We're always complaining about the subtleties of this or that procedure, so I
thought I'd throw in this one from Corsica. I particularly like the missed
approach - in IMC at night.

http://faris.nerim.net/LFKJ.JPG

G Faris

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:00:20 +0000 (UTC), (G
Farris) wrote:

>We're always complaining about the subtleties of this or that procedure, so I
>thought I'd throw in this one from Corsica. I particularly like the missed
>approach - in IMC at night.
>
>http://faris.nerim.net/LFKJ.JPG
>
>G Faris


That's wild. Could you post an interpretation of the missed in
english?

I think now I know why I had to practice Pattern A and B. ;)

z

"zatatime" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:00:20 +0000 (UTC), (G
> Farris) wrote:
>
>>We're always complaining about the subtleties of this or that procedure,
>>so I
>>thought I'd throw in this one from Corsica. I particularly like the missed
>>approach - in IMC at night.
>>
>>http://faris.nerim.net/LFKJ.JPG
>>
>>G Faris
>
>
> That's wild. Could you post an interpretation of the missed in
> english?

Its pretty obvious what it means

>> That's wild. Could you post an interpretation of the missed in
>> english?
>
> Its pretty obvious what it means

I'll take a stab.

Once established on the climb, turn left, intercept the ODR 245 radial while climbing to 3000 (meters? feet? furlongs?), and await (or follow?)
further instructions from ATC. Climb to 2100 before playing the accordion.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article >, says...

>That's wild. Could you post an interpretation of the missed in
>english?
>
>I think now I know why I had to practice Pattern A and B. ;)
>


Once established in climb, turn *LEFT* (emphasis theirs) to intercept the
RB 245 radial - Climbing toward 3000 and expect instructions from ATC. Climb
to 2100 before accelerating in level flight.

G Faris

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:46:50 +0000 (UTC), (G
Farris) wrote:

>In article >, says...
>
>>That's wild. Could you post an interpretation of the missed in
>>english?
>>
>>I think now I know why I had to practice Pattern A and B. ;)
>>
>
>
>Once established in climb, turn *LEFT* (emphasis theirs) to intercept the
>RB 245 radial - Climbing toward 3000 and expect instructions from ATC. Climb
>to 2100 before accelerating in level flight.
>
>G Faris

Thank you.

Now, If your supposed to go to 3000, why would you want to level off
at 2100? Is this just in case ATC keeps you under 3000?

z

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:15:47 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>>> That's wild. Could you post an interpretation of the missed in
>>> english?
>>
>> Its pretty obvious what it means
>
>I'll take a stab.
>
>Once established on the climb, turn left, intercept the ODR 245 radial while climbing to 3000 (meters? feet? furlongs?), and await (or follow?)
>further instructions from ATC. Climb to 2100 before playing the accordion.
>
>Jose


LOL. That's about what I got which is why I asked.

Thanks for the try.
z

In a previous article, (G Farris) said:
>We're always complaining about the subtleties of this or that procedure, so I
>thought I'd throw in this one from Corsica. I particularly like the missed
>approach - in IMC at night.
>
>http://faris.nerim.net/LFKJ.JPG

I especially like the fact that while altitudes are in feet (and speeds in
knots), RVRs and visibility figures are in metres.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
The e-mail of the species is more deadly than the mail.

In a previous article, zatatime > said:
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:46:50 +0000 (UTC), (G
>Farris) wrote:
>>Once established in climb, turn *LEFT* (emphasis theirs) to intercept the
>>RB 245 radial - Climbing toward 3000 and expect instructions from ATC. Climb
>>to 2100 before accelerating in level flight.
>
>Now, If your supposed to go to 3000, why would you want to level off
>at 2100? Is this just in case ATC keeps you under 3000?

I think that remark about not accelerating applies to the restriction on
the dashed line on the chart, where it says "IAS MAX 185kt". In other
words, if you want to go to cruise climb that's faster than 185 knots,
wait at least until you're either at 2100 feet or established on the
straight line portion.

It's a little weird that they don't depict the ILS on the chart the way
they do on NOS charts, though, don't you think? Until I read the "ILS" on
the minimum section, I thought the "025 degree" course after 5.4 AJO meant
a 025 bearing to and then from CT.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
A fool and his money are soon flying more airplane than he can
handle.

In article >,
says...
>
>In a previous article, zatatime > said:

>>Now, If your supposed to go to 3000, why would you want to level off
>>at 2100? Is this just in case ATC keeps you under 3000?

