Airfield Ratings in Turnpoint list naming convention

[[email protected]]

I will be updating my local turnpoint list soon, I was wondering if someone has already worked out a system of turnpoint naming for landable places that might be short, narrow or somehow useful for some gliders but not 18m+ etc.

It would be nice to include fields or ultralight runways etc that you could use if you were desperate - better than landing in forest but still challenging for one or more reasons.

I thought of naming the landing points something like:
Iffy
Risk01
Unconfirmed01
Short02
Narrow01
Dodgy
Desperate01
Marginal
Dubious
Doubt
Dicey
Tricky
Alert
Warn

Seems like if you could use a short word that communicated a warning and a number to make it unique in case you had several in the list and or some rating.
Short is good because some displays truncate names to 6 characters on screen.

[Dan Marotta]

It would be nice to see such information as length and width.

I realize you can't possibly measure every small strip, so I ask: How
can you say an airstrip is "Iffy", etc, without having stood on it?

Dan Marotta

On 6/20/2014 5:49 AM, wrote:
> I will be updating my local turnpoint list soon, I was wondering if someone has already worked out a system of turnpoint naming for landable places that might be short, narrow or somehow useful for some gliders but not 18m+ etc.
>
> It would be nice to include fields or ultralight runways etc that you could use if you were desperate - better than landing in forest but still challenging for one or more reasons.
>
> I thought of naming the landing points something like:
> Iffy
> Risk01
> Unconfirmed01
> Short02
> Narrow01
> Dodgy
> Desperate01
> Marginal
> Dubious
> Doubt
> Dicey
> Tricky
> Alert
> Warn
>
> Seems like if you could use a short word that communicated a warning and a number to make it unique in case you had several in the list and or some rating.
> Short is good because some displays truncate names to 6 characters on screen.
>
> A naming convention might be really useful here.
>
> Also is there some agreed upon runway length that you can expect a cross country pilot to be able to use without either leaving it off the list or giving a warning? Surrounding trees/obstacles of course are a factor, but would 400, 600, 800, 1000, 1200' be a minimum useful length?
> [I have seen a good ASW27 pilot land on a paved runway and roll to a stop in ~125 feet, over no obstacles].
>
> Chris

[JS]

Perhaps a good idea to keep the ratings in the first few characters, as some older systems only allow 7 or 8 characters. Characters near the end may get removed.
Jim

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 07:29:49 -0700, JS wrote:

> Perhaps a good idea to keep the ratings in the first few characters, as
> some older systems only allow 7 or 8 characters. Characters near the end
> may get removed.
> Jim

I think its better to add runway width & length to all landout fields.
You can get this information for most fields by using GoogleEarth's
measurement tool and you'll already have its co-ordinates because without
them the field is pretty much useless. Then, provide the user with both
the landout database and a tool to remove any fields that don't match his
personal requirements for width and length.

This can be done with a standard CUP turnpoint file because its
description field has no defined maximum length though some programs may
impose a limit.

Both LK8000 and XCSoar are said to limit the description to 250 chars in
CUP files though I'm certain I've supplied both with longer descriptions
without crashing them. However, both make no attempt to format this field
nicely. For this reason I prefer to use Winpilot files with a short (<=15
chars) comment in the file and the arbitrarily long comment in the
Turnpoint description file that LK8000 and XCSoar both support.

Of course, that does mean that the landouts master file won't be a
standard Winpilot file but who cares as long as the runway size filter
program can also spit out the filtered landout list in a format that a
glider navigation instrument can use.

I've built such a tool to support my club's landout list plus the other
UK landout fields I know about: the master file is in a format that is
suitable for maintenance with any text editor. The filter program can
output the filtered data as either a CUP file or as Winpilot TP file plus
the associated TP description file.

The program has not yet been published because at present its more of a
programmer's utility program than an end-user's point-and-click tool but,
as its written in Java, it will run on just about any desktop box a
glider pilot is likely to own.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Dan Marotta]

Terrific!

I'll install google earth and try it out on some local fields that I'm
familiar with. With success, I'll update my turnpoint file.

