KAUG Notam Question

[Ron Rosenfeld]

KAUG AUGUSTA STATE

04/001 - WAAS LPV WAAS LNAV/VNAV OTS WIE UNTIL UFN

This Notam has been posted, well, since April.

No one seems to be sure of what it means.

Translating the abbreviations into English is easy enough. The Notam
basically states that the LPV and LNAV/VNAV approaches are out of service
until further notice.

BUT,

Published guidance, that I have been able to locate, with regard to GPS
WAAS Notams indicates that the terms "unreliable" or "unavailable" should
be used and says nothing about OTS. If the Notam does read UNREL or
UNAVAIL, guidance allows you to execute the approach if the signal is
adequate.

Again, there is no guidance regarding OTS.

Furthermore, the office in OK that issues GPS Notams tell me it didn't come
from them, and it is a D-Notam. They don't know what it means or who
issued it.

I've contacted (or been bounced from) a few other offices having to do with
Notams, without finding anyone who can explain this.

(When I called the Bangor FSS, they said they didn't know and advised me to
contact the "FAA" :-))

My sense is that this may be a Notam that was issued contrary to guidance,
and should have been removed long ago, but was not. But perhaps someone
has a better explanation.

And, two days ago, the signal on an LPV approach at that airport was
adequate for my CNX80 to give me an LPV annunciation.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Sam Spade]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

>
> My sense is that this may be a Notam that was issued contrary to guidance,
> and should have been removed long ago, but was not. But perhaps someone
> has a better explanation.
>
> And, two days ago, the signal on an LPV approach at that airport was
> adequate for my CNX80 to give me an LPV annunciation.
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

You need to hound the region's flight procedures office about this.

In case you have forgotten, you're dealing with the airborne equivalent
of the post office. ;-)

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 18:42:39 -0800, Sam Spade > wrote:

>Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
>>
>> My sense is that this may be a Notam that was issued contrary to guidance,
>> and should have been removed long ago, but was not. But perhaps someone
>> has a better explanation.
>>
>> And, two days ago, the signal on an LPV approach at that airport was
>> adequate for my CNX80 to give me an LPV annunciation.
>> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
>
>You need to hound the region's flight procedures office about this.
>
>In case you have forgotten, you're dealing with the airborne equivalent
>of the post office. ;-)

Thanks for that info. The flight procedures office is not one I have
tried. I had been dealing with various Notam offices.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Brad[_1_]]

On Mar 3, 11:22 am, Ron Rosenfeld > wrote:
> KAUG AUGUSTA STATE
>
> 04/001 - WAAS LPV WAAS LNAV/VNAV OTS WIE UNTIL UFN
>
> This Notam has been posted, well, since April.
>
> No one seems to be sure of what it means.
>
> Translating the abbreviations into English is easy enough. The Notam
> basically states that the LPV and LNAV/VNAV approaches are out of service
> until further notice.
>
> BUT,
>
> Published guidance, that I have been able to locate, with regard to GPS
> WAAS Notams indicates that the terms "unreliable" or "unavailable" should
> be used and says nothing about OTS. If the Notam does read UNREL or
> UNAVAIL, guidance allows you to execute the approach if the signal is
> adequate.
>
> Again, there is no guidance regarding OTS.
>
> Furthermore, the office in OK that issues GPS Notams tell me it didn't come
> from them, and it is a D-Notam. They don't know what it means or who
> issued it.
>
> I've contacted (or been bounced from) a few other offices having to do with
> Notams, without finding anyone who can explain this.
>
> (When I called the Bangor FSS, they said they didn't know and advised me to
> contact the "FAA" :-))
>
> My sense is that this may be a Notam that was issued contrary to guidance,
> and should have been removed long ago, but was not. But perhaps someone
> has a better explanation.
>
> And, two days ago, the signal on an LPV approach at that airport was
> adequate for my CNX80 to give me an LPV annunciation.
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Thanks for letting me know about this Ron. I'm working with folks
associated with the NOTAM office to correct this. I'll report back
when I hear more.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On 5 Mar 2007 13:33:06 -0800, "Brad" > wrote:

