I got the following from the FAA on their email broadcast.. its normally
the way they send out info about local safety seminars.. Interesting how
they are addressing a local traffic issue on a national level.. prudent?
or overkill?

Dave


Teterboro Airport Operations & The Teterboro 5 Departure

ALTITUDE DEVIATIONS DURING IFR DEPATURE PROCEDURES AT TETERBORO AIRPORT
ARE CAUSING POTENTIAL MID AIR COLLISIONS. IF YOU PLAN TO OPERATE INTO OR
OUT OF THE TETERBORO AIRPORT (KTEB), PLEASE UNDERSTAND, AND COMPLY WITH
THE TETERBORO FIVE DEPARTURE PROCEDURE ALTITUDES. There have been many
altitude deviations by pilots flying this procedure, and they are
causing. POTENTIAL MID AIR COLLISIONS WITH NEWARK INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
ARRIVALS. For complete information, click on the following link:
http://www.faasafety.gov/SPANS/events/2005-Mar/11_Heart_of_TEB_5-2.pdf
Completing a flight or maintenance action safely is a complex process.
Use the materials at FAASafey.gov to sharpen and maintain your skills.

Uhhh...

Airplanes can fly a long way. A lot of them can fly all of the way to
Teterboro.

And it is probably the people who fly a long way to Teterboro who are
causing most of the problems, not those who are based there.

Very prudent indeed...



"Dave S" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> I got the following from the FAA on their email broadcast.. its normally
> the way they send out info about local safety seminars.. Interesting how
> they are addressing a local traffic issue on a national level.. prudent?
> or overkill?
>
> Dave
>
>
> Teterboro Airport Operations & The Teterboro 5 Departure
>
> ALTITUDE DEVIATIONS DURING IFR DEPATURE PROCEDURES AT TETERBORO AIRPORT
> ARE CAUSING POTENTIAL MID AIR COLLISIONS. IF YOU PLAN TO OPERATE INTO OR
> OUT OF THE TETERBORO AIRPORT (KTEB), PLEASE UNDERSTAND, AND COMPLY WITH
> THE TETERBORO FIVE DEPARTURE PROCEDURE ALTITUDES. There have been many
> altitude deviations by pilots flying this procedure, and they are
> causing. POTENTIAL MID AIR COLLISIONS WITH NEWARK INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
> ARRIVALS. For complete information, click on the following link:
> http://www.faasafety.gov/SPANS/events/2005-Mar/11_Heart_of_TEB_5-2.pdf
> Completing a flight or maintenance action safely is a complex process.
> Use the materials at FAASafey.gov to sharpen and maintain your skills.
>

They have sent local mail out on the national list by accident before. Maybe
this time too. I got it in Minnesota.

On 3/11/05 5:21 PM, Dave S wrote the following:
> I got the following from the FAA on their email broadcast.. its normally
> the way they send out info about local safety seminars.. Interesting how
> they are addressing a local traffic issue on a national level.. prudent?
> or overkill?
>
> Dave
>
>
> Teterboro Airport Operations & The Teterboro 5 Departure
>
> ALTITUDE DEVIATIONS DURING IFR DEPATURE PROCEDURES AT TETERBORO AIRPORT
> ARE CAUSING POTENTIAL MID AIR COLLISIONS. IF YOU PLAN TO OPERATE INTO OR
> OUT OF THE TETERBORO AIRPORT (KTEB), PLEASE UNDERSTAND, AND COMPLY WITH
> THE TETERBORO FIVE DEPARTURE PROCEDURE ALTITUDES. There have been many
> altitude deviations by pilots flying this procedure, and they are
> causing. POTENTIAL MID AIR COLLISIONS WITH NEWARK INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
> ARRIVALS. For complete information, click on the following link:
> http://www.faasafety.gov/SPANS/events/2005-Mar/11_Heart_of_TEB_5-2.pdf
> Completing a flight or maintenance action safely is a complex process.
> Use the materials at FAASafey.gov to sharpen and maintain your skills.
>

Dave S wrote:

> I got the following from the FAA on their email broadcast.. its normally
> the way they send out info about local safety seminars.. Interesting how
> they are addressing a local traffic issue on a national level.. prudent?
> or overkill?

