If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
KAUG Notam Question
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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
KAUG Notam Question
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
KAUG Notam Question
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) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
KAUG Notam Question
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) |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
KAUG Notam Question
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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
KAUG Notam Question
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) |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
KAUG Notam Question
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
KAUG Notam Question
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
KAUG Notam Question
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) |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
KAUG Notam Question
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
OSH NOTAM question | Dan Luke | Piloting | 1 | July 23rd 05 03:48 PM |
KLEW vs. KAUG | Andrew Gideon | Piloting | 4 | April 16th 05 05:56 AM |
GPS PRN NOTAM | Ali Ghorashi | Instrument Flight Rules | 7 | February 4th 05 07:40 AM |
AF/D's and NOTAM | Andrew Sarangan | Instrument Flight Rules | 9 | January 19th 04 09:19 PM |
ILS Notam question | John Clonts | Instrument Flight Rules | 6 | August 22nd 03 11:53 PM |