>On Mar 3, 11:22 am, Ron Rosenfeld > wrote:
>> KAUG AUGUSTA STATE
>>
>> 04/001 - WAAS LPV WAAS LNAV/VNAV OTS WIE UNTIL UFN
>>
>> This Notam has been posted, well, since April.
>>
>> No one seems to be sure of what it means.
>>
>> Translating the abbreviations into English is easy enough. The Notam
>> basically states that the LPV and LNAV/VNAV approaches are out of service
>> until further notice.
>>
>> BUT,
>>
>> Published guidance, that I have been able to locate, with regard to GPS
>> WAAS Notams indicates that the terms "unreliable" or "unavailable" should
>> be used and says nothing about OTS. If the Notam does read UNREL or
>> UNAVAIL, guidance allows you to execute the approach if the signal is
>> adequate.
>>
>> Again, there is no guidance regarding OTS.
>>
>> Furthermore, the office in OK that issues GPS Notams tell me it didn't come
>> from them, and it is a D-Notam. They don't know what it means or who
>> issued it.
>>
>> I've contacted (or been bounced from) a few other offices having to do with
>> Notams, without finding anyone who can explain this.
>>
>> (When I called the Bangor FSS, they said they didn't know and advised me to
>> contact the "FAA" :-))
>>
>> My sense is that this may be a Notam that was issued contrary to guidance,
>> and should have been removed long ago, but was not. But perhaps someone
>> has a better explanation.
>>
>> And, two days ago, the signal on an LPV approach at that airport was
>> adequate for my CNX80 to give me an LPV annunciation.
>> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
>
>Thanks for letting me know about this Ron. I'm working with folks
>associated with the NOTAM office to correct this. I'll report back
>when I hear more.

Great. Thanks.

So far I've spoken with people who issue GPS Notams (in OK), regular Notams
(in or near DC); flight standards near Boston and flight procedures (I
think in Atlanta). No one seems to know -- several have said they are
looking into it. The most logical theory is that it was issued a long time
ago as a D-Notam, perhaps even before (or in spite of) current published
guidance.

My guess is that it should be changed from OTS to UNREL, as GPS WAAS
signals are flaky in Maine, in general.

I've seen it there for a long time, but did not feel the impetus to call
and investigate until after flying the approach (which I did VFR) and
finding the signal to be good.

Do you have a position with the FAA, Brad?
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Brad[_1_]]

On Mar 5, 8:54 pm, Ron Rosenfeld > wrote:
> On 5 Mar 2007 13:33:06 -0800, "Brad" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 3, 11:22 am, Ron Rosenfeld > wrote:
> >> KAUG AUGUSTA STATE
>
> >> 04/001 - WAAS LPV WAAS LNAV/VNAV OTS WIE UNTIL UFN
>
> >> This Notam has been posted, well, since April.
>
> >> No one seems to be sure of what it means.
>
> >> Translating the abbreviations into English is easy enough. The Notam
> >> basically states that the LPV and LNAV/VNAV approaches are out of service
> >> until further notice.
>
> >> BUT,
>
> >> Published guidance, that I have been able to locate, with regard to GPS
> >> WAAS Notams indicates that the terms "unreliable" or "unavailable" should
> >> be used and says nothing about OTS. If the Notam does read UNREL or
> >> UNAVAIL, guidance allows you to execute the approach if the signal is
> >> adequate.
>
> >> Again, there is no guidance regarding OTS.
>
> >> Furthermore, the office in OK that issues GPS Notams tell me it didn't come
> >> from them, and it is a D-Notam. They don't know what it means or who
> >> issued it.
>
> >> I've contacted (or been bounced from) a few other offices having to do with
> >> Notams, without finding anyone who can explain this.
>
> >> (When I called the Bangor FSS, they said they didn't know and advised me to
> >> contact the "FAA" :-))
>
> >> My sense is that this may be a Notam that was issued contrary to guidance,
> >> and should have been removed long ago, but was not. But perhaps someone
> >> has a better explanation.
>
> >> And, two days ago, the signal on an LPV approach at that airport was
> >> adequate for my CNX80 to give me an LPV annunciation.
> >> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
>
> >Thanks for letting me know about this Ron. I'm working with folks
> >associated with the NOTAM office to correct this. I'll report back
> >when I hear more.
>
> Great. Thanks.
>
> So far I've spoken with people who issue GPS Notams (in OK), regular Notams
> (in or near DC); flight standards near Boston and flight procedures (I
> think in Atlanta). No one seems to know -- several have said they are
> looking into it. The most logical theory is that it was issued a long time
> ago as a D-Notam, perhaps even before (or in spite of) current published
> guidance.
>
> My guess is that it should be changed from OTS to UNREL, as GPS WAAS
> signals are flaky in Maine, in general.
>
> I've seen it there for a long time, but did not feel the impetus to call
> and investigate until after flying the approach (which I did VFR) and
> finding the signal to be good.
>
> Do you have a position with the FAA, Brad?
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I'm a contractor working with implementation for the WAAS program.
I've sent an email to the NOTAM specialist on the team.

