

5.6.3.6.3 The flyability assessment must be flown at speeds and aircraft

configurations consistent with the normal instrument flight rules (IFR)
operations and meet the design intent (aircraft category). The final
approach fix to threshold of an instrument approach procedure must
be flown in the landing configuration, on profile, on speed with the

March 2022 5-13 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 5 – VALIDATION OF INSTRUMENT FLIGHT
PROCEDURES
FUNCTION Terrain Awareness Warning System (TAWS) active. Flyability should
be evaluated with the simulator/aircraft coupled to the autopilot (to the
extent allowed by the aircraft flight manual or SOP(s)) and may require
additional evaluation by hand flying.

5.6.3.6.4 Aircraft category restrictions might be published and must be

confirmed acceptable. In every case, the pilot is required to pay
particular attention to the general safe conduct of the procedure and
efficiency of the flight for the intended aircraft category.
Note. - It is recommended that if different minima are provided for the
same final segment (e.g. LNAV, LNAV/VNAV, LPV), that the
evaluation of the final segment is accomplished on separate runs.

5.6.3.7 Document the results of the flight simulator evaluation

A detailed written report needs to be provided of the results of the

flight simulator evaluation. (See Appendix 6 for fixed wing sample
report forms. See Appendix 7 for helicopter sample report forms.)

5.6.4 Step 4, Conduct Flight Evaluation

5.6.4.1 Flight evaluation must be accomplished by a qualified and

experienced flight validation pilot (FVP), certified or approved by
CAAP.

5.6.4.2 The objectives of a flight evaluation are to validate the intended use
of IFP as defined by stakeholders and described in the conceptual
design and to evaluate other operational factors, such as charting,
required infrastructure, visibility, intended aircraft category, etc.

5.6.4.3 The FVP must occupy a seat in the cockpit with visibility adequate to
conduct the flight validation, and additional crew members must be
briefed on FV requirements. Only task related persons should
normally be allowed on such flights.

5.6.4.4 Ground track path error performance varies with mode of flight
guidance system coupling. New procedures should be evaluated
coupled to the flight director and autopilot (when not prohibited).
Lateral and vertical disconnects from the autopilot/flight director
should be evaluated.

5.6.4.5 Procedures design is based on true altitudes. Flight evaluation should

be conducted at true altitudes with consideration for temperature
variations from standard day. Lateral and vertical transitions from
departure, en-route, descent, and approach must produce a seamless
path that ensures flyability in a consistent, smooth, predictable, and
repeatable manner.

5.6.4.6 The procedure must be flown in the navigation mode using the correct
sensor, or with navigation equipment that permits the flight to be
conducted at an equivalent level of performance, as required by the
design. For example, for IFP based on GNSS, it needs to be ensured
that only the GNSS sensor is utilized during the FV. All following

1st Edition 5-14 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 5 – VALIDATION OF INSTRUMENT FLIGHT
PROCEDURES
required steps should be adapted to the specifics of each design and
IFP:
a) Conduct an assessment of flyability to determine that the
procedure can be safely flown.
b) Provide the final assurance that adequate terrain and obstacle
clearance has been provided.
c) Verify that the navigation data to be published is correct.
d) Verify that all required infrastructure, such as runway markings,
lighting, and communications and navigation sources are in place
and operative.
e) Ensure the documentation of navigation systems confirms the
applicable navigation system(s) (navigation aid/sensor, GNSS,
radar, etc.) supports the procedure.
f) Evaluate other operational factors, such as charting, required
infrastructure, visibility, intended aircraft category, etc.
g) Verify that waivers/mitigation for deviations from design criteria
do not compromise safety.
Note. - Where applicable, credit for the results of a simulator
evaluation can be given.

5.6.4.7 For complex procedures including Helicopter PinS and RNP AR,
additional flyability checks are required in the proponent’s aircraft or
simulator.

5.6.4.8 IFP(s) based on SBAS or GBAS require analysis of additional

parameters contained in the final approach segment (FAS) data block
and data link (GBAS). These parameters include:
a) glide path angle;
b) threshold Crossing Height (LTP or FTP);
c) landing threshold point (LTP) coordinates or fictional threshold
point (FTP); and
d) final path alignment point (FPAP) coordinates.

5.6.4.9 Verification of the spatial data contained in the final approach segment
definition is required. Any error in the coded data with respect to the
proper reference datum may result in improper final approach
guidance to the pilot. The FAS data evaluation system must be
capable of performing the necessary analysis in a documented,
quantitative process as described in paragraph 5.6.4.10.2.
Note. - For GBAS, additional inspection requirements are specified in
the ICAO Manual on Testing of Radio Navigation Aids (ICAO Doc
8071, Volume II; Chapter 4).

5.6.4.10 Verify data

It is essential that the data used in the procedure design is consistent

in the charts, flight management system (FMS) data, or suitable
navigation system data. The validation flights (simulator or aircraft)

March 2022 5-15 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 5 – VALIDATION OF INSTRUMENT FLIGHT
PROCEDURES
FUNCTION should be recorded with a collection/recording device that archives
the procedure and aircraft positioning data (see paragraph 5.6.4.15,
record flight validation). The procedure development package, charts,
and airport data must match. It is recommended that PBN procedures
are packed and loaded electronically into the FMS or suitable
navigation system without manually coding the ARINC 424
path/terminator data. Integrity measures such as cyclic redundancy
check (CRC) should be used to assure that data are not corrupted.
This allows evaluation of the data as designed, without manipulation.
If the procedure waypoint data is manually entered into the FMS, it
must be independently compared to the procedure data to ensure they
match.

5.6.4.10.1 Steps to data verification

a) Ensure the data from the flight validation database matches that
used in the procedure design.
b) Ensure the data produces the desired flight track.
c) Ensure that the final approach course glide path deliver the
aircraft to the desired point in space.

5.6.4.10.2 SBAS/GBAS FAS data requirements

5.6.4.10.2.1 For SBAS and GBAS FAS data, the LTP/FTP latitude and longitude,
the LTP/FTP ellipsoid height and the FPAP latitude and longitude
contribute directly to the final approach alignment and angle.
Corrupted data may skew lateral, vertical, and along track alignment
from the intended design. A direct assessment should be made of the
LTP latitude/longitude, LTP ellipsoid height, and FPAP
latitude/longitude coordinates used in the procedure design. This may
be accomplished using a survey grade GNSS receiver on the runway
threshold while making a comparison with the actual final approach
segment data to be published. Another indirect method is to evaluate
the following IFP characteristics as a means of validating the FAS
data.

5.6.4.10.2.2 Horizontal course characteristics:

a) misalignment type, linear or angular; and

b) measured angular alignment error in degrees (when applicable)
and linear course error/offset at the physical runway threshold or
decision altitude point.

5.6.4.10.2.3 Vertical path characteristics:

a) achieved/measured TCH/RDH; and

b) glide path angle.

5.6.4.11 Assess obstacles

Detailed guidance regarding obstacle assessment is contained in

Appendix 9. In general, obstacles should be visually assessed to the
lateral limits of the procedure design segment. The aircraft should be

1st Edition 5-16 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 5 – VALIDATION OF INSTRUMENT FLIGHT
PROCEDURES
positioned in a manner that provides a good view of the obstacle
environment that is under consideration. This may require flying the
lateral limits of the procedure protection areas in order to detect if
unaccounted obstacles exist. The controlling obstacle should be
verified for each segment of the IFP. Should unaccounted obstacles
be observed, further investigation by the FVP is required.

5.6.4.12 Assess flyability and human factor

The same provisions as in 5.6.3.6 apply.

5.6.4.13 Conduct associated validation tasks

5.6.4.13.1 The following associated tasks should be performed in conjunction

with the obstacle or flyability assessment as appropriate:

a) Verify that all required runway markings, lighting, and

communications are in place and operative in accordance to
MOS-Aerodromes.
b) Verify whether all weather equipment are in place in accordance
with CAR-ANS Part 3 and MOS-Aerodromes.
c) Verify that any required navigation aids/sensors have been
satisfactorily flight inspected to support the procedure design.
d) Ensure that the components of the Visual Approach Segment
Indicator System (VASIS) angles appear as intended or charted
when evaluating vertically guided procedures.
e) Adequate ATS communications according to CAR-ANS Parts 10
and 11 must be available.
f) Where required, ensure radar coverage is available for all
portions of the procedure.
g) Indicate any TAWS warnings or alerts. Record details of the alert
to include latitude/longitude, aircraft configuration, speed, and
altitude.
h) If night evaluation is required, determine the adequacy of airport
lighting systems prior to authorizing night operation. Conduct
night evaluations during VMC following appropriate daytime
evaluation.

5.6.4.13.2 The light system needs to be evaluated for:

a) correct light facilities (particularly if pilot activated) and light

patterns as charted; and
b) local lighting pattern in the area surrounding the airport to ensure
they do not distract, confuse, or incorrectly identify the runway
environment.

5.6.4.13.3 It needs to be verified that waivers/mitigations for deviations from

design criteria do not compromise safety.

5.6.4.14 Verify chart depiction and details

March 2022 5-17 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 5 – VALIDATION OF INSTRUMENT FLIGHT
PROCEDURES
FUNCTION a) Check to ensure the chart has sufficient detail to safely navigate
and identify significant terrain or obstacles.
b) Ensure all required notes are included (e.g. DME required, do not
confuse RWY 14 with RWY 16, non-standard approach angle
etc.)
c) Ensure that the chart accurately portrays the procedure in both
plan and profile view and is easily interpreted. Ensure flight track
matches chart and takes aircraft to designed point.
d) Verify true and magnetic course to next waypoint indicated on the
FMS or GNSS receiver accurately reflects the procedure design.
(Magnetic courses displayed by the FMS/GNSS navigator may
be dependent upon the manufacturer’s software processing of
magnetic variation.)
e) Verify segment distances indicated by the aircraft navigation
system accurately reflect the procedure design.
f) Verify the flight path angle (FPA) indicated on the FMS or GNSS
receiver accurately reflects the procedure design.
g) Check that waypoint spacing and segment length are sufficient to
allow the aircraft to decelerate or change altitude on each leg
without bypassing.

5.6.4.15 Record flight validation

5.6.4.15.1 A recording device should be used that is capable of the following: IFP
storage, time and 3-dimensional position in space with an acceptable
sampling rate (not less than 1 Hz), and ability to post-process
recorded data.

5.6.4.15.2 Record and save the minimum following flight data:

a) processing date and time;

b) number of satellites in view;
c) minimum number of satellites;
d) average position dilution of precision (PDOP);
e) maximum observed horizontal dilution of precision (HDOP)
(SBAS procedures only);
f) vertical protection level (VPL) (SBAS/GBAS procedures only);
g) horizontal protection level (HPL) (SBAS/GBAS procedures only);
h) maximum observed vertical dilution of precision (VDOP) (SBAS
procedures only);
i) for each segment, the maximum and minimum altitude, ground
speed, climb rate, and climb gradient; and
j) a printed graphic or an electronic file of sufficient detail that
depicts the horizontal (and the vertical for VNAV procedures)
flight track flown referenced to the desired track of the approach
procedure, including procedure fixes.