Not overkill at all because of the nature of the operations at TEB. Jet
aircraft come and go nonstop to and from all parts of the country. Lots of
flights from the Los Angeles area everyday non-stop to TEB, for example.

Part of the problem, I suspect, is modern FMS/LNAV aircraft trying to fly a
ancient round-dial aircraft departure procedure, especially one that
includes an NDB crossing and an NDB bearing crossing.

wrote:

> Part of the problem, I suspect, is modern FMS/LNAV aircraft trying to fly a
> ancient round-dial aircraft departure procedure, especially one that
> includes an NDB crossing and an NDB bearing crossing.

I would think the FMS has the DP in its database. It sounded like the
problem was blowing altitude, not route.

"Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
m...
> Uhhh...
>
> Airplanes can fly a long way. A lot of them can fly all of the way to
> Teterboro.

They use a departure procedure to fly to Teterboro? :-)

Doug Carter wrote:

> wrote:
>
> > Part of the problem, I suspect, is modern FMS/LNAV aircraft trying to fly a
> > ancient round-dial aircraft departure procedure, especially one that
> > includes an NDB crossing and an NDB bearing crossing.
>
> I would think the FMS has the DP in its database. It sounded like the
> problem was blowing altitude, not route.

True. But, each FMS vendor has their own idea of how to code a non-RNAV DP,
which has resulted in some pretty serious problems from time to time. It almost
caused CFIT with a "round dial" DP at Reno being misapplied by crews using
FMS/LNAV.

With RNAV DPs the vendors are pretty well forced to code it correctly. Even
then, some boxes will lead a fly-by WP differently than others.

As to TEB, some crews perhaps busted an altitude because it appears they have
passed the restricting fix when, in fact, they have not. Based on similar
situations at other locations, it is certainly one possibility for an apparent
pattern.

If this were just one or two flights, we wouldn't be hearing about it.

> I got the following from the FAA on their email broadcast.. its normally
> the way they send out info about local safety seminars.. Interesting how
> they are addressing a local traffic issue on a national level.. prudent?
> or overkill?

If the problem is restricted to (mainly) TEB departures, this tells me
there is something wrong with the procedure. Yes, the pilots should fly
it correctly and should not blow altitudes and all, but the design of
the procedure makes it easy or difficult, and easy is better (all other
things being equal).

Our theater recently replaced the sound system with new equipment where
the buttons (play, fast forward, etc) are all in non-standard and
unexpected positions. It is =far= easier to make a mistake, and of
course they blame the sound guy (after all, the buttons are labelled).
But the problem (and the best solution) lies elsewhere.

Jose
--
Math is a game. The object of the game is to figure out the rules.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose > wrote:
> If the problem is restricted to (mainly) TEB departures, this tells me
> there is something wrong with the procedure. Yes, the pilots should fly
> it correctly and should not blow altitudes and all, but the design of
> the procedure makes it easy or difficult, and easy is better (all other
> things being equal).

This is certainly one of the more complex procedures I've seen. It reads:

> TAKE-OFF RUNWAY 19: Climb runway heading until leaving 800 feet, then turn
> right heading 280^. Maintain 1500 feet until crossing the TEB R-250 and
> passing TEB 4.5 DME, then climb and maintain 2000 feet (non-DME aircraft
> maintain 1500 feet until crossing PNJ NDB 015^ bearing, then climb and
> maintain 2000 feet.)

You're need to meet two restrictions at once (get past a radial and get
past a DME arc). And for those non-DME types who's ADF skills may be a bit
rusty, well, let's just say that I don't think I'd like to be working an
NDB bearing crossing problem while turning, climbing, and talking to
departure all at the same time.