With some recent system enhancements, coverage in ME is much better
now. For a real-time snapshot of WAAS coverage, check out the
following link:

http://www.nstb.tc.faa.gov/vpl.html

Brad

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On 5 Mar 2007 20:03:23 -0800, "Brad" > wrote:


>
>I'm a contractor working with implementation for the WAAS program.
>I've sent an email to the NOTAM specialist on the team.
>
>With some recent system enhancements, coverage in ME is much better
>now. For a real-time snapshot of WAAS coverage, check out the
>following link:
>
>http://www.nstb.tc.faa.gov/vpl.html
>
>Brad

I see. Thanks.

I'm aware of that web site, and find it quite useful. Unfortunately, it is
not unusual for me to lose vertical guidance on the approaches into my home
base KEPM (far eastern ME).

It is also not uncommon to see the LPV line at that site excluding most of
ME.

Any chance this will improve in the near future?

Thanks.

--ron
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On 5 Mar 2007 20:03:23 -0800, "Brad" > wrote:

>I'm a contractor working with implementation for the WAAS program.
>I've sent an email to the NOTAM specialist on the team.
>
>With some recent system enhancements, coverage in ME is much better
>now. For a real-time snapshot of WAAS coverage, check out the
>following link:
>
>http://www.nstb.tc.faa.gov/vpl.html
>
>Brad

Also, I just checked the web site now (6 MAR 07 12:06:17 GMT on the chart)
and the RED line excludes the eastern half of MA, almost all of VT, all of
NH and all of ME!
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Jon]

On Mar 6, 7:14 am, Ron Rosenfeld > wrote:
> On 5 Mar 2007 20:03:23 -0800, "Brad" > wrote:
>
> >I'm a contractor working with implementation for the WAAS program.
> >I've sent an email to the NOTAM specialist on the team.
>
> >With some recent system enhancements,

The biggie being the new 3rd GEO, I presume, Brad?

> >coverage in ME is much better
> >now. For a real-time snapshot of WAAS coverage, check out the
> >following link:
>
> >http://www.nstb.tc.faa.gov/vpl.html
>
> >Brad
>
> Also, I just checked the web site now (6 MAR 07 12:06:17 GMT on the chart)
> and the RED line excludes the eastern half of MA, almost all of VT, all of
> NH and all of ME!
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

I can go back and check, but I'm believe the time the NOTAM was issued
correlates fairly
closely with the re-positioning of the GEO performed last year.

Note that KAUG is one of the locations which has the Inverted-W on the
approach. This means
(among other things related to flight planning) that Predictive NOTAMs
for it are not issued. They
can't be since they're not run through the model.


Regards,
Jon

[Jon]

On Mar 3, 11:22 am, Ron Rosenfeld > wrote:
> KAUG AUGUSTA STATE
>
> 04/001 - WAAS LPV WAAS LNAV/VNAV OTS WIE UNTIL UFN
>
> This Notam has been posted, well, since April.
>
> No one seems to be sure of what it means.
>
> Translating the abbreviations into English is easy enough. The Notam
> basically states that the LPV and LNAV/VNAV approaches are out of service
> until further notice.
>
> BUT,
>
> Published guidance, that I have been able to locate, with regard to GPS
> WAAS Notams indicates that the terms "unreliable" or "unavailable" should
> be used and says nothing about OTS. If the Notam does read UNREL or
> UNAVAIL, guidance allows you to execute the approach if the signal is
> adequate.

I believe you may still shoot the approach if the receiver indicates
it's available. The NOTAM
simply prevents you from flight planning on it.

> And, two days ago, the signal on an LPV approach at that airport was
> adequate for my CNX80 to give me an LPV annunciation.

This is not surprising as you up near the edges of the current Service
Volume, where the availability
tends to be more sensitive. Once the reference stations to the Great
White North of you become
operational, you should see much better availability. Maybe even an
LPV-200 approach published up
there sometimes after that.

> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Regards,
Jon

[Sam Spade]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

>
> Also, I just checked the web site now (6 MAR 07 12:06:17 GMT on the chart)
> and the RED line excludes the eastern half of MA, almost all of VT, all of
> NH and all of ME!
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

We have a WAAS availability problem in Southern California, too. It was
explained to me that coastal areas cannot be surrounded by reference
stations, thus the limitation.