1st Edition 5-18 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 5 – VALIDATION OF INSTRUMENT FLIGHT
PROCEDURES
Note. - The recording of HDOP, PDOP, VDOP, HPL and VPL are a
collection of data in a limited timeframe and their purpose is to
document the actual situation at the time of the validation flight.

5.6.4.15.2 SBAS and GBAS IFP(s) require analysis of additional parameters

contained in the final approach segment (FAS) data block. FAS data
block validation requires verification of the coordinates and heights
used in the FAS or by indirect flight inspection system analysis of the
IFP characteristics described in paragraph 5.6.4.10.2.

5.6.5 Step 5, Produce Validation Report

5.6.5.1 Assess the results of the validation process.

a) Review all aspects of the validation process to complete the

assessment.
b) Make a determination of satisfactory or unsatisfactory results,
based on criteria adopted by CAAP (ICAO Doc 8168 Vol II and
ICAO Doc 9905).

5.6.5.2 For satisfactory validation, complete the IFP processing.

a) Ensure the completeness and correctness of the IFP package to

be forwarded.
b) Propose suggestions for improved operation of the procedure,
where such factors are outside the scope of the procedure design
(e.g. ATC issues).

5.6.5.3 For unsatisfactory validation, return the IFP to the procedure

designer(s) for corrections.

a) Provide detailed feedback to the procedure designer(s) and other

stakeholders.
b) Suggest mitigation and/or corrections for unsatisfactory results.

5.6.5.4 Document the results of the validation process.

a) Complete a detailed written report of the results of the validation

process including justification for any steps in the validation
process deemed not required. This involves a compilation of
reports provided by the individual steps in the validation process.
b) Ensure any findings and operational mitigations are documented.
c) Forward uncharted controlling obstacle position and elevation
data to procedure designer(s).
d) Ensure recorded data is processed and archived together with
the IFP and validation documentation.
Note. - Templates of checklists and reports are contained in Appendix
6 (fixed wing) and Appendix 7 (helicopters).

March 2022 5-19 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 5 – VALIDATION OF INSTRUMENT FLIGHT
PROCEDURES
FUNCTION

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1st Edition 5-20 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 6 – FLIGHT PROCEDURE DESIGN SIFTWARE
VALIDATION
CHAPTER 6

FLIGHT PROCEDURE DESIGN SOFTWARE VALIDATION

6.1 INTRODUCTION

When automation is used during the procedure design process, ICAO

requires that States must ensure that automation functions have been
validated to ensure compliance of the final results with applicable
criteria.

Implementation of the validation can be carried out by a service provider

under CAAP or by delegation to any recognized third party (such as
another State, an ATS provider or a private company).

This chapter provides the guidelines for implementing a validation

program by a PDSP or any organization intending to engage in FPD
software validation; it provides one means, but not the only means, for
validation of the functions of procedure design tools. Other means
include a Software Safety Assurance System, as part of a Safety
Management System (comprising requirements for software assurance
level, software verification assurances, software configuration
management assurances, software requirements traceability
assurances, software requirements validity assurance).

Note. – For software development companies wishing to demonstrate

conformance to applicable criteria, ICAO Doc 9906 Vol. 3 may be more
useful, as it provides a more detailed guidance.

The term “procedure design tool” stands for any numerical automation
system that provides calculations and/or designs and layouts in the field
of procedure design. This encompasses products ranging from
automated formulas included in spreadsheets to dedicated software
packages.

Procedure design tools aim to aid the design of conventional and/or

area navigation (RNAV) procedures for the departure, en-route, arrival,
terminal and/or approach phases, through a series of dedicated
integrated functions. They facilitate design work through a certain level
of automation in calculations and procedure layout generation
compliant with the applicable criteria. In addition, this automation in
calculations contributes to the improvement of data integrity.

Procedure design tools include devices which facilitate the work of the
designer during the whole process of procedure design, from data
management to the final output (preparation of the publication).

Use of automation is not intended to replace the procedure designer’s

expertise.

6.1.1 The Need for Validation of Procedure Design Tools

6.1.1.1 Although procedure design tools are increasingly available to designers

and can save significant time when creating designs, as well as improve
compliance with collaborative work, they can be misleading if they

March 2022 6-1 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 6 – FLIGHT PROCEDURE DESIGN SIFTWARE
VALIDATION
contain errors, or if procedure design criteria compliance is not ensured
through all the Functions provided by such tools. Thus, there is a
significant need to define a validation process for procedure design
tools. Additionally, the validation is a means for users to gain confidence
in a tool.

6.1.1.2 It is recommended that both the procedure design organization using a

tool and the procedure design software developer/provider be involved
in its validation.
Note. - Validation is an acknowledgement that the standards derived
from a series of tests have been complied with, and does not imply any
certificate delivery. A procedure design tool validation means that
compliance with standards is recognized for most significant cases of
the tool use. A validation assumes the existence of applicable
standards and a given methodology (guidance and pre-defined tests).
Validation may occur after development, using “off-the-shelf” products.

6.1.2 Functional Validation

6.1.2.1 Functional validation consists of confirmation that the automation

functions in the tool have been correctly implemented (e.g. when
selecting an item in a menu, the item appears), and that the human
machine interface complies with the user’s requirements. As such, this
validation type is dependent upon the user needs and can be carried
out during the acceptance phase by the end users. Moreover, the
functional validation does not refer to procedure design criteria, but to
general specifications (interface and ergonomics, general
computerized tool specifications, etc.).

6.1.2.2 Functional validation falls outside of the scope of this manual. However,
it may be considered by users in addition to the guidelines provided in
this MOS.

6.1.3 Validation with Regard to Criteria

6.1.3.1 Validation with regard to criteria consists of a compliance verification of

the results obtained in a series of tests of the tool using applicable
criteria. The applied tests must cover all the relevant functions of the
tool (including general functions and some input/output functions).
These tests should include the comparison between the results
obtained with the tool and the ones obtained manually or with a
previously validated independent tool. These tests must be carried out
according to a predefined list and guidance.

6.1.3.2 The series of tests recommended in this MOS should be considered as

a minimum, and the actual validation may include additional tests if
deemed relevant.

6.2 REPORT OF THE VALIDATION WITH REGARD TO CRITERIA

6.2.1 The validation process must be recorded in a report that clearly states
the criteria that were considered as reference (with dates and reference
to the last considered amendment), and the extent of coverage of the
software tool with respect to these criteria.

1st Edition 6-2 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 6 – FLIGHT PROCEDURE DESIGN SIFTWARE
VALIDATION

6.2.2 The report must precisely mention all the items that were tested (with
detailed results) and the items that were excluded from the validation
process. Any limitation to a given function (e.g. altitude restriction for
holding patterns) must be recorded.

6.2.3 The validation report must mention the characteristics of the tests
(dates, name of individuals that have conducted the tests, etc.). The
version of the tool, of the software environment (GIS, CAD, database
management system, etc.), and of the operating system that were used
must be recorded in the report.

6.2.4 Notes and comments from the final users about the compliance with
criteria should be recorded in the validation report.

6.2.5 A template for the validation report is provided in Appendix 10.

6.3 REQUIREMENTS FOR REVALIDATION

6.3.1 Whenever the applicable procedure design criteria are updated, the
impact on the procedure design tool must be identified by the procedure
design software developer/provider and evaluated. Should the changes
have an impact on procedure design tool functions, the corresponding
functions of the tool must be revalidated.

6.3.2 Whenever a new version of the software tool is issued, the changes
with reference to the previous version must be identified and their
consequences must be evaluated. Should the new version include new
functions or amendments to previous functions, the tool must be
revalidated.

6.3.3 As the computing environment of the software (operating system, GIS

or CAD supporting system, database management system, etc.)
evolves, the consequences on the tool must, whenever possible*, be
identified and evaluated. If deemed necessary, full or partial
revalidation should then be conducted.

*It is acknowledged that some updates may not be documented or

notified. In those cases, the identification and evaluation of
consequences may not be possible.

6.4 IMPLEMENTING A VALIDATION PROGRAM

This chapter provides practical guidance for preparing and carrying out
an actual validation program applied to procedure design tools. It is
applicable to initial validation as well as revalidation for new functions
and/or updates to the procedure design tool and/or to the system
environment.

6.4.1 Preparation

6.4.1.1 The procedure design tool validation requires time and effort. It needs
to be prepared early enough to ensure proper implementation.

March 2022 6-3 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 6 – FLIGHT PROCEDURE DESIGN SIFTWARE
VALIDATION
6.4.1.2 For this purpose, it is recommended to develop a work plan defining:

a) the software validation coverage;

b) the overall objective schedule;
c) the available resources;
d) the validation team for the validation process, including the
expertise according to the validation coverage;
e) the tasks to be carried out;
f) the roles and responsibilities of each team member for each task;
and
g) a tentative detailed work program (work items and timeframe).

6.4.2 Software Validation Coverage

6.4.2.1 The software validation coverage corresponds to the overall work

program related to the procedure design tool validation and must be
based on the extent of the concerned procedure design functions of a
given tool, or to the whole tool. It is acknowledged that an individual tool
may not include all the procedure design functions and consequently
some validation items may not be applicable to each and every tool. It
is also recognized that a given user may not require a function included
in a given tool. The applicability of each item of the validation manual
should thus be determined at the time of the validation execution.

6.4.2.2 The software validation coverage needs to be defined to tailor the

validation to the actual procedure design tool subject to validation.

6.4.3 Tool Testing Requirements

6.4.3.1 The validation implementation includes a series of tests to be carried

out according to the validation coverage.

6.4.3.2 Prior to any validation task, it must be confirmed by the procedure

design software developer that hardware and software are installed and
configured according to the hardware and software specifications.

6.4.3.3 The validation should take into account the tests that the procedure
design software developer may have performed. Whenever possible
any evaluations previously performed by the developer should be
repeated at the user site. The developer may be able to furnish the user
with some of the test data sets to be used for this purpose.

6.4.3.4 The tool testing should follow a predefined written plan with a formal
summary of testing and a record of formal acceptance. The tests should
cover the full range of operating conditions so that the system can
encounter a wide spectrum of conditions and events (detection of any
latent faults not apparent during more normal activities).

