E-IPL - Anyone use it?

[kmac]

NGA’s Electronic Instrument Procedures Library (E-IPL) has been used by the Army for over a year now. The USAF and USN have not authorized its use... but, I do know of it being used overseas by different communities.

Have you used it? Do you understand what the difference is between E-IPL and FLIP?

 

[PMPT]

I think I've pulled plates off the NGA website before to have physical backup copies from an authorized DOD source (as opposed to, say, printing out approaches from Skyvector). AFAIK it's legit for USN/USMC. A former VT-31 turned T-45 IP used to use it all the time and sing its praises as a good way to grab backup paper plates in case your ipad dies or anything.

 

[kmac]

I think I've pulled plates off the NGA website before to have physical backup copies from an authorized DOD source (as opposed to, say, printing out approaches from Skyvector). AFAIK it's legit for USN/USMC. A former VT-31 turned T-45 IP used to use it all the time and sing its praises as a good way to grab backup paper plates in case your ipad dies or anything.

E-IPL isn’t the same as FLIP, but both are on NGA’s website. E-IPL is a collection of foreign country procedures put into a FLIPesque format. It’s close to the same charting specifications of FLIP, but not quite the same thing.

Thanks for responding and I apologize for my delay.

 

[PMPT]

my apologies then, no idea about that stuff

 

[kmac]

I forgot to add, any FAA procedure in the US is approved for use. It doesn’t have to be in DoD FLIP.

 

[Gatordev]

I forgot to add, any FAA procedure in the US is approved for use. It doesn’t have to be in DoD FLIP.

And yet 3710 continues to muddle that and make it less than clear.

Rewind 14 years ago, and this debate continued on when the KMVC approaches were removed from the FLIP.

"We can't go to KMVC anymore!" certain people would say.

After a quick call to the FLIP Quick Reaction Office (no, not a thing), they said they didn't think anyone went in there, so they removed them....they'll put them back in the next issue. But the approaches were never prohibited.

I think there has been conflation between understanding that a Jepp TERP'ed approach can be different than a DoD TERP'ed approach for OCONUS, but it's not really an issue INCONUS where FAA and DoD are cross-compatible.

But I know you know this, kmac. Just getting on my soap box.

 

[Meyerkord]

"We can't go to KMVC anymore!" certain people would say...they said they didn't think anyone went in there, so they removed them

They should be removed for the sole reason that KMVC is located in the bermuda triangle of Houston center, Jax center, and Atlanta center. I swear to god every time I shot the RNAV there, I wouldn't get cleared for the approach until I was damn near the numbers because the controllers kept switching me to one of the other ones ? I do love that place though. Best FBO food and nicest people of all the places I went.

 

[kmac]

And yet 3710 continues to muddle that and make it less than clear.
...
But I know you know this, kmac. Just getting on my soap box.

I just reread section 3.13 of NATOPS and can appreciate your point. There’s a level of background knowledge that must be understood for any of it to make sense. For the uninitiated...

All procedures in the US are designed to the FAA’s TERPS criteria. So long as you have the qualification and PBN/equipment requirements listed on the chart, you can fly the procedure. In this context, it is the foreign procedures that must be validated against US standards to use them.

Foreign countries may use different procedure design criteria. It may be PANS OPS (ICAO), MIPS (NATO), or a national system (e.g., JPN NTL). The same procedure, if designed using different criteria, would result in different minimums, different missed approach climb gradients, etc. Therefore, these procedures must be validated/modified to meet TERPS criteria to publish in DoD FLIP. Often this results in higher or not authorized minimums. In contrast, Jeppesen does not do any validation. Jeppesen publishes exactly what is on the host country’s chart, which may not meet the US safety standards. In DoD FLIP, the design criteria is listed on the lower left of the chart below the procedure effective date. If it’s blank, then it is US TERPS.