[Jon]

On Mar 6, 3:47 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
> Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
> > Also, I just checked the web site now (6 MAR 07 12:06:17 GMT on the chart)
> > and the RED line excludes the eastern half of MA, almost all of VT, all of
> > NH and all of ME!
> > Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
>
> We have a WAAS availability problem in Southern California, too. It was
> explained to me that coastal areas cannot be surrounded by reference
> stations, thus the limitation.

True.

In your area, having a WRS in Honolulu helps on that "side".

Regards,
Jon

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On 6 Mar 2007 12:04:19 -0800, "Jon" > wrote:

>I believe you may still shoot the approach if the receiver indicates
>it's available. The NOTAM
>simply prevents you from flight planning on it.

Where is that documented?

The only documentation that I've been able to locate references the terms
"unreliable" to be used for site specific notams except when the chart has
a "w" (which IS present on the KAUG NACO GPS 35 approach chart); or
"unavailable" for area-wide gps outages.

If the "w" is present, site-specific Notams are not issued for that site.
You're supposed to know that "unreliable" applies.

That documentation also explains pilot options if those Notams exist.

But I've not seen any documentation as to the meaning of a site-specific
WAAS "OTS" Notam.

My suspicion is that this Notam got into the system in error, and has never
been removed. But no one has confirmed it as yet.

But if you have documentation for what you wrote, that would be helpful in
coming up with an alternate explanation.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 12:47:31 -0800, Sam Spade > wrote:

>Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
>>
>> Also, I just checked the web site now (6 MAR 07 12:06:17 GMT on the chart)
>> and the RED line excludes the eastern half of MA, almost all of VT, all of
>> NH and all of ME!
>> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
>
>We have a WAAS availability problem in Southern California, too. It was
>explained to me that coastal areas cannot be surrounded by reference
>stations, thus the limitation.

Looks like pretty good coverage right now. 23:42:16Z And VT, NH, ME and
the eastern 1/2 of MA are still outside the LPV zone.

I'll trade!
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Sam Spade]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> On 6 Mar 2007 12:04:19 -0800, "Jon" > wrote:
>
>
>>I believe you may still shoot the approach if the receiver indicates
>>it's available. The NOTAM
>>simply prevents you from flight planning on it.


I will not (cannot) get into the nuances of the NOTAMS. I am not
familiar with with 480 but I am with the 500W/530W. If the LPV
annunication is green, you are absolutely solid to fly the approach. If
the aunnication is yellow early on, it may still switch to green in time
to fly the approach. If it is green prior to the FAF it is golden.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:54:42 -0800, Sam Spade > wrote:

>Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
>> On 6 Mar 2007 12:04:19 -0800, "Jon" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I believe you may still shoot the approach if the receiver indicates
>>>it's available. The NOTAM
>>>simply prevents you from flight planning on it.
>
>
>I will not (cannot) get into the nuances of the NOTAMS. I am not
>familiar with with 480 but I am with the 500W/530W. If the LPV
>annunication is green, you are absolutely solid to fly the approach. If
>the aunnication is yellow early on, it may still switch to green in time
>to fly the approach. If it is green prior to the FAF it is golden.

The problem *is* the nuances of the NOTAMS. For other approaches, OTS
generally means you can't use the approach. That may be why they chose to
use UNREL for WAAS notams.

The 480 also annunciates the approach that the signal quality (and
approach) will allow. It is in green letters on the various pages.

LNAV
LNAV/VNAV for either that level or an LNAV approach with advisory vertical
guidance
LPV

In addition, if the signal is not good enough to support vertical guidance,
the GP indicator will flag.
If the signal is not good enough for an LNAV approach, the CDI will flag.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Jon]

On Mar 6, 6:46 pm, Ron Rosenfeld > wrote:
> On 6 Mar 2007 12:04:19 -0800, "Jon" > wrote:
>
> >I believe you may still shoot the approach if the receiver indicates
> >it's available. The NOTAM
> >simply prevents you from flight planning on it.
>
> Where is that documented?

It was 2003 since I last worked on it, will have to go dig up the
docos. I may have misspoken and the above (wrt flight planning only)
applies only for the case of the inverted 'w'.

> The only documentation that I've been able to locate references the terms
> "unreliable" to be used for site specific notams except when the chart has
> a "w" (which IS present on the KAUG NACO GPS 35 approach chart); or
> "unavailable" for area-wide gps outages.
>
> If the "w" is present, site-specific Notams are not issued for that site.
> You're supposed to know that "unreliable" applies.

Yep. The inverted 'w' definitely means you can't flight plan on it.