Dan Marotta

On 6/20/2014 11:30 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 07:29:49 -0700, JS wrote:
>
>> Perhaps a good idea to keep the ratings in the first few characters, as
>> some older systems only allow 7 or 8 characters. Characters near the end
>> may get removed.
>> Jim
> I think its better to add runway width & length to all landout fields.
> You can get this information for most fields by using GoogleEarth's
> measurement tool and you'll already have its co-ordinates because without
> them the field is pretty much useless. Then, provide the user with both
> the landout database and a tool to remove any fields that don't match his
> personal requirements for width and length.
>
> This can be done with a standard CUP turnpoint file because its
> description field has no defined maximum length though some programs may
> impose a limit.
>
> Both LK8000 and XCSoar are said to limit the description to 250 chars in
> CUP files though I'm certain I've supplied both with longer descriptions
> without crashing them. However, both make no attempt to format this field
> nicely. For this reason I prefer to use Winpilot files with a short (<=15
> chars) comment in the file and the arbitrarily long comment in the
> Turnpoint description file that LK8000 and XCSoar both support.
>
> Of course, that does mean that the landouts master file won't be a
> standard Winpilot file but who cares as long as the runway size filter
> program can also spit out the filtered landout list in a format that a
> glider navigation instrument can use.
>
> I've built such a tool to support my club's landout list plus the other
> UK landout fields I know about: the master file is in a format that is
> suitable for maintenance with any text editor. The filter program can
> output the filtered data as either a CUP file or as Winpilot TP file plus
> the associated TP description file.
>
> The program has not yet been published because at present its more of a
> programmer's utility program than an end-user's point-and-click tool but,
> as its written in Java, it will run on just about any desktop box a
> glider pilot is likely to own.
>
>

[Chris Rollings[_2_]]

At 14:17 20 June 2014, Dan Marotta wrote:
>It would be nice to see such information as length and width.
>
>I realize you can't possibly measure every small strip, so I ask: How
>can you say an airstrip is "Iffy", etc, without having stood on it?

Look on Google Earth.
>
>Dan Marotta
>
>On 6/20/2014 5:49 AM, wrote:
>> I will be updating my local turnpoint list soon, I was wondering if
>someone has already worked out a system of turnpoint naming for landable
>places that might be short, narrow or somehow useful for some gliders but
>not 18m+ etc.
>>
>> It would be nice to include fields or ultralight runways etc that you
>could use if you were desperate - better than landing in forest but still
>challenging for one or more reasons.
>>
>> I thought of naming the landing points something like:
>> Iffy
>> Risk01
>> Unconfirmed01
>> Short02
>> Narrow01
>> Dodgy
>> Desperate01
>> Marginal
>> Dubious
>> Doubt
>> Dicey
>> Tricky
>> Alert
>> Warn
>>
>> Seems like if you could use a short word that communicated a warning
and
>a number to make it unique in case you had several in the list and or
some
>rating.
>> Short is good because some displays truncate names to 6 characters on
>screen.
>>
>> A naming convention might be really useful here.
>>
>> Also is there some agreed upon runway length that you can expect a
cross
>country pilot to be able to use without either leaving it off the list or
>giving a warning? Surrounding trees/obstacles of course are a factor,
but
>would 400, 600, 800, 1000, 1200' be a minimum useful length?
>> [I have seen a good ASW27 pilot land on a paved runway and roll to a
stop
>in ~125 feet, over no obstacles].
>>
>> Chris
>
>

[[email protected]]

The Minden/Truckee database has had a standard terminology for some time - a single letter (e.g. "U" for unlandable) and a rating number (1-5) to rate the quality. Reasonably concise is better. Common standard is better.

I have always felt that the soaring community should create a standard repository that would collect user contributions of info such as landout field dimensions as well as other elements - photos (many glide computers have provision for these now), obstacles, potential for change in conditions (flooding of dry lakes) and most important, a time stamp and method for collecting the info (Google can't tell if a field is too rough or the height of scrub at the edge of the runway but walking the field can).

Could the WWTP exchange accommodate such a database? What would it take to create formats that could be easily used by glide computers - I'm thinking mostly of the photos. The current method is a bit labor-intensive.

9B

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, June 21, 2014 10:07:18 AM UTC-7, Tim Newport-Peace wrote:

> And who will accept the responsibility for ensuring that it is always
> up-to-date?