Back to 3.13:
* Passenger-carrying aircraft must fly an approach that is validated by a US agency. The unwritten part to this is that the US agency that performs the validation is going to be one of the DoD services, NGA, or the FAA.

* NAVFIG is the “only Naval Authority authorized to validate instrument approaches.” That means that they are the only office in the USN/USMC to do that, not the only authority to validate a procedure. Note that they do not validate FAA-approved procedures. As such, this section has no bearing on whether a naval aircraft can fly a validated procedure since one of several TERPS shops may do the validation. The service/organization responsible to validate any foreign procedure in DoD FLIP is listed as the Office of Primary Responsibility on the chart itself (top, middle).

* The part about US Civil airports and having a requirement to include them in DoD FLIP is about the costs involved in printing/publishing. It is NOT related to whether the procedure may be used. Nearly all US procedures are coded in DAFIF but only a small subset are included in FLIP. You can pick up any FAA FLIP and legally fly one of those procedures. In fact, there is consideration now to discontinue US DoD FLIP for civil procedures since these are already in the FAA FLIP.

* This brings us to E-IPL. These are closer to Jeppesen than DoD FLIP. Think of them as the Jepessen way of copying host information into a DoD FLIP chart format. Many of these procedures must be validated prior to use.

 

[Gatordev]

Good stuff, @kmac

In fact, there is consideration now to discontinue US DoD FLIP for civil procedures since these are already in the FAA FLIP.

It seems like a lot (but not all) of DoD FLIP is either redundant or a way more complicated process than just using the FAA for CONUS operations. See also: the thread/posts about 1801s, filing via base ops, and generally doing things not as efficiently as the service could be doing it. adj. NFWB is dumb.

So, kmac...now you just need to work on getting rid of that fucking blurb about canceling IFR isn't canceling a flight plan. Why has this lie survived for so long????

 

[Jim123]

So, kmac...now you just need to work on getting rid of that fucking blurb about canceling IFR isn't canceling a flight plan. Why has this lie survived for so long????

Rrrrrreverend!


I don't know how many times I've explained-

VFR flight plan is like "call your mom when you get there." There's not a whole lot of difference if it's with someone at FSS, the duty at your squadron, or some arrangement between your squadron and base ops- any of those people can call the proverbial SAR. This is sometimes called flight following.

IFR flight plan is your strip, it's a little 1" tall, 6" wide piece of paper that the controller is holding and at the same time it's that information in the ATC "system," which is a really old computer. When you cancel it then it's gone, the controller presses the delete button and puts your paper strip in a pile of canceled strips (and soon after the garbage can). Well, I guess it's more like putting stuff in the windows recycling bin and less so like clicking "empty recycling bin."

VFR flight following, not to be confused with VFR flight plan, is like "strip lite."

Military notification message/arrival message is a weird thing between FSS and base ops that almost nobody ever explains to you at IGS. It's like a PPR but it's not a PPR (PPR is more like reserving parking spot... with a HOA when you don't live there). Notification is supposedly to tell the base ops people to look for your inbound flight plan, but what I suspect it's really for is to make sure the tower people don't go home early.


Tune in next week for why it's a dumb idea to squawk 7700 when you're already in radar contact with ATC and you have positively declared an emergency over the radio.

 

[Gatordev]

Notification is supposedly to tell the base ops people to look for your inbound flight plan, but what I suspect it's really for is to make sure the tower people don't go home early.

Which I suspect may not even be a thing anymore. I've "heard" that when things went to the 1801, which isn't that far off from when things went to the 2020 mandate, it got harder for Base Ops to manage a local (what would have been local DD-175) flight plan and some places just switched to "call me on Clearance."

Imagine a modern fighting Navy being able to quickly submit things via EKB.

Also, imagine a modern fighting Navy not having to have some Petty Officer copying and pasting a NWS forecast into a .pdf document because said Petty Officer is a "Navy Forecaster."

 

[Jim123]

... because said Petty Officer is a "Navy Forecaster."