> That documentation also explains pilot options if those Notams exist.
>
> But I've not seen any documentation as to the meaning of a site-specific
> WAAS "OTS" Notam.

I know for a fact (I coded it) that we don't output such a NOTAM, so
it had to have been manually entered, probably down at the NOCC in
Herndon.

> My suspicion is that this Notam got into the system in error, and has never
> been removed. But no one has confirmed it as yet.

It's not clear to me that it was initially entered in error. If they
service availability dropped below an acceptable level (due to the GEO
repositioning last year), it might sense, since the approach plates
are already out there. I've heard it's similar to taking an ILS OTS?

It's certainly possible, though, that it should be canceled, but I
haven't gotten any responses from the several voicemails I've left to
folk. Will try a few more contacts during the day...

> But if you have documentation for what you wrote, that would be helpful in
> coming up with an alternate explanation.

Dusting off some folders, standby 1...

> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Regards,
Jon

[Jon]

On Mar 7, 7:41 am, Ron Rosenfeld > wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:54:42 -0800, Sam Spade > wrote:
> >Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
> >> On 6 Mar 2007 12:04:19 -0800, "Jon" > wrote:
>
> >>>I believe you may still shoot the approach if the receiver indicates
> >>>it's available. The NOTAM simply prevents you from flight planning on it.

Just to be sure it's not ambiguous, in my statement above "The NOTAM"
refers to "UNREL" NOTAMs not the "OTS" case.

Basically, the Inverted 'w' and the "UNREL NOTAM" fold into the same
case, as
far as the pilot is concerned: What the receiver indicates overrides.

> >I will not (cannot) get into the nuances of the NOTAMS. I am not
> >familiar with with 480 but I am with the 500W/530W. If the LPV
> >annunication is green, you are absolutely solid to fly the approach. If
> >the aunnication is yellow early on, it may still switch to green in time
> >to fly the approach. If it is green prior to the FAF it is golden.
>
> The problem *is* the nuances of the NOTAMS.

> For other approaches, OTS generally means you can't use the approach.

As it did (and does for a bit longer, see below) in this case. Still
no luck finding
specific text to point you to, but OTS applies as one would expect,
e.g. the approach
disabled.

> That may be why they chose to use UNREL for WAAS notams.

The SVM (Service Volume Model) has conservatism built into it. Since
it can't model certain things
very well (if at all) such as Receiver Noise, it errs on the safe
side. So the actual performance will
tend to be better. It was a tradeoff between not generating too many
False Positives and (more
importantly) minimizing the number of Missed Detections.

Too many False Alerts = Issuing NOTAMs repeatedly and the pilot isn't
seeing the rcvr flag. The confidence
that the SVM is actually providing a useful S begins to decrease,
until you just stop using the service.

Too many Missed Detections = Unacceptable. The system would not be
certified with a very low probability of HMI.

> The 480 also annunciates the approach that the signal quality (and
> approach) will allow. It is in green letters on the various pages.
>
> LNAV
> LNAV/VNAV for either that level or an LNAV approach with advisory vertical
> guidance
> LPV
>
> In addition, if the signal is not good enough to support vertical guidance,
> the GP indicator will flag.
> If the signal is not good enough for an LNAV approach, the CDI will flag.
>
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

I just got a ahold of someone who indicated the NOTAM does indeed need
to
and shall be removed. Now that the 3rd GEO is commissioned, the
availability
in the NorthEast is good enough once again.

Personally, though, you'd have to be nuts to fly in the cold of the
last couple of days,
unless you have some way of taking the heat directly off the engine
block!

Regards,
Jon

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On 7 Mar 2007 07:54:54 -0800, "Jon" > wrote:

>I just got a ahold of someone who indicated the NOTAM does indeed need
>to
>and shall be removed. Now that the 3rd GEO is commissioned, the
>availability
>in the NorthEast is good enough once again.
>
>Personally, though, you'd have to be nuts to fly in the cold of the
>last couple of days,
>unless you have some way of taking the heat directly off the engine
>block!

I guess between all of us bothering various Feds, someone finally got to
someone who could make the decision to remove!!

If the OTS was "properly" issued, because of the satellite being moved, it
does not make sense that it should only apply to a single airport in ME;
especially with our generally poor coverage (even after the new satellite
deployment) and also given the guidance published in 2003. An "unrel"
Notam would have been proper, even then.

I have spent years, by the way, to try to get sufficient heat into my a/c
to fly this time of year. I still have some drafts to seal up, but it's
better this year than it's ever been. One of the changes was adding an
extra heat muff (done via a logbook entry, by the way).