6.4.3.5 Tool tests should be carried out at the user location, at least for part of
the validation program. User site testing should be accomplished in the
actual working environment that will be part of the installed system
configuration. The testing should be accomplished through use of the

1st Edition 6-4 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 6 – FLIGHT PROCEDURE DESIGN SIFTWARE
VALIDATION
tool within the context in which it is intended to function. During user
site testing, records should be maintained of both proper system
performance and any system failures that are encountered. The
revision of the system to compensate for faults detected during this user
site testing should follow the same procedures and controls as for any
other procedure design tool change.

6.4.3.6 Knowledge of test planning, definition of expected test results, and

recording of all test outputs are required. Support in these areas from
the procedure design software developer/provider would be beneficial.

6.4.4 Validation Methodology

6.4.4.1 The validation methodology includes validation of basic parameters and

basic elements as well as modeling of criteria validation through
assessment of methods and concepts, input data, output data and
graphical checks.
Note. – ICAO Doc 9906, Vol. 3, Chapter 7, provides guidance on the
validation methodology that may be applied in implementing FPD
software validation program.

6.4.5 Validation Documentation

6.4.5.1 During the validation implementation, detailed documentation of the

tests being carried out should be compiled. This documentation should
include the history of the tests, including input data and test results. A
sample of validation documentation is provided in Appendix 10.

6.4.5.2 For the purpose of continuous improvement of the software, the user is
encouraged to make the validation documentation available to the
procedure design software developer/provider.

March 2022 6-5 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
CHAPTER 6 – FLIGHT PROCEDURE DESIGN SIFTWARE
VALIDATION

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1st Edition 6-6 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 1 – THIRD-PARTY AUTHORIZATION PROCESS
APPENDIX 1

Third-Party PDSP Authorization Process

1.1 Introduction

1.1.1 CAR-ANS Part 16, Section 16.4 - “Requirement for Authorization as a

Procedure Designer Service Provider (PDSP)” embodies the
requirement that,
“No person or organization, shall design procedures or publish such
procedures for air navigation services in Philippine airspace and
aerodromes unless he or she belongs to any of the undermentioned
categories:
a) an authorized designer belonging to the following:
i) a recognized procedure design service authority under CAAP
as stipulated in CAR-ANS Part 11, Appendix 11.8, 1 (a); or
ii) a 3rd party PDSP that holds a certificate of authorization
issued by CAAP;
b) the person or organization has a co-operation arrangement with
an authorized designer; or
c) there is a commercial agreement with an authorized PDSP.”

1.1.2 In general, like in any aviation organizations required to be certified,

authorized, licensed or issued any form of regulatory approvals (e.g. Air
Operators, ANSPs, Aerodromes, Aircraft Maintenance Organizations,
Aviation Training Organizations, and others), all Instrument Flight
Procedure Design Service activities shall be performed:
a) By approved Organization, having authorized by the state
receiving the service;
b) In accordance with approved documents (e.g. Manual of
Operations and Quality Manual);
c) Applying standard ICAO Criteria and/or Installing approved and
certified tools (software and/or hardware) including access to
relevant and current data, based on the data base integrity
requirements described in Doc 9906 Vol 3-Flight Procedure
Design Software Validation.
d) By qualified, trained and certified personnel (person designing,
reviewing or amending IFP demonstrates required level of
competency for design works, - Doc 9906 Vol 2- Flight Procedure
Designer Training, - Doc 9906 Vol 6 - Flight Validation Pilot
Training and Evaluation, etc.).

1.1.3 This appendix contains necessary information on applications to be

made for 3rd-party PDSP authorization.

1.2 Schedule of Availability of Service

Monday - Friday 0000Z to 0900Z (UTC)

No noon-time break

March 2022 APP1-1 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 1 – THIRD-PARTY AUTHORIZATION PROCESS

1.3 Who may Avail of this Service

Flight Procedure Design Organizations or Procedure Design Service

Providers (PDSPs) desiring to provide IFPDS within the Manila FIR.

1.4 Required Documentations

1.4.1 Letter of Request for New/Renewal of Authorization addressed to the,

Director General of CAAP.
a) should indicate current business address;
b) should include a written statement setting out design procedures
that the applicant proposes to provide in the Philippines (e.g.
Conventional or PBN STARs, SIDs, IAP, Helicopter IFPs, etc.);
and
c) should include a list of proposed projects within Philippine
Airspace, if available.

1.4.2 Evidence regarding Practical Application of Theoretical Knowledge.

a) list of IFP projects completed in the past year (type of IFP,
location, preferably copies of approved charts as evidence of
quality records); and
b) List of IFP designed by the applicant company, published within
Philippine Airspace (if any).

1.4.3 Evidence regarding Aviation Experience.

a) Company profile and track record

1.4.4 A copy of the PDSP’s Manual of Operations (preferably in English).

1.4.5 Certified true copy or authenticated copy of certificates and other

training records of designers employed by the company.

1.4.6 Certified true copy or authenticated copy of authorizations issued by

other states or organizations (preferably ICAO member state).

1.5 Fees and Charges

CAAP is yet to fix a fee for the application and renewal of the 3 rd-Party
PDSP Authorization. However, the cost for the oversight activities
(audits and inspections) of the PANS-OPS Inspectorate (travel and
lodging expenses) will be shouldered by the concerned service
providers.

1.6 Application and Acceptance Process

Step 1. Submit application letter together with the required

documents to the CAAP.
Step 2. The Office of the Director General forwards the application to
the CAAP regulatory body for ANS for processing.

1st Edition APP1-2 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 1 – THIRD-PARTY AUTHORIZATION PROCESS
Step 3. The PANS-OPS Inspectorate of the CAAP regulatory body
for ANS reviews and assess the submitted documents for
verification and validation. If not authenticated copies or
certified true copies of documents were submitted, the
authenticity of the documents provided may be verified by
contacting the individual or organization issuing the
document (e.g. the training center indicated in the training
certificate, or the approving CEO for the operations manual
and business information incorporated therein).
Step 4. If there are findings of non-compliance, CAAP regulatory
body for ANS will communicate it with the applicant
immediately. Else, proceed to Step 7.
Step 5. Applicant submits corrective action plans or additional
evidence to address the finding.
Step 6. Repeat Step 3 until all requirements are satisfied.
Step 7. CAAP regulatory body for ANS prepares the Technical
Report and Endorsement for approval/ disapproval for
signature of the DG.
Step 8. Once signed by the DG, the certificate of authorization is
issued to the applicant with a letter enumerating the
conditions to be observed as a holder of authorization.

1.7 Surveillance Activities

Holders of authorizations will be subjected to audit every two years to

ensure continuous compliance to standards and regulations.
Inspections whether announced or unannounced may be conducted
only as necessary.

1.8 Validity of Authorization

1.8.1 An authorization shall be valid for a period determined by the CAAP

Regulatory Authority, such period shall not exceed five (5) years,
calculated from the date of issuance or renewal thereof. The
authorization shall remain in force until it expires, is suspended, or
cancelled by the CAAP Regulatory Authority.

1.8.2 The validity period of the authorization will be indicated in the issued
certificate and the letter of approval. Authorizations for first time
applicants with less or no record of relevant experience in procedure
design works may be valid for one or two years, after which, they may
opt for renewal. While applicants that demonstrated satisfactory
performance in the field of procedure design may be given
authorizations valid for longer periods not exceeding 5 years.

1.9 Suspension, Cancellation or Variation of Procedure Design

Service Provider Approval Certificate by the CAAP Regulatory
Authority

The CAAP Regulatory Authority may, arising from the recommendation

of a PANS-OPS Safety Inspector, by written notice given to a PDSP,
suspend, cancel or vary the procedure design service provider’s

March 2022 APP1-3 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 1 – THIRD-PARTY AUTHORIZATION PROCESS
authorization if there are reasonable grounds in accordance to CAR-
ANS Part 16, 16.17.

1.10 3RD PARTY Procedure Design Service Provider Authorization

Approval Checklist

1.10.1 Reference of requirements:

a) CAR-ANS 16 - Procedure Design Services
b) MC 49-13 – Authorization for 3rd Party Procedure Design
Organization
SUBMITTED
REQUIREMENT ASSESSMENT REMARKS
DOCUMENTS

1. Application for issuance of  Satisfactory

Authorization or renewal  Unsatisfactory
thereof.  Not applicable

2. Evidence of Authorization
 Satisfactory
issued by other states
 Unsatisfactory
preferably another ICAO
 Not applicable
member State (if available)
3. Evidence of compliance
 Satisfactory
with ICAO Doc. 9906 Vol I -
 Unsatisfactory
Quality Assurance Manual
 Not applicable
for IFP
 Satisfactory
4. PANS-OPS/ IFP Design
 Unsatisfactory
Training Certificates
 Not applicable
 Satisfactory
5. Practical application of
 Unsatisfactory
theoretical knowledge
 Not applicable
 Satisfactory
6. Aviation Experience  Unsatisfactory
 Not applicable
 Satisfactory
7. Quality Record of Practical
 Unsatisfactory
Application
 Not applicable
8. Receipts for appropriate  Satisfactory
fees and charges imposed  Unsatisfactory
by the CAAP  Not applicable

9. PDSP Manual of
Operations which contains
the following:

a) personnel  Satisfactory
requirements and the
 Unsatisfactory
responsibilities of
personnel;  Not applicable

1st Edition APP1-4 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 1 – THIRD-PARTY AUTHORIZATION PROCESS
 Satisfactory
b) training and checking
 Unsatisfactory
of staff and how that
information is tracked;  Not applicable

 Satisfactory
c) quality
 Unsatisfactory
assurance/safety
management system;  Not applicable

d) contingency plans  Satisfactory

developed for part or
 Unsatisfactory
total system failure for
which the organization  Not applicable
provides a service;
 Satisfactory
e) facilities and equipment
 Unsatisfactory
and how those facilities
are maintained;  Not applicable

 Satisfactory
f) fault and defect  Unsatisfactory
reporting;  Not applicable

 Satisfactory
g) maintenance of
 Unsatisfactory
documents and
records; and  Not applicable

 Satisfactory
h) any other information
 Unsatisfactory
requested by the CAAP
Regulatory Authority.  Not applicable

March 2022 APP1-5 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 1 – THIRD-PARTY AUTHORIZATION PROCESS

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1st Edition APP1-6 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 2 – IFP QUALITY ASSURANCE CHECKLIST
APPENDIX 2

IFP Quality Assurance Checklist

QUALITY ASSURANCE EVALUATION

OF ___________________________ (RP___)
_________ PROCEDURES RWY ____

This evaluation is based on Manual of Standards for IFPDS which specifies the step-
by-step process in IFP and the requirements for the approval of the Instrument Flight
Procedures (IFP).
Purposes:
a) To ensure that the Instrument Flight Procedure Design package has met the
necessary documentation of the Quality Assurance Process for Instrument
Flight Procedures.
b) To ensure that the instrument flight procedures can be safely flown and can
be safely integrated in the ATM environment in accordance to 3.7 of the
MOS for IFPDS.
c) To determine the viability of the Instrument Flight Procedure as submitted to
the PANS-OPS Inspectorate Section of ATMSID-AANSOO for proper
endorsement to the Director General of the CAAP for approval.