This would be so much easier to fly if they invented an RNAV waypoint at
the right place and said: "Climb runway heading until leaving 800, then
climb to 1500 direct FUBAR. After crossing FUBAR, maintain 2000. They
could leave the old procedure in place for non-RNAV aircraft.

I think the other thing that makes the FAA so worked up about procedure
busts here is the proximity to Newark. The two airports are only 10 miles
apart, and departures off 19 are pointed almost directly at EWR. The
multiple "step-up" fixes are to keep you below the arrivals into EWR's 22L
& 22R. There are very few places where leveling off a few hundred feet
high on an initial climbout is so likely to result in a separation bust. I
can't imagine how often arrivals into EWR get TCAS alerts due to traffic
climbing out of TEB.

wrote:

> As to TEB, some crews perhaps busted an altitude because it appears they
> have passed the restricting fix when, in fact, they have not.Â*Â*Â*BasedÂ*on
> similar situations at other locations, it is certainly one possibility for
> an apparent pattern.

It's rather a shame that the message didn't describe what mistake(s) were
commonly made. Like the concept of hotspots, I think that this would help
direct our attention where most needed.

- Andrew

> wrote in message ...
> Part of the problem, I suspect, is modern FMS/LNAV aircraft trying to fly
> a
> ancient round-dial aircraft departure procedure, especially one that
> includes an NDB crossing and an NDB bearing crossing.
>

No, that's not a problem for any modern FMS box. Take off, gear, flaps,
power, A/P, fall asleep.

Karl

kage wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> > Part of the problem, I suspect, is modern FMS/LNAV aircraft trying to fly
> > a
> > ancient round-dial aircraft departure procedure, especially one that
> > includes an NDB crossing and an NDB bearing crossing.
> >
>
> No, that's not a problem for any modern FMS box. Take off, gear, flaps,
> power, A/P, fall asleep.
>
> Karl

I guess that makes it the crew (cockpit passengers~).

Andrew Gideon wrote:
/snip//
> It's rather a shame that the message didn't describe what mistake(s) were
> commonly made. Like the concept of hotspots, I think that this would help
> direct our attention where most needed.


You see, with the FAA it's not about safety, it's about busting you. If
they pointed out the specific problem to avoid, their odds of busting
you drop considerably.

Scott Skylane wrote:
> Andrew Gideon wrote:
> /snip//
>
>> It's rather a shame that the message didn't describe what mistake(s) were
>> commonly made. Like the concept of hotspots, I think that this would
>> help
>> direct our attention where most needed.
>
>
>
> You see, with the FAA it's not about safety, it's about busting you. If
> they pointed out the specific problem to avoid, their odds of busting
> you drop considerably.

I was under the impression that the link in the broadcast went to a PDF
page that HAD the hotspots highlighted on it.

Dave

No, in the new FAA it's about hiring unqualified women and minorities to
operate the National Airspace System and getting rid of white males
under the veil of "Diversity"

It is one reason Lockheed Martin and others will be running the NAS soon
and not the FAA

>>
>>
>> You see, with the FAA it's not about safety, it's about busting you.
>> If they pointed out the specific problem to avoid, their odds of
>> busting you drop considerably.
>
>
> I was under the impression that the link in the broadcast went to a PDF
> page that HAD the hotspots highlighted on it.
>
> Dave
>

Dave S wrote:

> I was under the impression that the link in the broadcast went to a PDF
> page that HAD the hotspots highlighted on it.

Perhaps I'm missing it, but I don't quite see how that descibes the errors
we're making.

- Andrew

"Peterpan" > wrote in message
.. .
> No, in the new FAA it's about hiring unqualified women and minorities to
> operate the National Airspace System and getting rid of white males under
> the veil of "Diversity"

Yep, clearly the reason you're disliked and unwanted is that you're a
qualified white male. No other explanation for it.