Flying this time of year is amazing so far as performance is concerned! If
I can preflight in a hangar, I'm good.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Jose]

> One of the changes was adding an
> extra heat muff (done via a logbook entry, by the way).

You can write "heat muff" in your logbook and make the airplane warmer?
Wow! Can I get more horsepower and better fuel economy that way too?

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dan Luke]

"Jose" wrote:

>> One of the changes was adding an
>> extra heat muff (done via a logbook entry, by the way).
>
> You can write "heat muff" in your logbook and make the airplane warmer?
> Wow! Can I get more horsepower and better fuel economy that way too?

My buddy Brent got a big "Hawk XP" decal on the fin of his 160 HP Skyhawk
when he had it painted.

Claims it gives him 100 FPM better ROC.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 21:11:14 GMT, Jose > wrote:

>> One of the changes was adding an
>> extra heat muff (done via a logbook entry, by the way).
>
>You can write "heat muff" in your logbook and make the airplane warmer?

Every little bit helps!


> Wow! Can I get more horsepower and better fuel economy that way too?


I think it depends on how you do it <g>

By the way, as of last night, that errant KAUG WAAS Notam is no longer in
the system!!
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Jon]

On Mar 7, 4:06 pm, Ron Rosenfeld > wrote:
> On 7 Mar 2007 07:54:54 -0800, "Jon" > wrote:
>
> >I just got a ahold of someone who indicated the NOTAM does indeed need
> >to
> >and shall be removed. Now that the 3rd GEO is commissioned, the
> >availability
> >in the NorthEast is good enough once again.
>
> >Personally, though, you'd have to be nuts to fly in the cold of the
> >last couple of days,
> >unless you have some way of taking the heat directly off the engine
> >block!
>
> I guess between all of us bothering various Feds, someone finally got to
> someone who could make the decision to remove!!

No bother at all, Ron. When a thread comes along that actually applies
to what I do for work, I want to find out what's going on and see
about resolving the issue(s) if I can.

All of this stuff doesn't mean anything if the end user can't benefit
from it. Y'all could just stay home, simulate flight, and order the
$100 burger for delivery, right? ;)

> If the OTS was "properly" issued, because of the satellite being moved, it
> does not make sense that it should only apply to a single airport in ME;
> especially with our generally poor coverage (even after the new satellite
> deployment) and also given the guidance published in 2003.

I'll see what I can find out regarding edge-of-coverage issues. It
comes down to where the "line is drawn", so to speak, but you bring up
a good point regarding KAUG being singled out. Was it the only one? I
haven't had time to look up if there were other locations at the edge-
of-coverage which also had vertical approaches.

> An "unrel" Notam would have been proper, even then.

Perhaps. My best guess here is that a) the availability was so poor,
they felt it better to be safe and disable it entirely and b) to avoid
potential confusion, they decided not to use the UNREL contraction for
this purpose.

> I have spent years, by the way, to try to get sufficient heat into my a/c
> to fly this time of year. I still have some drafts to seal up, but it's
> better this year than it's ever been. One of the changes was adding an
> extra heat muff (done via a logbook entry, by the way).
>
> Flying this time of year is amazing so far as performance is concerned! If
> I can preflight in a hangar, I'm good.

Are you based up in ME or were you just flying there?

> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Regards,
Jon

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On 8 Mar 2007 06:43:09 -0800, "Jon" > wrote:

>On Mar 7, 4:06 pm, Ron Rosenfeld > wrote:
>> On 7 Mar 2007 07:54:54 -0800, "Jon" > wrote:
>>
>> >I just got a ahold of someone who indicated the NOTAM does indeed need
>> >to
>> >and shall be removed. Now that the 3rd GEO is commissioned, the
>> >availability
>> >in the NorthEast is good enough once again.
>>
>> >Personally, though, you'd have to be nuts to fly in the cold of the
>> >last couple of days,
>> >unless you have some way of taking the heat directly off the engine
>> >block!
>>
>> I guess between all of us bothering various Feds, someone finally got to
>> someone who could make the decision to remove!!
>
>No bother at all, Ron. When a thread comes along that actually applies
>to what I do for work, I want to find out what's going on and see
>about resolving the issue(s) if I can.

Well, it seems it worked. Thanks.


>
>All of this stuff doesn't mean anything if the end user can't benefit
>from it. Y'all could just stay home, simulate flight, and order the
>$100 burger for delivery, right? ;)
>
>> If the OTS was "properly" issued, because of the satellite being moved, it
>> does not make sense that it should only apply to a single airport in ME;
>> especially with our generally poor coverage (even after the new satellite
>> deployment) and also given the guidance published in 2003.
>
>I'll see what I can find out regarding edge-of-coverage issues. It
>comes down to where the "line is drawn", so to speak, but you bring up
>a good point regarding KAUG being singled out. Was it the only one? I
>haven't had time to look up if there were other locations at the edge-
>of-coverage which also had vertical approaches.

KAUG was the only one that I recall that had the OTS Notam. And yes, there
are other approaches that have vertical guidance that are "further out"
than KAUG. KPQI comes to mind with an LPV approach. KPSM also has LPV
approaches, but I don't know if it is "further out". And, of course, there
are several, including KEPM, with LNAV approaches with "advisory vertical
guidance".



>
>> An "unrel" Notam would have been proper, even then.
>
>Perhaps. My best guess here is that a) the availability was so poor,
>they felt it better to be safe and disable it entirely and b) to avoid
>potential confusion, they decided not to use the UNREL contraction for
>this purpose.

I don't know -- but there were other airports further out of coverage which
did not get the OTS NOTAM, to the best of my recollection. In any event, I
don't believe OTS was ever defined for a WAAS Notam.

>
>> I have spent years, by the way, to try to get sufficient heat into my a/c
>> to fly this time of year. I still have some drafts to seal up, but it's
>> better this year than it's ever been. One of the changes was adding an
>> extra heat muff (done via a logbook entry, by the way).
>>
>> Flying this time of year is amazing so far as performance is concerned! If
>> I can preflight in a hangar, I'm good.
>
>Are you based up in ME or were you just flying there?

Primary base is KEPM -- Eastport, ME. I do a lot of flying between KASH
and KEPM as we have a second home in NH near some of our kids.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Brad[_1_]]

On Mar 3, 11:22 am, Ron Rosenfeld > wrote:
> KAUG AUGUSTA STATE
>
> 04/001 - WAAS LPV WAAS LNAV/VNAV OTS WIE UNTIL UFN
>
> This Notam has been posted, well, since April.


Sorry I haven't replied sooner but the NOTAM was canceled on the 7th.

Just a few clarifications on WAAS notams, which are actually explained
in the chapter 1 section 1 of the AIM. WAAS unavailable NOTAMs
indicate loss or malfunction of the WAAS system. In flight, Air
Traffic Control will advise pilots requesting a GPS or RNAV (GPS)
approach of WAAS unavailable NOTAMs if not contained in the ATIS
broadcast.

WAAS unreliable NOTAMs indicate an expected level of service, e.g.,
LNAV/VNAV or LPV may not be available. In flight, Air Traffic Control
will not advise pilots of WAAS unreliable NOTAMs, and they are
generally not offered by FSS unless requested.

When the approach chart is annotated with the inverse W (not inverted
W, Jon! That's an 'M' ha!), site-specific WAAS unreliable NOTAMs or
Air Traffic advisories are not provided for outages in WAAS LNAV/VNAV
and LPV vertical guidance.

Safe flights!

Brad

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On 9 Mar 2007 05:54:31 -0800, "Brad" > wrote:

>On Mar 3, 11:22 am, Ron Rosenfeld > wrote:
>> KAUG AUGUSTA STATE
>>
>> 04/001 - WAAS LPV WAAS LNAV/VNAV OTS WIE UNTIL UFN
>>
>> This Notam has been posted, well, since April.
>
>
>Sorry I haven't replied sooner but the NOTAM was canceled on the 7th.
>
>Just a few clarifications on WAAS notams, which are actually explained
>in the chapter 1 section 1 of the AIM. WAAS unavailable NOTAMs
>indicate loss or malfunction of the WAAS system. In flight, Air
>Traffic Control will advise pilots requesting a GPS or RNAV (GPS)
>approach of WAAS unavailable NOTAMs if not contained in the ATIS
>broadcast.
>
>WAAS unreliable NOTAMs indicate an expected level of service, e.g.,
>LNAV/VNAV or LPV may not be available. In flight, Air Traffic Control
>will not advise pilots of WAAS unreliable NOTAMs, and they are
>generally not offered by FSS unless requested.
>
>When the approach chart is annotated with the inverse W (not inverted
>W, Jon! That's an 'M' ha!), site-specific WAAS unreliable NOTAMs or
>Air Traffic advisories are not provided for outages in WAAS LNAV/VNAV
>and LPV vertical guidance.
>
>Safe flights!
>
>Brad

Yes, thanks. I noticed the cancellation. And the information you post
from the AIM is the same as was posted in guidance back in 2003. As you
note by omission, OTS is not described with regard to a WAAS NOTAM.

