Page:KAL801Finalreport.pdf/178

 shading for various height gradients and symbols for high obstructions, and others use broader colored areas with the minimum sector altitude for obstacle clearance printed over each area. However, no chart vendor depicts terrain or obstructions on the profile view, which depicts the inbound approach course descent profile from an initial approach fix to a landing or missed approach. Other than the depiction of certain obstruction heights, there is no FAA requirement or standardized format to depict terrain on approach charts. The Safety Board notes that Nimitz Hill was not depicted on the Guam runway 6L ILS approach chart.

During an instrument approach, pilots generally refer to the plan view until they are established on the inbound approach course, usually on the intermediate and final approach segments. Once on the inbound approach course, pilots generally shift their attention on the approach chart from the plan to the profile view. Thus, the Safety Board concludes that terrain depiction on the profile view of approach charts could result in increased flight crew awareness of significant terrain on the approach path. The Board recognizes that logistical problems may be associated with obtaining and including this information and that not all users agree that obstacle depiction on the profile view is necessary and helpful. (See section 1.18.4.2.) Nevertheless, the Safety Board believes that the FAA should evaluate the benefits of depicting terrain and other obstacles along a specific approach path on the profile view of approach charts and require such depiction if the evaluation demonstrates the benefits.

Charting companies that publish instrument procedures receive the pertinent information from the FAA on its Form 8260. This form includes data for the terminal area as well as final approach and missed approach standards for a specific instrument procedure. The manager of the FAA's Western Flight Procedures Development Branch testified at the Safety Board's public hearing that, when an approach procedure is completed but before it is published, the procedure is distributed to industry user groups, including ALPA, the Air Transport Association, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, and airport operators, for review. The manager stated that the purpose of this user review is to ensure that the final product is safe, accurate, and intelligible. The Safety Board agrees with and endorses this practice. However, the Board notes that the FAA does not provide user groups with the approach procedure in its final, graphical form as it will be published and used. Rather, user groups are only given FAA Form 8260, which describes the approach in words and numbers.

Industry user groups, including ALPA (according to its submission to the Safety Board regarding this accident), have stated that the format of FAA Form 8260 makes it difficult for them to evaluate the procedure. Thus, the Safety Board concludes that valuable user group reviews of proposed new instrument procedures are hampered by the format in which the information is disseminated; thus, user groups may not be able to effectively evaluate whether a procedure is safe, accurate, and intelligible. Therefore, the