2.1 QUALITY ASSURANCE EVALUATION REPORT

The following list of instrument flight procedures are evaluated for quality assurance:

ITEM No. Procedure Title Description

1. (sample) STAR ABCDE RWY XX RNAV STAR
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. (sample) SID ABCDE RWY XX Conventional
7. Departure
8.
9.
10. (sample) Holding
11. (sample) RNP AP RWY XX RNP 1 IAP
12.

Note: The list of documents and evidences should be in place prior to the
endorsement for the approval by the Director General of the CAAP.

March 2022 APP2-1 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 2 – IFP QUALITY ASSURANCE CHECKLIST
2.2 THE IFP PROCESS FLOW CHART

1st Edition APP2-2 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 2 – IFP QUALITY ASSURANCE CHECKLIST

2.3 QUALITY ASSURANCE EVALUATION

Quality Assurance Evaluation

Item
Item Description Submitted Documents Remarks Evaluation
No.
1. An approved request to Title:
design, modify or review of a
procedure, or managerial
directive/authority order to Satisfactory
pursue the design, Not satisfactory
modification or review of an
IFP

2. An approved conceptual Title:

design, including planned
implementation dates, and
resources needed to achieve
the task. This is normally
signed by the involved
stakeholders such as, aircraft
operators, aerodrome Satisfactory
operators, pilots and ATCs, Not satisfactory
designers, local government
organization, regulatory
authorities (when necessary),
etc.

3. The FPD package or the Title: Satisfactory

technical report of the Prepared by: Not satisfactory

March 2022 APP2-3 1st Edition

Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 2 – IFP QUALITY ASSURANCE CHECKLIST
procedure, which includes Author:
the procedure layout, the Flight Procedure Designer:
relevant calculation outputs, Validator:
navigation data (when
applicable), coordinates and
textual description of the
intended procedure.

Note:
The FPD and the resulting
IFP, must be quality assured.
STEP 8 states:

“Prior to the ground

validation, a designer who
was not involved in the
original design should
perform a review of the FPD.”

The Q.A. for the FPD is the

responsibility of the PDSP
while the Q.A. of the resulting
IFP is the responsibility of the
AANSOO.

4. Ground validation and Title:

verification reports Date: Satisfactory
Submitted by: Not satisfactory
Noted by:

5. Flight validation reports Title:

Satisfactory
Date:
Not satisfactory
Findings/ Observations:

March 2022 APP2-4 1st Edition

Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 2 – IFP QUALITY ASSURANCE CHECKLIST
Evaluator:
Noted:

Procedure Assessment:

6. Safety activity report Title:

Satisfactory
Date:
Not satisfactory
Assessor:

7. Draft charts/ graphical Title: Satisfactory

presentation for submission Not satisfactory
to AIS

CONCLUSION:

Evaluated by: (Signature)

Submitted by: Chief, ATM Inspectorate Division, AANSOO (Signature)

Noted by: Chief, AANSOO (Signature)

March 2022 APP2-5 1st Edition

Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 2 – IFP QUALITY ASSURANCE CHECKLIST

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

March 2022 APP2-6 1st Edition

Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 3 – SAMPLE PDSP AUDIT PROTOCOL QUESTIONAIRE
APPENDIX 3

Sample PDSP Audit Protocol Questionnaire

This appendix to MOS IFPDS provides an idea of the scope of an audit and a guide to the requirements to be met by a PDSP.

Only a sample is provided, the actual protocol questions may vary during the actual audit. ATMSID normally provides the auditee with a copy
of the checklists together with the audit notification. Any modification to the checklist shall be forwarded to the auditee at least two weeks before
the first day of audit or during the entry meeting and takes measures to protect any working documents that involve confidential or proprietary
information.

PDSP Protocol Questionaire

Prepared by: ATM Safety Inspectorate Division, AANSOO/Audit dates: …/…/… to …/…/… (dd/mm/yy)
Reply Evidence
Guidance for review of protocol Status of
Doc. Ref. Protocol question (Self- /Notes/
question implementation
Assessment) Comments
PDSP 001-013 –Procedure Design Service
CAR ANS PDSP 001 – Are the □ Yes  Review procedures. □ Satisfactory
Part 16 relevant up-to-date ICAO □ No  Verify accessibility of documents: □ Not
16.6.1.9.2, documents and other 1) Primary aviation legislation and Satisfactory
technical and regulatory PDSP specific operating □ Not Applicable
CAR ANS publications readily regulations.
Part 1 available to all PDSP 2) Annexes 4, 5, 10, 11, 14, 15 and
1.1.6.2 technical staff? 19.
3) PANS, guidance material and
other ANS-related publications.
4) AIP
Document control system.
5) Method to determine currency of
documents.
6) Relevant CAR-ANS and MOS
7) Other technical/regulatory
publications.

March 2022 APP3-1 1st Edition

Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 3 – SAMPLE PDSP AUDIT PROTOCOL QUESTIONAIRE
CAR ANS PDSP 002 – Is the PDSP □ Yes Verify □ Satisfactory
Part 16 provided with adequate □ No a) premises and equipment □ Not
16.6.1.5.1 facility/ies for appropriate for the PDSP’s Satisfactory
carrying on design work on employees to carry on the design □ Not Applicable
instrument flight work; and
procedures? b) ensuring that those employees have
access to all necessary data for
designing the procedures including:
 accurate and current databases
or charts detailing terrain and
obstacle information; and
 accurate and current navigation
aid coordinate data; and
 accurate and current aerodrome
reference point and threshold
data.
CAR ANS PDSP 003 – Has the PDSP □ Yes a) Verify if PDSP maintains a database □ Satisfactory
Part 16 established procedures to □ No of aeronautical data □ Not
16.6.1.5.2 ensure the integrity of the b) Verify mechanism to maintain Satisfactory
database and the data integrity of the data and the □ Not Applicable
required in procedure database
design work? c) Verify implementation

CAR ANS PDSP 004 – Does the □ Yes  Review mechanism to determine □ Satisfactory
Part 16 PDSP employ a sufficient □ No number of personnel required □ Not
16.6.1.7.1 number of personnel to  Check personnel turn-over rate Satisfactory
enable  Check actual number of qualified □ Not Applicable
the designer to carry on personnel involved in design works
design work of instrument
flight procedures?

CAR ANS PDSP 005 – Are minimum □ Yes  Review qualifications required for □ Satisfactory
Part 16 qualification requirements □ No new procedures design staff. □ Not
16.6.1.7.1 met by specialists who are  Review personnel records. Satisfactory
a) □ Not Applicable

1st Edition APP3-2 March 2022

Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 3 – SAMPLE PDSP AUDIT PROTOCOL QUESTIONAIRE
responsible for the design of
flight procedures?

CAR ANS PDSP 006 – Has the PDSP □ Yes  Review documented terms of □ Satisfactory
Part 10B developed job description □ No reference and confirm consistent □ Not
10.8.5.2 for its PANS-OPS technical application. Satisfactory
staff? □ Not Applicable
Doc 9734
Part A, C3
CAR ANS PDSP 007 – Does the □ Yes  Review training programme and □ Satisfactory
Part 16 PDSP provide a training □ No ensure that it includes □ Not
16.6.1.8 and checking program to competency on new equipment, Satisfactory
ensure that the employees and procedures. □ Not Applicable
CAR-ANS of the designer maintain  Verify if it includes, as
Part 10B their competence and are applicable, initial,
10.8.4.4 provided with ongoing recurrent/refresher and
training appropriate to their specialized trainings.
duties?  Review personnel training
records
 Review evidence of completed
training.

CAR-ANS PDSP 008 – Does the □ Yes  Verify personnel training records □ Satisfactory
Part 10B PDSP maintain training □ No □ Not
10.8.5.2 records for PANS-OPS Satisfactory
technical staff? □ Not Applicable

CAR ANS □ Yes □ Satisfactory

PDSP 009 – Does the  Review the policies and procedures
Part 16 □ No □ Not
PDSP maintain all for making, amending, preserving
16.6.1.11.1 Satisfactory
procedure design and disposing of those documents
□ Not Applicable
documentation, so as to and records
CAR ANS
allow any data anomalies or
Part 10B  Review working files,
errors found during the
10.8.5 documentation and data.
production, maintenance or

March 2022 APP3-3 1st Edition

Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 3 – SAMPLE PDSP AUDIT PROTOCOL QUESTIONAIRE
operational use of the
PANS procedure to be corrected?
Doc 8168
(OPS)
Vol. II, Part
I, Section
2, C4, 4.5.2

CAR ANS PDSP 010 – Are PANS- □ Yes  Review PDSP policy/ contract □ Satisfactory
Part 16 OPS published procedure □ No stipulating the period of validity for a □ Not
16.22 designs by service procedure design Satisfactory
providers reviewed  Review PDSP plan/ timelines □ Not Applicable
periodically to ensure that  Review implementation
they continue to comply with
changing criteria and meet
user requirements?

CAR ANS □ Yes □ Satisfactory

PDSP 011 – Does the  Conduct ocular inspection
Part 16 □ No □ Not
holder of a procedure
16.7 Satisfactory
design certificate of
□ Not Applicable
authorization displays the
certificate in a prominent
place, generally accessible
to the public at such
holder’s principal place of
business?

MOS □ Yes  Verify design procedures and quality □ Satisfactory

PDSP 012 – Are the
IFPDS □ No assurance process □ Not
conceptual design
Satisfactory

1st Edition APP3-4 March 2022

Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 3 – SAMPLE PDSP AUDIT PROTOCOL QUESTIONAIRE
developed by the PDSP  Verify mechanism to communicate □ Not Applicable
reviewed by the the conceptual design with
stakeholders? stakeholders
 Verify replies from stakeholders

MOS □ Yes  Verify design procedures and quality □ Satisfactory

PDSP 013 – Are safety
IFPDS □ No assurance process □ Not
activities conducted by the
 Verify safety assessments and Satisfactory
PDSP in the development of
safety risk management □ Not Applicable
a procedure design?
documentations

CAR ANS □ Yes  Verify design procedures □ Satisfactory

PDSP 014 – Does the
Part 16 □ No  Verify criteria verification reports □ Not
PDSP design an instrument
16.20  Verify published charts Satisfactory
flight procedure in
□ Not Applicable
accordance with applicable
standards contained in
ICAO documents?