Best wishes,
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Jon]

On Mar 8, 5:51 pm, Ron Rosenfeld > wrote:
> On 8 Mar 2007 06:43:09 -0800, "Jon" > wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Mar 7, 4:06 pm, Ron Rosenfeld > wrote:
> >> On 7 Mar 2007 07:54:54 -0800, "Jon" > wrote:
>
> >> >I just got a ahold of someone who indicated the NOTAM does indeed need
> >> >to
> >> >and shall be removed. Now that the 3rd GEO is commissioned, the
> >> >availability
> >> >in the NorthEast is good enough once again.
>
> >> >Personally, though, you'd have to be nuts to fly in the cold of the
> >> >last couple of days,
> >> >unless you have some way of taking the heat directly off the engine
> >> >block!
>
> >> I guess between all of us bothering various Feds, someone finally got to
> >> someone who could make the decision to remove!!
>
> >No bother at all, Ron. When a thread comes along that actually applies
> >to what I do for work, I want to find out what's going on and see
> >about resolving the issue(s) if I can.
>
> Well, it seems it worked. Thanks.
>
>
>
> >All of this stuff doesn't mean anything if the end user can't benefit
> >from it. Y'all could just stay home, simulate flight, and order the
> >$100 burger for delivery, right? ;)
>
> >> If the OTS was "properly" issued, because of the satellite being moved, it
> >> does not make sense that it should only apply to a single airport in ME;
> >> especially with our generally poor coverage (even after the new satellite
> >> deployment) and also given the guidance published in 2003.
>
> >I'll see what I can find out regarding edge-of-coverage issues. It
> >comes down to where the "line is drawn", so to speak, but you bring up
> >a good point regarding KAUG being singled out. Was it the only one? I
> >haven't had time to look up if there were other locations at the edge-
> >of-coverage which also had vertical approaches.
>
> KAUG was the only one that I recall that had the OTS Notam. And yes, there
> are other approaches that have vertical guidance that are "further out"
> than KAUG. KPQI comes to mind with an LPV approach. KPSM also has LPV
> approaches, but I don't know if it is "further out". And, of course, there
> are several, including KEPM, with LNAV approaches with "advisory vertical
> guidance".

I spoke with someone this morning, and it turns out there actually
were 5 locations which had been NOTAMed out. It's now looking like the
cancellation for KAUG should have been handled the same as the others,
but wasn't.

> >> An "unrel" Notam would have been proper, even then.
>
> >Perhaps. My best guess here is that a) the availability was so poor,
> >they felt it better to be safe and disable it entirely and b) to avoid
> >potential confusion, they decided not to use the UNREL contraction for
> >this purpose.
>
> I don't know -- but there were other airports further out of coverage which
> did not get the OTS NOTAM, to the best of my recollection.

Since they were apparently canceled much sooner, they may have not
been in the system all that long. Unless you were checking often
(presumably last year as well), you might have not ever seen them.

When I get some time, I can try to get access to the archives to find
out details on the lifetime of the other NOTAMs. Depending upon how
long ago they were canceled, it may not be trivial (USNS only journals
for a few months).

> In any event, I don't believe OTS was ever defined for a WAAS Notam.

I concur and will try to raise it as a discussion point.

> >> I have spent years, by the way, to try to get sufficient heat into my a/c
> >> to fly this time of year. I still have some drafts to seal up, but it's
> >> better this year than it's ever been. One of the changes was adding an
> >> extra heat muff (done via a logbook entry, by the way).
>
> >> Flying this time of year is amazing so far as performance is concerned! If
> >> I can preflight in a hangar, I'm good.
>
> >Are you based up in ME or were you just flying there?
>
> Primary base is KEPM -- Eastport, ME. I do a lot of flying between KASH
> and KEPM as we have a second home in NH near some of our kids.

Nice. I've done a bit of camping/hiking in NH (mostly White Mountain
area, but get up to Fryeburg on the ME border once). I imagine it's
quite scenic from the air as well, esp. around peak color time in the
fall.

> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Regards,
Jon

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On 19 Mar 2007 06:43:29 -0700, "Jon" > wrote:

>Nice. I've done a bit of camping/hiking in NH (mostly White Mountain
>area, but get up to Fryeburg on the ME border once). I imagine it's
>quite scenic from the air as well, esp. around peak color time in the
>fall.

We once landed at Fryeburg on a peak color day. It was practically a
religious experience.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)