Seems like it would be pretty easy. Shouldn't need any TERPy type studies, flight checks or anything. No changes to minimums or anything. Just push a couple buttons and it, they in this case, and poof, they have a new name and format. At the Chart cycle date of course. Ain't no big deal, ya fly what yer cleared for. But just get the consistency with the new Naming Convention. But I'm probably missing something.
Now, I'm not saying it "shouldn't" be this easy. But in practice, it's typically not. My least favorite words from my boss are "here, I got an easy one for you". Ugh. There usually is no such thing.
As I look at the LNS VOR/DME RWY 31, I see several things that should be brought up to current standards.
- Naming convention (change to VOR RWY 31) and addition of the Equipment Requirements Note box to say "DME Required".
-- As previously mentioned, there is already a VOR RWY 31, so one would have to become the VOR Y RWY 31 and one the VOR Z RWY 31 - or, coordinate with users/ATC/etc to see if both are really required.
-- If both are still required, then the other procedure would be checked for the same type of things I'll mention next.
- The "Night Landing: RWY 13, 31 NA" note is no longer current. The current format is "Circling RWY 13, 31 NA at night."
- The "Helicopter visibility" note is no longer current. It should now specify the runway, so in this case should read "RWY 31 helicopter visibility..."
-- I would typically go the next step here and verify if the helicopter note is still needed, or if it should be changed to 3/4 SM, since that note is due to penetrations of the visual segment 20:1 and/or 34:1, and those evaluations changed several years ago.
- I would check the backup altimeter note to make sure the increase still meets criteria.
- The missed approach uses the word "via", which should be changed to "on". Yes, really. No, I don't know why.
- Hold-in-lieu-of-PT's get a maximum holding altitude charted as well.
Note that none of these required any TERPS evaluation (except for the backup altimeter notes, and that's really just a lookup table, not a big deal, and the helicopter note re-evaluation). They could all be accomplished by an abbreviated amendment (making it amendment 4E), and without flight check involvement. There is a whole policy memo on what things have to be flown by flight check and which ones don't. It gets arcane.
Also note, there are two types of amendments, with one subtype.
- Full amendments. These get a new number (Amdt 5) and the procedure must be brought up to current criteria and charting standards. They require Flight Check.
- Abbreviated amendments. These get a new letter (Amdt 4E) and only partial changes are generally made. Many changes CANNOT be done by an abbreviated amendment - such as any change in route, or lowering of minimum altitudes. Those require a full amendment. Often, abbreviated amendments do not require a flight check. Typically these amendments are for notes, or for raising an altitude.
-- Abbreviated amendment via NOTAM. These also get a new letter but the change is not disseminated via the 8260-series forms, but through NOTAM action. There is an even smaller subset of changes that can be made via NOTAM.
Then, there are "non-amendment" changes. These do not get a new amendment number or letter, but do get a new Julian date. These are typically things like AWOS frequency updates, or something on the airport diagram.