You mean compared to what we have today? In some ways anonymous contributions may be better than inaction out of the fear of legal liability.

My thought was an easy way to add info and photos with a date would allow for continuous improvement as people would feel encouraged to update landout locations that might seem subject to change (infrequently used grass or dirt strips, dry lakes, etc.) For instance, I just scouted a couple of marginal airfields at critical locations in the task area where there are few good places to land on my drive into the US 15M Nationals, complete with photos. There really is no easy way to provide that information for anyone else to use.

9B

[[email protected]]

A Wiki might do the trick; there are a number out there. Both the Worldwide Soaring Turnpoint Exchange and SeeYou support pictures at waypoints, as do many individual sites and probably other software.

John Leibacher

[John Carlyle]

My concern is a related topic - the many coordinate errors in the FAA data base of airports. One airport I know of was listed at a position nearly 4 miles from its actual location! This is a problem, because in the eastern US it can be quite difficult to find a small grass strip in among the many farmers' fields. Another problem is that some airports that don't exist are also listed in the FAA data base.

John Liebacher and Lynn Alley can't really help, because the errors are coming from the FAA. I solved the problem by starting with a way point file from John Liebacher and verifying the location of each airport using Google Earth. Naturally, it took a long time to do this!

Perhaps, as John suggests, a Wiki would be a means of solving both this problem and the airfield rating problem which was the OP's concern.

However, might there be a liability issue with a Wiki? What happens if a farmer decides to plow under a grass strip? Or, what happens if a Wiki contributor identifies the wrong field on Google Earth as being the airfield?

-John, Q3

On Tuesday, June 24, 2014 1:23:17 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> A Wiki might do the trick; there are a number out there. Both the Worldwide Soaring Turnpoint Exchange and SeeYou support pictures at waypoints, as do many individual sites and probably other software.
>
> John Leibacher

[2KA]

For airports listed in the FAA database, I heartily encourage attacking the problem at the source. There is a process for reporting errors on both charts and in the database. Getting it corrected there benefits all users of that data, not just our community.

The problem of unofficial landout locations is much harder. One issue is that they are often ephemeral things. What is perfectly landable in June may not be so in August.

Note also that Google Earth, while very helpful, is not completely trustworthy either. Some of the images are years old. I have seen situations where Google Earth depicts a field or a runway that doesn't exist.

Lynn

[[email protected]]

I have actually seen an airport coordinate that I am almost 100 percent certain was actually the the latitude and longitude of the post office box of the owner because it was at a post office address! (sadly the six car parking lot was too small to land in).

What is the official FFA a procedure to correct wrong data?
Chris

[[email protected]]

does anybody have any feedback /suggestions on the idea of a naming convention for land outfields? "Shirley" I am not the first person to think of this. Another approach would be to have the pilot to input in his software the minimum length and width and grade level he was willing to accept that would be the only thing his nav system will display as an option however at this point I think an easier to implement system of just names would be compatible with all GPS systems.

I was thinking the name should give you some information to help you decide depending on how desperate you are to land.

some other factors would be surface, slope, length, width. the name should imply that it is not an airport and you can use it at your own risk. the quality of the field will change throughout the year based on crops or if a dry lake is flooded etc: that is the nature of most non airports (and even a few airports too.)

Maybe something as simple as OFA01, ... OFF01
as an abbreviation for Out landing Field grade A, then a sequrnce number 01 for multiple entries ( grades ABCD).

[JS]

The oldest standard was I believe Carl Herold's. This was well before there was space for more complete information in the waypoint description.
Here's an example from a newer Minden dat file.
Jim

** Control Points for Minden, Nevada +
** +
** Cross country turnpoints, version mind303b.dat +
** See also the Minden Region 11 control point list +
** +
** Contributed by Peter J. Kelly +
** +
** Contribution date was 31 March, 2003 +
** File created Thursday, 01 May 2003 at 06:06 GMT +
** Available from the Worldwide Soaring Turnpoint Exchange at +
** http://acro.harvard.edu/SOARING/JL/TP [ North America ] +
** or http://soaring.xinqu.net/JL/TP [ New Zealand ] +
** +
** Magnetic variation: -15.6 +
** +
** Time zone: US/Pacific +
** Summer offset from GMT is -7:00, and in winter it is -8:00 +
** +
** Latitude Range: 34:29.450N to 41:46.900N +
** Longitude Range: 122:28.000W to 114:50.400W +
** +
** >>>>> Control point names have the number placed before the name <<<<< +
** Most altitudes rounded to nearest ten feet +