MOS □ Yes  Verify design procedures and quality □ Satisfactory

PDSP 015 – Are flight
IFPDS □ No assurance process of the PDSP □ Not
inspections of instrument
 Verify implementation Satisfactory
flight procedures, including
□ Not Applicable
obstacle checks, being
carried out?
CAR ANS □ Yes  Verify design procedures □ Satisfactory
PDSP 016 – Does the
Part 4 □ No  Review published charts □ Not
PDSP publish obstacle
4.11.10.7 Satisfactory
clearance altitude/height
PANS □ Not Applicable
(OCA/H)?
Doc 8168
(OPS)
Vol. II, Part
I, Section
4, C5, 5.4

March 2022 APP3-5 1st Edition

Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 3 – SAMPLE PDSP AUDIT PROTOCOL QUESTIONAIRE
& C9,
9.4.3.1

CAR ANS □ Yes  Verify LOA/MOA □ Satisfactory

PDSP 017 - Are
Part 16 □ No  Verify Flight and Ground Validation □ Not
agreements established
16.21.1 Reports Satisfactory
between the concerned
□ Not Applicable
aerodrome operators and
the PDSP for relevant
airport/obstacle data to be
provided to the PDSP by
the aerodrome operator
whenever the Obstacle
Limitation Surfaces are
infringed?

The preliminary findings indicated herein and the processes involved in the audit process were explained thoroughly by the
inspector/s and the undersigned is amenable with the preliminary results.

(Signature of Facility Chief/CEO)

1st Edition APP3-6 March 2022

 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 4 – SAMPLE PRE-IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIST FOR
PREPARATION OF IFP IMPLEMENTATION SAFETY ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX 4

Sample Pre-Implementation Checklists for Preparation of

IFP Implementation Safety Assessment

4.1 Introduction

This form is an example only and is accepted as a transitional material until

ICAO global guidance material becomes available.

4.2 Purpose of the Checklist

a) To review PBN procedures using the items of the checklist; and

b) To identify hazards which may affect the safety of the procedures

4.3 How to Use of the Checklist

a) Read the check items and answer to each item.

b) Make comments to describe the situation.
c) If an item is identified as “Unsatisfactory”, fill the “Record on
Identification, Analysis and Mitigation of Hazard” form for the safety
risk assessment.
d) Analyze the risk by probability and severity.
e) Determine safety risk tolerability using provided matrix.
f) If the result of the safety risk tolerability falls on “Acceptable Based on
Risk Mitigation” or “Unacceptable”, develop risk mitigation measures.
g) Using the identified mitigation measures, analyze the risk again (step 4
and 5).
h) If the risk still falls on “Acceptable Based on Risk Mitigation” category,
the management may decide whether to implement or not.

Sample application:

Example 1

Step 1 & 2: assess the procedure using the checklist

In case the amendment of the LOA or the Local Operation Instruction (LOI) is
in progress and the training for operating people has not begun yet (related to
Item 4 of the checklists)

IFP Implementation Safety Assessment

Assessor:  New  Amended
Procedure Date:
Name:
S: Satisfactory / U: Unsatisfactory / N/A: Not Applicable
Item Check Item S U N/A
No.

March 2022 APP4-1 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 4 – SAMPLE PRE-IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIST FOR
PREPARATION OF IFP IMPLEMENTATION SAFETY ASSESSMENT
4 Did relevant ATC facilities review the new and/or amended
IFP based on the Letter of Agreement (LOA) between
facilities? Is the amended LOA published and in effect?

Comments: (Describe the current situation)

Follow Steps 3-8: conduct safety activity in IFP Design, a PDSP may use a different
hazard identification and safety risk assessment form.

 Safety Report
Identification No.  Safety Review
XX-APCH RWY 06  Safety

Assessment
 Safety Audit
Source
 Safety
Observation
Assessment Date:
YYYY/MM/DD  Safety Survey
 Sampling Survey
 Others
Assessment Items (Procedure Name / SID/ STAR/ ATS Route/ IAPCH)
 Human  Equipment   Operational  Environment
Category of Hazard Factors
Subject: (LOA to be amended, Training yet to be implemented)
Identification of Details (includes a review of safety incidents of the existing
Hazards procedure(s), if any):
The amendment of LOA is in progress and training for ATCs will
commence after amendment …(list down hazards and its
corresponding consequence)
Probabili 4
Risk 1 2  3 5
ty
Analysi
s Severity A B C D E
 Unacceptable
Resulting Risk  Acceptable based on risk

(in this example) 3D
Index mitigation
 Acceptable

Mitigation Amendment of LOA/LOI

Measures Conduct training for ATCO

 Unacceptable
Risk Index after  Acceptable based on risk
(in this example) 2E
Mitigation mitigation
 Acceptable
Comments by
Safety Assessment LOA amendment and ATC training should be
Team completed by YYYY.MM.DD
(if necessary)

Steps 8: In case the Risk Index after Mitigation falls under “Acceptable based on risk
mitigation”, management decision may be based on the comments by the Safety
Assessment Team.

1st Edition APP4-2 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 4 – SAMPLE PRE-IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIST FOR
PREPARATION OF IFP IMPLEMENTATION SAFETY ASSESSMENT

4.4 Risk Index

Unacceptable Acceptable based on risk mitigation Acceptable

4.5 Severity Index

4.6 Probability or Likelihood Index

March 2022 APP4-3 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 4 – SAMPLE PRE-IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIST FOR
PREPARATION OF IFP IMPLEMENTATION SAFETY ASSESSMENT

4.7 The IFP Implementation Safety Assessment Checklists for:

a) IFP Implementation Safety Assessment – for Instrument Approach (IAP)/ RNP
APCH

IFP Implementation Safety Assessment

– IAP/ RNP APCH-
Assessor:  New  Amended
Procedure Date:
Name:
S: Satisfactory / U: Unsatisfactory / N/A: Not Applicable
Item Check Item S U N/A
No.
Is the safety assessor independent of the flight procedure
1 team and has she/he been involved with the process?
Comments:
Were proposed flight procedures/amendments designed
by a qualified flight procedure designer and reviewed
2 independently by another qualified flight procedure
designer?
Comments:
Did procedure designers coordinate with stakeholders such
as ATC, operators, etc., regarding new and/or amended
3
flight procedures?
Comments:
Did relevant ATC facilities review the new and/or amended
procedures based on the Letter of Agreement (LOA)
4 between facilities? Is the amended LOA published and
effective?
Comments:
Are the locations of waypoints and restrictions (speed,
altitude, etc.) appropriate for the aircraft types expected to
5 use these procedures?
List aircraft categories considered:
Comments:
Are there any expected difficulties or possibilities of
phonetic confusion in the names used for reporting points/
waypoints and procedure? It is recommended that
6
proximity check for like-sounding codes be done within
250NM for TMA waypoints using ICARD system.
Comments:
Are there any elements that may lead to misinterpretation
or other difficulties while using the proposed procedures
(e.g. textual description of the chart, local wind condition
7
or temperature causing difficulties while
climbing/descending, etc.)?
Comments:
In case of procedure amendment, was a review of safety
8 incidents/accidents concerning the existing procedure
conducted, with the view of mitigating them?

1st Edition APP4-4 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 4 – SAMPLE PRE-IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIST FOR
PREPARATION OF IFP IMPLEMENTATION SAFETY ASSESSMENT
Comments:

Referring to CARANS Parts 4, and 15, MOS Aeronautical

Charts and ICAO Doc 8697, are there any errors on the
chart(s)?
(Items to focus on: Magnetic Bearings/True Headings,
9
Distances, Climb/Descent Gradients, TAA/MSA, Magnetic
Variation, Topography, Location of Obstacles, Coordinates,
Restrictions, etc.)
Comments:
Were all obstacles evaluated when calculating OCA/H in the
10 proposed procedures properly documented?
Comments:
Were RAIM/GNSS availability and prediction (as necessary)
11 considered while implementing the proposed procedures?
Comments:
If RAIM/GNSS availability/prediction information is
provided by entities other than the ANSP, are there any
12 agreements with those entities regarding the provision of
this information?
Comments:
Are the descent rates and descent angle, if not the same as
the optimum value, of proposed approach procedure
13 appropriate to enabling aircraft to complete its approach?
If not, were operators consulted and consent obtained?
Comments:
Do missed approach procedures enable aircraft to climb to
the assigned altitude/s? Are climb gradients specified
where the climb gradient exceeds the standard missed
14
approach climb gradient of 2.5%? If so, have the operators
been consulted?
Comments:
Do the proposed procedures take into account adequate
separation between aircraft using these approaches and
other aircraft using other type of approaches (RNP, ILS,
15
VOR, NDB)? Was the standard operating
procedure/operating manual updated?
Comments:
Have any alternative procedures been instituted if an
aircraft conducting the proposed procedure/s is unable to
complete the assigned procedure due to temporary GNSS
16 and other navaid signal abnormality, airborne system
failures, technical problems or other difficulties?
Comments:

For LNAV/VNAV Procedures: Is the location of the

altimeter setting source appropriate for the use of the
17 Baro-VNAV approach procedure?
Comments:

March 2022 APP4-5 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 4 – SAMPLE PRE-IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIST FOR
PREPARATION OF IFP IMPLEMENTATION SAFETY ASSESSMENT
For LNAV/VNAV Procedure: Is the published minimum
temperature reasonable for the application of the Baro-
18 VNAV procedure?
Comments:

Has implementation training been executed (or planned)

for air traffic controllers on the use of the proposed
procedures, including management of QNH in case of Baro-
19
VNAV?
Comments:

Are there any criteria applied for the RNP APCH design
using the minimum or maximum value in ICAO PANS-OPS
20 (Doc 8168)? If so, are they documented properly?
Comments:

Are there any items requiring special authorization in the

proposed procedures? If any, were sufficient reviews on
criteria conducted and was the rationale for requiring such
21
special authorization reasonable and necessary?
Comments:

Are there any other safety considerations regarding the

procedure(s)?
22
Comments:

b) IFP Implementation Safety Assessment – SID/STAR

IFP Implementation Safety Assessment

– SID/STAR-
Assessor:  New  Amended
Procedure Date:
Name:
S: Satisfactory / U: Unsatisfactory / N/A: Not Applicable
Item Check Item S U N/A
No.
Is the safety assessor independent of the flight procedure
1 team and has she/he been involved with the process?
Comments:
Were proposed flight procedures/amendments designed by
a qualified flight procedure designer and reviewed
2 independently by another qualified flight procedure
designer?
Comments:
Did procedure designers coordinate with stakeholders such
as ATC, operators, etc., regarding new and/or amended
3
flight procedures?
Comments:
Did relevant ATC facilities review the new and/or amended
4
procedures based on the Letter of Agreement (LOA)

1st Edition APP4-6 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 4 – SAMPLE PRE-IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIST FOR
PREPARATION OF IFP IMPLEMENTATION SAFETY ASSESSMENT
between facilities? Is the amended LOA published and
effective?
Comments:
Are the locations of waypoints and restrictions (speed,
altitude, etc.) appropriate for the aircraft types expected to
5 use these procedures?
List aircraft categories considered:
Comments:
Are there any expected difficulties or possibilities of
phonetic confusion in the names used for reporting points/
waypoints and procedure? It is recommended that
6
proximity check for like-sounding codes be done within
250NM for TMA waypoints using ICARD system.
Comments:
Are there any elements that may lead to misinterpretation
or other difficulties while using the proposed procedures
(e.g. textual description of the chart, local wind condition or
7
temperature causing difficulties while climbing/descending,
etc.)?
Comments:
In case of procedure amendment, was a review of safety
incidents/accidents concerning the existing procedure
8
conducted, with the view of mitigating them?
Comments:
Referring to ICAO Annex 4, 15 and Doc 8697, are there any
errors on the chart(s)?
(Items to focus on: Magnetic Bearings/True Headings,
9 Distances, Climb/Descent Gradients, TAA/MSA, Magnetic
Variation, Topography, Location of Obstacles, Coordinates,
Restrictions, etc.)
Comments:
Were all obstacles evaluated when calculating OCA/H in the
10 proposed procedures properly documented?
Comments:
Were coverage and limitations of available avionics, ground
navigational aids and GNSS considered while designing and
11
validating the proposed procedures?
Comments:
Were traffic flows in the terminal area considered while
12 designing the proposed procedures?
Comments:
Are climb/descent rates of the proposed procedures
appropriate to enabling the climb/descent within the
13
airspace?
Comments:
Does the separation applied between instrument flight
procedures of neighboring airport(s), airspaces including
special use airspaces (SUAs) and the proposed procedures
14
satisfy separation criteria specified in ICAO PANS-ATM (Doc
4444)/ MOS - ATS?
Comments:

March 2022 APP4-7 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 4 – SAMPLE PRE-IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIST FOR
PREPARATION OF IFP IMPLEMENTATION SAFETY ASSESSMENT
Do the proposed procedures consider separation between
aircraft using PBN procedures and aircraft using other
15 procedures specified in ICAO PANS-ATM (Doc 4444)/ MOS-
ATS?
Comments:
Did the proposed procedures consider current and
16 expected future airspace capacity?
Comments:
Are there any alternative methods when an aircraft
conducting a proposed procedure is unable to conduct the
17 procedure because of ground/satellite/airborne system
failures, technical problems or other difficulties?
Comments:
Is there any training plan for air traffic controllers on the
18 proposed procedures? Has the training been conducted?
Comments:
Are there any criteria applied for the SID/STAR design using
the minimum or maximum value in ICAO PANS-OPS (Doc
19
8168)? If so, are they documented properly?
Comments:
Are there any items requiring special authorization in the
proposed procedures? If any, were sufficient reviews on
20 criteria conducted and was rationale for requiring special
authorization reasonable?
Comments:
Are there any other safety considerations regarding the
21 procedure(s)?
Comments:

c) IFP Implementation Safety Assessment – ATS Route

IFP Implementation Safety Assessment

– ATS Route –
Assessor:  New  Amended
Procedure Date:
Name:
S: Satisfactory / U: Unsatisfactory / N/A: Not Applicable
Item Check Item S U N/A
No.
Is the safety assessor independent of the flight procedure
1 team and has she/he been involved with the process?
Comments:
Has proposed ATS route been reviewed independently by a
2 qualified route designer?
Comments:
Did procedure designers coordinate with stakeholders such
as ATC, operators, etc., regarding new and/or amended
3
flight procedures?
Comments:

1st Edition APP4-8 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 4 – SAMPLE PRE-IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIST FOR
PREPARATION OF IFP IMPLEMENTATION SAFETY ASSESSMENT
Did related ATC facilities review new and/or amended
procedures based on the Letter of Agreement (LOA)
4 between facilities? Is the amended LOA published and
effective?
Comments:
Are the locations of waypoints and restrictions (speed,
altitude, etc.) appropriate for the aircraft types expected to
5 use these procedures?
List aircraft categories considered:
Comments:
Are there any expected difficulties or the possibility of
confusion on the name of waypoints phonetically? It is
recommended that proximity check for like-sounding codes
6
should be done within 500NM for en-route waypoints using
ICARD system.
Comments:
Is the designator of ATS route appropriate for its
application, i.e. domestic or international? Is the duplicity
7
of the name confirmed with neighboring States?
Comments:
Are there any parts that may lead to mistakes or difficulties
while using the proposed ATS routes (e.g. separation from
other ATS routes and/or airspace including military
8 controlled airspace, coordination with other facilities
including military, identification of navigation specification,
difference of turn performance, introduction of FRT, etc.)?
Comments:
In case of procedure amendment, was a review of safety
incidents/accidents concerning the existing procedure
9
conducted, with the view of mitigating them?
Comments:
Referring to CARANS Parts 4 and 15, MOS Aeronautical
Charts and ICAO Doc 8697, are there any errors on the AIP
publication?
10
(check items: magnetic bearing/true heading, distance,
coordinates, restrictions, directions, etc.)
Comments:
Were all obstacles evaluated in the proposed ATS route and
11 properly documented?
Comments:
Were coverage and limitations of available avionics, ground
navigational aids and GNSS considered while designing and
12
validating the proposed procedures?
Comments:
Does the separation applied between instrument flight
procedures of neighboring airport(s), airspaces including
special use airspaces (SUAs), neighboring ATS routes and
13 the proposed ATS route satisfy separation criteria specified
in ICAO PANS-ATM (Doc 4444)/ MOS ATS and PANS-OPS
(Doc 8168)?
Comments:

March 2022 APP4-9 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 4 – SAMPLE PRE-IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIST FOR
PREPARATION OF IFP IMPLEMENTATION SAFETY ASSESSMENT
Does the separation applied between instrument flight
procedures of neighboring airport(s), airspaces including
special use airspaces (SUAs) and the proposed procedures
14
satisfy separation criteria specified in ICAO PANS-ATM (Doc
4444)/ MOS - ATS?
Comments:
Did the proposed ATS route consider current and expected
15 future airspace capacity?
Comments:
Are there any alternative methods when an aircraft flying
the proposed ATS route is unable to maintain the
requirement of the route because of
16
ground/satellite/airborne system failures, technical
problems or other difficulties?
Comments:
Is there any training plan for air traffic controllers on the
17 proposed ATS route? Has the training been conducted?
Comments:
Are there any items requiring special authorization on the
use of the proposed ATS route, e.g. reduction of lateral
separation between ATS routes? If any, were sufficient
18
reviews on criteria conducted and was rationale for
requiring special authorization reasonable?
Comments:
Are there any other safety considerations regarding the
proposed route(s)?
19
Comments:

1st Edition APP4-10 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 5 – FLIGHT VALIDATION PILOT TRAINING AND
EVALUATION
APPENDIX 5

FLIGHT VALIDATION PILOT TRAINING AND EVALUATION

Flight validation pilots must acquire and maintain the competency level required by
CAAP stated herein through initial training and supervised on-the-job training (OJT).
This is in order to achieve the safety and quality assurance objectives of the flight
validation and to ensure that the quality assurance in the procedure design process
and its output, including the quality of aeronautical information/data, meets the
requirements of CARANS Part 15 and MOS AIS.

Training for flight validation pilots should at least include initial training and recurrent
training at periodic intervals.

Initial training must ensure that the flight validation pilot is able to demonstrate a basic
level of competency that includes at least the following elements:
a) knowledge of the information contained in PANS-OPS, Volumes I and II, and
other related ICAO provisions relevant to the CAAP; and
b) knowledge of and skills in ground and flight validation of procedures.

Recurrent training must ensure that the flight validation pilot is able to demonstrate a
basic level of competency that includes at least the following elements:
a) knowledge about updates in ICAO provisions and other provisions pertaining
to procedure design and flight validation of procedures; and
b) maintenance and enhancement of knowledge and skills on ground and flight
validation of procedures.

Flight validation pilots must undergo an adequate OJT under close supervision of a
senior officer prior to being assigned to a task.

Competency of the flight validation pilot will be evaluated by the CAAP during audit
(usually conducted every 2 years).

The following paragraphs address the SKAs that must be acquired and evaluated for
a flight validation pilot to be competent to perform flight validation of IFPs. Flight
inspection pilots may also perform the flight validation of procedures. Flight inspection
pilots authorized by the CAAP to conduct flight validation of procedures must also meet
these requirements.

These competencies are not exhaustive. They represent the minimum knowledge
required to achieve the quality assurance objectives of the FPD process.

INITIAL TRAINING

1. Knowledge of information in PANS-OPS, Volumes I and II, and other related

ICAO provisions
– PANS-OPS, Volume I;
– PANS-OPS, Volume II;
a) General PANS-OPS subject areas:
i) data quality requirements;

March 2022 APP5-1 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 5 – FLIGHT VALIDATION PILOT TRAINING AND
EVALUATION
ii) charting requirements;
iii) environmental considerations;
iv) quality assurance requirements;
b) Procedure design criteria for each type of procedure to be validated:
i) obstacle protected areas;
ii) required obstacle clearance for any given segment of a
procedure;
iii) climb and descent gradients;
iv) ARINC coding;
– Required Navigation Performance — Authorization Required Manual (if
applicable);
– Quality Assurance Manual for Flight Procedure Design;
– Annex 14.
Note. - Substantial portions of the required knowledge in PANS-OPS can be obtained
in a PANS-OPS procedure design course.
2. Knowledge and skills in ground and flight validation of procedure
a) Ground training in flight and ground validation duties:
i) Manual on Testing of Radio Navigation Aids (Doc 8071);
ii) flight inspection requirements;
iii) procedure package contents;
iv) procedure package review;
v) requirements, techniques and considerations for verifying that the
navigation data to be published, as well as that used in the design
of the procedure, are correct;
vi) techniques and considerations for ground validation of obstacle
data;
vii) requirements, techniques and considerations for obstacle
assessment in flight;
viii) techniques and considerations in the application of PANS-OPS
procedures design criteria in the ground and flight validation of
procedures;
ix) airport infrastructure assessment;
x) communications coverage;
xi) flyability/Human Factors assessment;
xii) charting considerations;
xiii) operational factors;
xiv) criteria to be met for waiving the requirement for a flight validation;
b) Flight training in flight validation duties:
i) flight inspection requirements;

1st Edition APP5-2 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 5 – FLIGHT VALIDATION PILOT TRAINING AND
EVALUATION
ii) obstacle assessment requirements, techniques and
considerations;
iii) techniques and considerations in the applications of PANS-OPS
procedure design criteria in the flight validation of procedures;
iv) requirements, techniques and considerations for verifying that the
navigation data to be published, as well as that used in the design
of the procedure, are correct;
v) airport infrastructure assessment;
vi) communications coverage;
vii) flyability/Human Factors;
viii) charting considerations; and
ix) operational factors;
c) Supervised OJT adequate to achieve the required level of competency
in flight and ground validation knowledge and skills;
d) Initial ground and flight evaluation.

RECURRENT TRAINING

The following are the minimum competencies to be addressed in a recurrent training

program for flight validation pilots, which should be accomplished at least every two
years, or when major changes occur:
e) update on changes in PANS-OPS criteria;
f) review portions of PANS-OPS criteria most relevant to current or
projected duties;
g) review changes in airport infrastructure requirements; and
h) knowledge and skills related to new developments in flight validation.

The competency of the flight validation pilot will be evaluated by the CAAP at least
once every two years (during audits). The skills, knowledge and attitudes to be
addressed in the evaluation will at least include those areas that pose the greatest
risk, if not accomplished correctly, to the overall quality of the CAAP’s procedure
design process.

March 2022 APP5-3 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 5 – FLIGHT VALIDATION PILOT TRAINING AND
EVALUATION

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1st Edition APP5-4 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 6 – VALIDATION TEMPLATES FOR FIXED WING
AIRCRAFT
APPENDIX 6

VALIDATION TEMPLATES FOR FIXED WING AIRCRAFT

The following sample checklist and report templates contain minimum suggested data
and information required to be recorded during the validation process. If certain items
are not applicable to the intended IAP, identify the boxes in the form by strikethrough
or the term “n/a”. Such forms must be signed.

The templates may be customized as applicable to the type of IFP to be validated as

required.

6.1 Pre-Flight Validation Checklist — Fixed Wing

PRE-FLIGHT VALIDATION CHECKLIST — FIXED WING

REPORT HEADER
Date: Validation Type (new/amended procedure)
Organization:
Procedure Title:
Location:
Airport: Runway:
Evaluator: Contact Info:
PBN Navigation Specification:
PRE-FLIGHT VALIDATION
PASS FAIL
IFP package forms, charts, and maps.
Data verification (e.g. aerodrome/heliport, aeronautical, obstacle, ARINC
coding).
Location of the controlling obstacles.
Graphical depiction (chart) correctness and complexity.
Intended use and special requirements.
Overall design is practical, complete, clear and safe.
Consider impact on the procedure of waivers to standard design criteria.
Segment lengths and descent gradients allow for deceleration/
configuration.
Comparison of FMS navigation database with the IFP design, coding, and
relevant charting information.
Charting of notification of cold/warm temperature limits.
Flight Inspection reports available.
REMARKS

Simulator evaluation needed. Yes:  No: 

Flight Evaluation Needed. Yes:  No: 
PROCEDURE: PASS  FAIL 
Evaluator Signature: Date:

March 2022 APP6-1 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 6 – VALIDATION TEMPLATES FOR FIXED WING
AIRCRAFT
6.2 Simulator Evaluation Checklist — Fixed Wing

``SIMULATOR EVALUATION CHECKLIST — FIXED WING

REPORT HEADER
Date: Validation Type (new/amended procedure)
Organization:
Procedure Title:
Location:
Airport: Runway:
Evaluator: Contact Info:
PBN Navigation Specification:
PRE-FLIGHT VALIDATION
PASS FAIL
Comparison of FMS navigation database and source documents,
including proper ARINC 424 coding.
Document simulator aircraft information including FMS software.
Assessed faster and/or slower than charted.
Assessed at allowed temperature limits.
Assessed with adverse wind components.
Flight track matches procedure design.
Flyability.
Human Factors assessment.
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SIMULATOR ACTIVITIES
COMPLETED
Document the following information as satisfactory or not for each
procedure segment as appropriate: heading/track, distance, TAWS alerts,
flight path angle (for final segment only); and note the wind component
and temperature conditions.
Note the maximum bank angle achieved during any RF segments.
Record simulation data (if applicable).
REMARKS

PROCEDURE: PASS  FAIL 

Evaluator Signature: Date:

1st Edition APP6-2 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 6 – VALIDATION TEMPLATES FOR FIXED WING
AIRCRAFT
6.3 Flight Evaluation Checklist — Fixed Wing

FLIGHT EVALUATION CHECKLIST — FIXED WING

REPORT HEADER
Date: Validation Type (new/amended procedure)
Organization:
Procedure Title:
Location:
Airport: Runway:
Evaluator: Contact Info:
PBN Navigation Specification:
PLANNING
COMPLETED
Check all necessary items from IFP package are available, to include:
graphic, text, maps, submission form.
Check that the necessary flight validation forms are available.
Appropriate aircraft and avionics for IFP being evaluated.
Does the procedure require use of autopilot or flight director?
PRE-FLIGHT
COMPLETED
Review pre-flight validation assessment.
Review simulator evaluation assessment (if applicable).
Obstacle assessment planning: areas of concern; ability to identify and
fly lateral
limits of obstacle assessment area (if required).
Verify source of IFP data for aircraft FMS (electronic or manual creation).
Evaluate navigation system status at time of flight (NOTAM, RAIM,
outages).
Weather requirements.
Night evaluation requirement (if applicable).
Required navigation (NAVAID) support (if applicable).
Combination of multiple IFP evaluations.
Estimated flight time.
Coordination (as required) with: ATS, designer, airport authority.
Necessary equipment and media for electronic record of validation flight.
GENERAL
PASS FAIL
IFP graphic (chart) is complete and correct.
Check for Interference: document all details related to detected RFI.
Satisfactory radio communication.
Required RADAR coverage is satisfactory.
Verify proper runway markings, lighting and VASIS.
Altimeter source(s).
Extra consideration should be given to non-surveyed areas.
For approach procedures with circling minima, verify controlling obstacle
for each circling category.

FLYABILITY
PASS FAIL

March 2022 APP6-3 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 6 – VALIDATION TEMPLATES FOR FIXED WING
AIRCRAFT
Comparison of FMS navigation database and source documents,
including proper ARINC 424 coding.
Note. - If manual entry used N/A, but a note in the remarks section is
required to alert the CAAP of the procedure that a table top review of the
coded procedure, or an operational assessment by a company pilot,
should be completed prior to operational approval granted.
Human Factors and general workload satisfactory.
Was there any loss of RAIM.
Was there any loss of required RNP navigation performance (when RNP
pertains).
Missed approach procedure.
Descent/climb gradients.
Use of autopilot satisfactory.
Segment length, turns and bank angles, speed restrictions and
deceleration
allowance.
TAWS.
INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURE
PASS FAIL
Segment lengths, headings/tracks, and waypoint locations match
procedure
design.
Final segment vertical glide path angle (if applicable).
Threshold crossing height (LTP or FTP), if applicable.
Course alignment.
Along track alignment.
FAS datablock.
REMARKS

PROCEDURE: PASS  FAIL 

Evaluator Signature: Date:

1st Edition APP6-4 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 6 – VALIDATION TEMPLATES FOR FIXED WING
AIRCRAFT
6.4 Validation Report Checklist — Fixed Wing

VALIDATION REPORT CHECKLIST — FIXED WING

REPORT HEADER
Date: Validation Type (new/amended procedure)
Organization:
Procedure Title:
Location:
Airport: Runway:
Evaluator: Contact Info:
PBN Navigation Specification:
POST FLIGHT
COMPLETED
Evaluate collected data.
Submit flight validation report with recorded electronic flight data for
archive.
Request NOTAM action (if appropriate).
Sign and submit the instrument flight procedure submission
documentation.
REMARKS

PROCEDURE: PASS  FAIL 

Evaluator Signature: Date:

March 2022 APP6-5 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 6 – VALIDATION TEMPLATES FOR FIXED WING
AIRCRAFT

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1st Edition APP6-6 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 7 – VALIDATION TEMPLATES FOR HELICOPTERS
APPENDIX 7

VALIDATION TEMPLATES FOR HELICOPTERS

The following sample checklist and report templates contain minimum suggested data
and information required to be recorded during the flight validation process of an RNAV
IAP including SBAS. If certain items are not applicable to the intended IAP, identify the
boxes in the form by strikethrough or the term “n/a”. Such forms must be signed.

The templates may be customized as applicable to the type of IFP to be validated as

required.

7.1 Pre-Flight Validation Checklist — Helicopters

PRE-FLIGHT VALIDATION CHECKLIST — HELICOPTERS

REPORT HEADER
Date: Validation Type (new/amended procedure)
Organization:
Procedure Title:
Location:
Heliport: Helipad:
Evaluator: Contact Info:
PBN Navigation Specification:
PRE-FLIGHT VALIDATION
PASS FAIL
IFP package forms, charts, and maps.
Data verification (e.g. aerodrome/heliport, aeronautical, obstacle, ARINC
coding).
Location of the controlling obstacles.
Graphical depiction (chart) correctness and complexity.
Intended use and special requirements.
Overall design is practical, complete, clear and safe.
Consider impact on the procedure of deviations from to design criteria.
Segment lengths and descent gradients allow for
deceleration/configuration.
Flight inspection reports available.
REMARKS

Simulator needed. Yes:  No: 

Simulator available. Yes:  No: 
Flight Evaluation Needed. Yes:  No: 
PROCEDURE: PASS  FAIL 
Evaluator Signature: Date:

March 2022 APP7-1 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 7 – VALIDATION TEMPLATES FOR HELICOPTERS

7.2 Simulator Evaluation Checklist — Helicopters

SIMULATOR EVALUATION CHECKLIST — HELICOPTERS

REPORT HEADER
Date: Validation Type (new/amended procedure)
Organization:
Procedure Title:
Location:
Heliport: Helipad:
Evaluator: Contact Info:
PBN Navigation Specification:
PRE-FLIGHT VALIDATION
PASS FAIL
Comparison of FMS navigation database and source documents,
including proper ARINC 424 coding.
Document simulator aircraft information including GPS/GNSS/FMS
system/software.
Assessed faster and/or slower than charted.
Assessed with adverse wind components.
Assessed with adverse wind components.
Flight track matches procedure design.
Flyability.
Human Factors assessment.
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SIMULATOR ACTIVITIES
COMPLETED
Document the following information as satisfactory or not for each
procedure segment as appropriate: heading/track, distance, TAWS
alerts, flight path angle (for final segment only); and note the wind
component and temperature conditions.
Note the maximum bank angle achieved during any RF segments.
Record simulation data (if applicable).
REMARKS

PROCEDURE: PASS  FAIL 

Evaluator Signature: Date:

1st Edition APP7-2 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 7 – VALIDATION TEMPLATES FOR HELICOPTERS
7.3 Flight Evaluation Checklist — Helicopters

FLIGHT EVALUATION CHECKLIST — HELICOPTERS

REPORT HEADER
Date: Validation Type (new/amended procedure)
Organization:
Procedure Title:
Location:
Heliport: Helipad:
Evaluator: Contact Info:
PBN Navigation Specification:
PLANNING
COMPLETED
Check all necessary items from IFP package are available, to include:
graphic, text, maps, submission form.
Check that the necessary flight validation forms are available.
Appropriate aircraft and avionics for IFP being evaluated.
Does the procedure require use of autopilot or flight director.

PRE-FLIGHT
COMPLETED
Review pre-flight validation assessment.
Review simulator evaluation assessment (if applicable).
Obstacle assessment planning: areas of concern; ability to identify and
fly lateral
limits of obstacle assessment area (if required).
Verify source of IFP data for aircraft GPS/GNSS/FMS (electronic or
manual creation).
Evaluate navigation system status at time of flight (NOTAM, RAIM,
outages).
Weather requirements.
Night evaluation requirement (if applicable).
Required navigation (NAVAID) support (if applicable).
Combination of multiple IFP evaluations.
Estimated flight time.
Coordination (as required) with: ATS, designer, airport authority.
Necessary equipment and media for electronic record of validation flight.
GENERAL
PASS FAIL
IFP graphic (chart) is complete and correct.
Check for Interference: document all details related to detected RFI.
Satisfactory radio communication.
Required RADAR coverage is satisfactory (if RADAR required).
Verify proper heliport markings, lighting and VASIS (if installed).
Altimeter source(s).

OBSTACLE ASSESSMENT
PASS FAIL

March 2022 APP7-3 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 7 – VALIDATION TEMPLATES FOR HELICOPTERS
Verified controlling obstacle in each segment (including as appropriate:
VFR, direct visual segment, or maneuvering visual segment area/s,
missed
approach); if any obstacles are missing or any new obstacles are
observed,
record the lat/long and elevation of obstacles observed.
Where necessary, flown at lateral limits of the obstacle assessment area;
most appropriate for procedures designed in challenging terrain, or
when there are questionable obstacles.
Note. - Extra consideration should be given to non-surveyed areas.
FLYABILITY
PASS FAIL
Comparison of GPS/GNSS/FMS navigation database and source
documents, including proper ARINC 424 coding.
Note. - If manual entry used N/A, but a note in the remarks section is
required to alert the CAAP of the procedure that a table top review of the
coded procedure, or an operational assessment by a company pilot,
should be completed prior to operational approval granted.
Human Factors and general workload satisfactory.
Was there any loss of RAIM.
Was there any loss of required RNP navigation performance (when RNP
pertains).
Missed approach procedure.
Descent/climb gradients.
Use of autopilot satisfactory.
Segment length, turns and bank angles, speed restrictions and
deceleration
allowance.
TAWS.
INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURE
PASS FAIL
Segment lengths, headings/tracks, and waypoint locations match
procedure
design.
Final segment vertical glide path angle (if applicable).
Heliport crossing height (HRP), if applicable.
Course alignment.
Along track alignment.
FAS datablock (for SBAS APV procedures).
REMARKS

PROCEDURE: PASS  FAIL 

Evaluator Signature: Date:

1st Edition APP7-4 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 7 – VALIDATION TEMPLATES FOR HELICOPTERS
7.4 Validation Report Checklist — Helicopters

VALIDATION REPORT CHECKLIST — HELICOPTERS

REPORT HEADER
Date: Validation Type (new/amended procedure)
Organization:
Procedure Title:
Location:
Heliport: Helipad:
Evaluator: Contact Info:
PBN Navigation Specification:
POST FLIGHT
PASS FAIL
Evaluate collected data.
Submit flight validation report with recorded electronic flight data for
archive.
Request NOTAM action (if appropriate).
Sign and submit the instrument flight procedure submission
documentation.
REMARKS

PROCEDURE: PASS  FAIL 

Evaluator Signature: Date:

March 2022 APP7-5 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 7 – VALIDATION TEMPLATES FOR HELICOPTERS

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1st Edition APP7-6 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 8 – HUMAN FACTORS
APPENDIX 8
HUMAN FACTORS

The purpose of flight validation is to determine whether a flight procedure is

operationally safe, practical and flyable for the target end user. The criteria used to
develop instrument flight procedures represent many factors such as positioning
requirements, protected airspace, approach system and avionics capabilities, etc.
Sensory, perceptual, and cognitive restrictions historically have been incorporated in
the criteria only to a limited extent (e.g., length of approach segments, descent
gradients and turn angles).

These are products of subjective judgments in procedure development and

cartographic standards. It is incumbent upon the flight crew to apply the principles of
Human Factors and professional judgment when evaluating an original or amended
procedure. CARANS Part 4, Chapter 2 provides directions in that regard.

The following factors must be evaluated.

1. Practicality. The procedure should be practical. For example, segment lengths
for approach and missed approach segments should be appropriate for the
category of aircraft using the procedure. Procedures must not require
excessive aircraft maneuvering to remain on lateral and vertical path.
2. Complexity. The procedure should be as simple as possible. It should not
impose an excessive workload on the target user. Complex procedures may
be developed for use under specific conditions, aircraft equipment or
environment, and/or specialized training and authorizations.
3. Interpretability.
a) The final approach course should be clearly identifiable, with the primary
guidance system or NAVAID unmistakable.
b) The procedure should clearly indicate which runway the approach serves
and indicate which runway(s) circling maneuvers apply to.
c) Fix naming must be readable and clearly understood. Fixes/waypoints with
similar sounding identifiers should not be used in the same procedure.
d) Areas not to be used for maneuvering must be clearly defined. Significant
terrain features must be displayed on approach charts.
e) Approaches to runways with significant visual illusions should be noted
and corrective action suggested; i.e.:
i) caution note;
ii) additional equipment required:
– PAPI/VASI;
– electronic glide path; and
– wind shear warnings.
4. Human memory considerations. Pilots must be able to extract information
quickly and accurately during an instrument procedure. Multiple tasks
complicate the memory process and tend to produce prioritization during high
workload phases of flight. Workload reduction can be accomplished through
methodical chart layout that encourages the pilot to periodically refer to the
depicted procedure rather than trying to memorize complex maneuvers
detailed in the text.

March 2022 APP8-1 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 8– HUMAN FACTORS

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1st Edition APP8-2 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 9 – OBSTACLE ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX 9

OBSTACLE ASSESSMENT

9.1 Verification of Minimum Obstacle Clearance (MOC)

9.1.1 Controlling obstacles in each segment must be confirmed during the initial
certification and cyclic review of flight procedures. If unable to confirm that the
declared controlling obstacle of the respective segment is correctly identified,
the flight validation pilot then lists the following information that the designer
needs to consider:
a) location;
b) Type; and
c) approximate elevation of the obstacles.

9.1.2 The flight validation pilot will place special emphasis on newly discovered
obstacles. If the controlling obstacle is listed as terrain/trees or adverse
assumption obstacle (e.g. vegetation tolerance, ships, tolerance for potential
unreported structures as defined by the CAAP), it is not necessary to verify
the actual height of the controlling obstacle, only that no higher obstacle is
present in the protected airspace. If the flight validation pilot observes that the
documented controlling obstacle is not present, the flight validation pilot must
indicate this information in the report.

9.2 Identification of new obstacles

9.2.1 In most instances, accurate information concerning the location, description

and heights of tall towers and other obstacles is available from the database
and/or other government sources. When new potentially controlling obstacles
not identified in the procedure package are discovered, the procedure’s initial
evaluation will be assessed as “failed” until the designer can analyze the
impact of the obstacle on the overall procedure. Particular emphasis is given
to the following obstacles which may not be populated in the database:
a) power lines;
b) man-made structures;
c) wind farms; and
d) chimneys with high velocity exhaust gases.

9.2.2 Obstacle locations must be noted with latitude/longitude or radial/bearing and

distance from a known navigation aid or waypoint. If these methods are not
available, an accurate description on the flight validation map may be used
and a digital picture taken if possible.

9.2.3 Obstacle heights measured in-flight are not considered accurate and should
not be used unless the actual height of the obstacle cannot be determined by
other means. GNSS is the preferred measurement tool; however, if
barometric height determination is required, accurate altimeter settings and
altitude references must be used to obtain reasonable results. The flight
validation report will reflect the documentation for the method of height
determination including altimeter corrections applied for low temperature,
mountain wave, etc. The GNSS altitude must also be noted.

March 2022 APP9-1 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 9 – OBSTACLE ASSESSMENT

9.2.4 Obstacle assessment for multiple approaches to the same runway may be
completed during a single evaluation to meet periodic requirements.

9.2.5 While the challenging nature of this task is acknowledged, its basic purpose
is to confirm that at no time during the approach was the aircraft ever brought
into close proximity – laterally or vertically – to any obstacles. It is not intended
to imply an exhaustive survey of every obstacle in the area.

9.3 Terrain Awareness Warning System (TAWS) Alerts

9.3.1 Some TAWS(s) may alert while flying over irregular or rapidly rising terrain at
altitudes providing standard obstacle clearance. If TAWS alerts are received
while validating a procedure, repeat the maneuver, ensuring flight at the
designed true altitude using temperature compensation at the maximum
design speed for the procedure.

9.3.2 If the alert is repeatable, indicate the information in the report, including
sufficient details for resolution by the designer. The FVP should not hesitate
to provide potential operational solutions such as speed restrictions, altitude
restrictions or waypoint relocation. A TAWS alert may be generated when
approaching an airport runway that is not in the TAWS database. The TAWS
check should be performed with proper aircraft configuration in the respective
phase of flight.

1st Edition APP9-2 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY
Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 10 – SAMPLE VALIDATION DOCUMENTATION
APPENDIX 10

SAMPLE VALIDATION DOCUMENTATION

Flight Procedure Design Software Validation

SOFTWARE NAME JFC Procedure Design Suite Version 1.0
Evaluator: John De La Cruz Signature: (signed)
Organization/ State: Nickwings AvTech Corp., Philippines Date 05/19/2020
Test 1 Title: Circling Objective: Validate construction and obstacle
No. assessment of circling area
Reference Doc. PANS-OPS, Volume II [Part I, Section 4, Chapter 7]
Related Test Nos. Tests # 7 and 8
Initial Conditions
Application is open, and populated with database set “A1”. Procedure titled VOR/DME
straight-in final Test #8 has been created and saved.
Ste Required Action Expected Results Pass Fail
p
1 CAT A area Application correctly constructs area x
2 CAT A obstacle assessment Application correctly assesses x
obstacles
3 CAT B area Application correctly constructs area x
4 CAT B obstacle assessment Application correctly assesses x
obstacles

Comments
None

March 2022 APP10-1 1st Edition

UNCONTROLLED COPY
 Manual of Standards for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service
APPENDIX 10 – SAMPLE VALIDATION DOCUMENTATION

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1st Edition APP10-2 March 2022

UNCONTROLLED COPY