The French missed approach instructions generally state "Climb *toward* some
altitude", rather than *to* - the implication being you will expect further
clearances before you get there. This instruction is always associated with a
"Level Acceleration" indication - the point at which it is safe to level off,
or reduce to a cruise climb. Some approaches indicate "Level acceleration Not
Determined".

>
>I think that remark about not accelerating applies to the restriction on
>the dashed line on the chart, where it says "IAS MAX 185kt". In other
>words, if you want to go to cruise climb that's faster than 185 knots,
>wait at least until you're either at 2100 feet or established on the
>straight line portion.


The 185 KIAS limit is to insure compliance with the safe turn radius depicted.


>
>It's a little weird that they don't depict the ILS on the chart the way
>they do on NOS charts, though, don't you think? Until I read the "ILS" on
>the minimum section, I thought the "025 degree" course after 5.4 AJO meant
>a 025 bearing to and then from CT.


The way they use NDB's is a little different. They use them a lot - plenty
of approaches have only an NDB, labeled "L" (as in "L"OM), and a procedure
turn or holding pattern entry. Many are not exactly aligned with the runway.
They are reticent to publish GPS approaches, ostensibly because they are still
holding out for Galileo - The European answer to refute any reliance on US
systems.

G Faris

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:44:27 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

>It's a little weird that they don't depict the ILS on the chart the way
>they do on NOS charts, though, don't you think? Until I read the "ILS" on
>the minimum section, I thought the "025 degree" course after 5.4 AJO meant
>a 025 bearing to and then from CT.


LOL, I just saw that too. Initially I thought it was an NDB approach.

z

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...

> >http://faris.nerim.net/LFKJ.JPG
>
> I especially like the fact that while altitudes are in feet (and speeds in
> knots), RVRs and visibility figures are in metres.

That's standard ICAO (blue table), used almost everywhere outside N America,
except the old eastern block, some of whom use metres for vertical level.
Visibilities and RVRs are all quoted in metres in METARs.

What I find weird about that LFKJ approach is the minimum RVR of 1200 m with
a DH of 1050 ft above the threshold. Thus the decision point is 3 miles
out: they must have some pretty bright boats moored on the approach...

BTW, you can access all the French IAPs in PDF form at

http://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/aip/enligne/METROPOLE/AIP/IAC/index.htm

Some of the Paris ones are complex in a rather different way -- three plates
required for one approach.

Julian Scarfe

"Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message
...
....snip...
> BTW, you can access all the French IAPs in PDF form at
>
> http://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/aip/enligne/METROPOLE/AIP/IAC/index.htm
>


Superior website!

One-stop online shopping (free) for all the instrument and visual approach
plates, airport diagrams, local procedure information, all the
flight-directory-type information, enroute low and high level charts,
navaids, regulations, and much more.

NAV-Canada and Transport Canada: please take a hint.

As to subtleties of procedures, the frogs have chosen to make one chart
needlessly complex to save paper. Jeppesen charts that procedure (three
procedures actually) on three separate charts.

Lots of human-factors opportunity for error when using unfamilar charts to fly
instrument procedures.

G Farris wrote:

> We're always complaining about the subtleties of this or that procedure, so I
> thought I'd throw in this one from Corsica. I particularly like the missed
> approach - in IMC at night.
>
> http://faris.nerim.net/LFKJ.JPG
>
> G Faris

Y'All,
I can recall at early visit to SFBay Tracon early in my career that
the radar scope showed all the freeway traffic as well as the few aircraft
aloft. Very difficult to interpret until the French came up with a way,
electronically to remove all the slow moving targets. Initially it was
possible for an aircraft flying an arc around the antenna at a specific
distance to disappear from the scope. Don't know if problem has been
solved. Anyone know?

Gene Whitt

> wrote in message ...
> As to subtleties of procedures, the frogs have chosen to make one chart
> needlessly complex to save paper. Jeppesen charts that procedure (three
> procedures actually) on three separate charts.
>
> Lots of human-factors opportunity for error when using unfamilar charts to
> fly
> instrument procedures.
>
> G Farris wrote:
>
>> We're always complaining about the subtleties of this or that procedure,
>> so I
>> thought I'd throw in this one from Corsica. I particularly like the
>> missed
>> approach - in IMC at night.
>>
>> http://faris.nerim.net/LFKJ.JPG
>>
>> G Faris
>

In a previous article, "Gene Whitt" > said:
>electronically to remove all the slow moving targets. Initially it was
>possible for an aircraft flying an arc around the antenna at a specific
>distance to disappear from the scope. Don't know if problem has been
>solved. Anyone know?

I would think that the speed gate would only apply to primary targets, not
transponders, don't you think? If it weren't, it seems that it would be a
mere matter of programming to fix it.

I'm told that fighter planes use the same technique to evade enemy radar
guided missiles, flying an arc around the in-coming missile (although they
use terminology like "putting your z-pole on the target" or something). I
believe fancier radars can apply the speed gate to your speed even if it's
parallel to the antenna, even if it's primary only, but I don't believe
either ATC radar (which is, after all, designed to track cooperative
targets) or older missiles like Sparrow have that capability. I wouldn't
be surprised if AMRAAM and other newer missiles do.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
I am not a vegetarian because I love animals; I am a vegetarian
because I hate plants. -- A. Whitney Brown

There is a particular piece of digital signal processing used in radar (or at
least, it was in use when I was an undergraduate electrical engineering student
25 years ago) called the "chirp Z-transform." The singularities in the function
are called the "poles," after an analogue computing technique used in the 1930s
for finding those points. It may be that pilots are taught to figure out the
poles in the particular function in use and to fly a pattern that corresponded
to the singularity, or perhaps their onboard computers do this.

Just a guess. Perhaps there are some more current EEs reading who can fill in?

David

Paul Tomblin wrote:
>
> I'm told that fighter planes use the same technique to evade enemy radar
> guided missiles, flying an arc around the in-coming missile (although they
> use terminology like "putting your z-pole on the target" or something). I
> believe fancier radars can apply the speed gate to your speed even if it's
> parallel to the antenna, even if it's primary only, but I don't believe
> either ATC radar (which is, after all, designed to track cooperative
> targets) or older missiles like Sparrow have that capability. I wouldn't
> be surprised if AMRAAM and other newer missiles do.

David Kazdan > wrote:
> The singularities in the function are called the "poles," after an
> analogue computing technique used in the 1930s for finding those
> points.

I thought they were called poles because if you made a surface plot of
z(x,y), it looked like a big tent, and the sigularities were like the
spikes where the tent poles stuck through.

I'm sure I'm dating myself, but I actually used analog computers in
college. The EE lab had a bunch of them for control systems work. It
was kind of fun programing systems of differential equations by plugging
patch cords into a big plugboard and watching the answer get drawn on a
scope. I wouldn't be surprised if the aerodynamics of most of the light
planes we fly today were worked out on exactly such machines.

Hmmmm. Just did some googling. The more I look at the picture, the
more I'm convinced it was a TR-20 we must have been using. We also had
a TR-48 in the lab, but most students didn't get to use that.

http://dcoward.best.vwh.net/analog/eai.htm

Disappearance of the primary target when it has no radial velocity relative
to the radar antenna is due to zero range rate and zero doppler. Radar
signal processing usually eliminates returns with very low dopplers to
reduce ground clutter. Radar data processing frequently eliminates targets
that show zero range rate even though they may have a doppler signature.
Flying an arc relative to an enemy radar is one technique sometimes employed
to reduce detectability, but it has to fit in with other tactics. As for
the "z-pole on the target", I have never heard that expression, but my best
guess is that it refers to the z-axis of a 3-dimensional Cartesian
coordinate system, which would be the vertical axis. Flying a circular
pathway in the x-y plane relative to the origin of this coordinate system,
and positioning the origin at the radar (z-axis vertical through the radar)
would result in zero doppler of the main body return.

Stan

"David Kazdan" > wrote in message
...
> There is a particular piece of digital signal processing used in radar (or
> at
> least, it was in use when I was an undergraduate electrical engineering
> student
> 25 years ago) called the "chirp Z-transform." The singularities in the
> function
> are called the "poles," after an analogue computing technique used in the
> 1930s
> for finding those points. It may be that pilots are taught to figure out
> the
> poles in the particular function in use and to fly a pattern that
> corresponded
> to the singularity, or perhaps their onboard computers do this.
>
> Just a guess. Perhaps there are some more current EEs reading who can
> fill in?
>
> David
>
> Paul Tomblin wrote:
>>
>> I'm told that fighter planes use the same technique to evade enemy radar
>> guided missiles, flying an arc around the in-coming missile (although
>> they
>> use terminology like "putting your z-pole on the target" or something).
>> I
>> believe fancier radars can apply the speed gate to your speed even if
>> it's
>> parallel to the antenna, even if it's primary only, but I don't believe
>> either ATC radar (which is, after all, designed to track cooperative
>> targets) or older missiles like Sparrow have that capability. I wouldn't
>> be surprised if AMRAAM and other newer missiles do.