** At end of each TP name is a code +

** -R = Runway on sectional +

** -E = Emergency Landing area +

** -U = Unlandable area +

** --- After each code is a number +

** 1, 2, or 3 is good - 7, 8, or 9 is bad +

** +
** UNOFFICIAL, USE AT YOUR OWN RISK +
** +
** Always consult the relevant publications for current and correct +
** information. This service is provided free of charge with no warrantees, +
** expressed or implied. +
** User assumes all risk of use. +
** +

[2KA]

I believe the place to start is an FAA data inquiry, at this link:

https://nfdc.faa.gov/xwiki/bin/view/NFDC/Submit+Aeronautical+Data

[2KA]

There is one other question. The name may not be the best place for embedding this kind of information. Some platforms -- Volkslogger, for example -- have very limited name lengths. Many pilots use restricted short names as a matter of preference, in order to save screen real estate. In these cases there just isn't much information that can practically be fit in a name suffix.

For many platforms, a better choice is the attribute code or the comment. John Leibacher has already defined an extensive set of codes that can be used with devices that support the STX format. The comment field can be used for longer text on SeeYou mobile and other devices that support .cup files..

[John Carlyle]

Thanks, Lynn. I followed your link, and it isn't straight-forward. You need to click on Airport Data Change (Public Use)and it brings up a 2nd page. Then click on Public Airport Data Change Form, and it yields a form you can submit.

However, you must provide the Authorizing Official before you can submit the form. Who is that? I'm guessing its someone in the regional office (RO) or airport district office (ADO). If you click on ADO under the ARFF Index on the 2nd page you brought up it lists some names. Which one do you use? The most senior?

If this is the way it works, I'll be glad to submit coordinate changes and/or names of airports that don't exist. Later today I'll call one of these people and see if they can advise on the proper procedure.

-John, Q3

On Tuesday, June 24, 2014 8:29:41 PM UTC-4, 2KA wrote:
> I believe the place to start is an FAA data inquiry, at this link:
>
> https://nfdc.faa.gov/xwiki/bin/view/NFDC/Submit+Aeronautical+Data

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

2KA wrote, On 6/24/2014 5:38 PM:
> There is one other question. The name may not be the best place for
> embedding this kind of information. Some platforms -- Volkslogger,
> for example -- have very limited name lengths. Many pilots use
> restricted short names as a matter of preference, in order to save
> screen real estate. In these cases there just isn't much information
> that can practically be fit in a name suffix.
>
> For many platforms, a better choice is the attribute code or the
> comment. John Leibacher has already defined an extensive set of
> codes that can be used with devices that support the STX format. The
> comment field can be used for longer text on SeeYou mobile and other
> devices that support .cup files.
>
I agree with Lynn: The name is a poor place to put important
information. There is plenty of space in the comment section of the
soaring programs in use today. If your program is too limited for useful
comments, dump it and get something better.

I use a simple name that indicates the type of landing place, such
"field", "dirt", "pave"; a digit is appended, along with the state
abbreviation, so the final name is something like "dirt3 Wa". Lately,
I've reduced it to "D3 WA". The state abbreviation allows reuse of names
in each state, such as "D3 WA", "D3 TX", etc. No reason you couldn't use
"D205", of course, but I like knowing the state when trying to pick a
name from a list - reduces errors on my part.

The comment section contains length x width, anything else of
importance, and the date I last observed the field. Generally, I do not
count on any field I haven't seen "recently", which usually means "this
soaring season", unless it's a paved field. Even paved fields, though
more permanent than a dirt or grass field, can have problems, even from
week to week, such the farmer storing tractors, hay, and who knows what
else on it. Grass airstrips can have sprinklers magically appear and
disappear.

A national database with filtering and selectable output formats would
be wonderful. Something map based, such as the Google-based method
developed by Michael Reid, would be my preference.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl