Cannes LFMD Mandatory training
DO have Luxus and Pibon in the databases, in fact they were in the database but as enroute waypoints, they just move the points to another part of the database. It looks like that you have on your EPIC platform the circle to land depicted, which is not the case on the falcons. ( procedure stops at obota)
One oddity on the UNS1-B is that the aircraft does as it is told until LUXUS, but rather than then turning to PIBON as programmed, it continues the turn to the left until I chicken out, so we fly LUXUS-PIBON by hand now. No problem, but it would be better if the circling to land procedure was part of the database.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If this is Tuesday, it must be?
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
160kts clean
for all types from VLJ to Falcon 900 through CL604, 160 kt clean was proven OK
At 160 knots we would normally have flap 30, although this is a perfectly acceptable and regularly used gear up configuration.
Maybe you need to speak to some operators who actually know what the AFM says.
OK, I'll grovel now.
Should have done the brief before responding to what was written on the thread. I see it says speed not less than min clean or 160, so no prob with 604 being a bit faster.
Last edited by BizJetJock; 19th May 2010 at 08:32. Reason: learning to check facts before responding
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We found that depending on the type Citation Excel vs XLS+ or NZ2000 FMS, the insertion of the waypoints are different, ie some types are inserting LUXUS as a fly over point, which leads to some weird tracks.
example :
It is worth checking how it behaves, otherwise if you look far back to the north , you cannot miss the big white patch, and you are on track...
example :
It is worth checking how it behaves, otherwise if you look far back to the north , you cannot miss the big white patch, and you are on track...
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 53
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CL300
As I proposed simply ask Jepps to put the lat/long on the plate, its not as if its a PRNAV procedure.
The waypoints in my FMS also depict Pibon and Luxus at circling altitude not the 1800/1500. I also cant modify an approach.
Personally I'd rather just plug them in as a pilot waypoint and build my arrival
As I proposed simply ask Jepps to put the lat/long on the plate, its not as if its a PRNAV procedure.
The waypoints in my FMS also depict Pibon and Luxus at circling altitude not the 1800/1500. I also cant modify an approach.
Personally I'd rather just plug them in as a pilot waypoint and build my arrival
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually the 1500 ft was put in , in order to prevent ( fingers crossed) to have people descending too low during the turn. ( we have some inteersting figures ;-( )
Now it is a circle to land, the briefing is to give awareness to people, and if everyone is doing a little, we will be better off, for the next phase ....
So like the briefing says : Fly the downwind properly on track and clean; Do not short cut to the airport ( fly a curve not a base); no reverses, vacate at the end..160kt /1000ft/min on departure ( thrust reduction) .If 90+ % of the planes coming in do that... well I and a lot of people will be happy !
Now it is a circle to land, the briefing is to give awareness to people, and if everyone is doing a little, we will be better off, for the next phase ....
So like the briefing says : Fly the downwind properly on track and clean; Do not short cut to the airport ( fly a curve not a base); no reverses, vacate at the end..160kt /1000ft/min on departure ( thrust reduction) .If 90+ % of the planes coming in do that... well I and a lot of people will be happy !
The Ego
Has Landed
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Somewhere not too far from the airplane...
Age: 66
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safe ops and navigation
I just went back and read the earlier posts, which I had not done previously, and I want to throw in my 2 pence/cents worth...
Regarding speed for the approach over Luxus and Pibon: it cannot be done at 160kts clean in the 604 at the heavier weights I normally am at on arrival, so I am usually flying it at 180 clean or 160 with flaps 20, then leaving Pibon, I put the gear down and flaps 30, with full flaps going down once clear of the last hill (or more importantly, the houses on the last hill, since they are most likely to complain of noise). If I'm arriving at 34,000, I can slow to 160 clean, but that is actually a more noisy configuration (high AOA). I've been lucky enough to be part of some noise tests in the Challenger, Gulfstream and Hawker series of airplanes, and we found that approach flaps and slightly higher than min speed was less noisy than at min speed clean.
As for navigating the circle to land with prescribed tracks, Luxus and Pibon are in our Rockwell Collins FMS database, and they are also in the Honeywell databases in a 601 and G-IV I fly (obviously I don't bring the G-IV into Cannes, though). It's a simple procedure to build the prescribed track by adding the waypoints to the tail end of the LOC 35 approach, in front of the start of the missed app. Be sure to make PIBON a flyover waypoint or your steering cues will have you turning inbound long before you get to PIBON. I input RW17 as a waypoint, extend a centerline with a fix abeam PIBON, and it all works quite well even on autopilot. I usually take over and fly the rest of the approach manually as I am coming up on PIBON. I use idle reverse normally (or half reverse if I'm heavy), immediately on touchdown and usually have the reversers stowed by just past midfield (unless the runway is wet, then I use what I need for as long as I need it).
I have been flying into this airport about once a week on average, for almost 3 years. Basically, just fly the minimum safe speeds and configuration for the aircraft you operate, and with an eye to reducing noise as much as possible. That is the best that you or anyone else can do.
Keith
Regarding speed for the approach over Luxus and Pibon: it cannot be done at 160kts clean in the 604 at the heavier weights I normally am at on arrival, so I am usually flying it at 180 clean or 160 with flaps 20, then leaving Pibon, I put the gear down and flaps 30, with full flaps going down once clear of the last hill (or more importantly, the houses on the last hill, since they are most likely to complain of noise). If I'm arriving at 34,000, I can slow to 160 clean, but that is actually a more noisy configuration (high AOA). I've been lucky enough to be part of some noise tests in the Challenger, Gulfstream and Hawker series of airplanes, and we found that approach flaps and slightly higher than min speed was less noisy than at min speed clean.
As for navigating the circle to land with prescribed tracks, Luxus and Pibon are in our Rockwell Collins FMS database, and they are also in the Honeywell databases in a 601 and G-IV I fly (obviously I don't bring the G-IV into Cannes, though). It's a simple procedure to build the prescribed track by adding the waypoints to the tail end of the LOC 35 approach, in front of the start of the missed app. Be sure to make PIBON a flyover waypoint or your steering cues will have you turning inbound long before you get to PIBON. I input RW17 as a waypoint, extend a centerline with a fix abeam PIBON, and it all works quite well even on autopilot. I usually take over and fly the rest of the approach manually as I am coming up on PIBON. I use idle reverse normally (or half reverse if I'm heavy), immediately on touchdown and usually have the reversers stowed by just past midfield (unless the runway is wet, then I use what I need for as long as I need it).
I have been flying into this airport about once a week on average, for almost 3 years. Basically, just fly the minimum safe speeds and configuration for the aircraft you operate, and with an eye to reducing noise as much as possible. That is the best that you or anyone else can do.
Keith
Last edited by keithskye; 29th May 2010 at 13:44.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In a hotel somewhere
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"At 160 knots we would normally have flap 30" .
Sorry on 604/5 at 160 kt , flaps 20°
Sorry on 604/5 at 160 kt , flaps 20°
This varies with who is flying and the conditions.
FT
(A 604/605 instructor)
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Dark Side Of The Moon
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PIBON and LUXUS are in the database on our Citation 680 Sovereign (Honeywell Epic) and our CJ2+ (Collins FMS3000)
We just add the waypoints manually to the flight plan after the approach segment then use it as a reference whilst flying it on the Heading Bug so the aircraft does not try and short cut the waypoints.
But I do agree it would be nice if the whole circle procedure was added to the list of approaches in the FMS database so that we dont need to add the waypoints manually at a busy time in the flight.
We just add the waypoints manually to the flight plan after the approach segment then use it as a reference whilst flying it on the Heading Bug so the aircraft does not try and short cut the waypoints.
But I do agree it would be nice if the whole circle procedure was added to the list of approaches in the FMS database so that we dont need to add the waypoints manually at a busy time in the flight.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I went through the minutes of the working groups, Since the waypoints were confirmed accessible in the FMS/NMS databases the coordinates were removed from the Jepps Charts, and will be from the french charting as well.
The reason is to prevent insertion error at this stage.
Honeywell and INDS confirmed that from their side the points are active in all master databases; it is down to the plane manufacturer. G-Spot & flyby ; i do not know about your specific plane configuration, but I spoke yesterday to Sovereign and Collins equipped cessna pilots , they have the points in the database.
As for the approach in the database, Collins is leader on this, but we are working on declassifying the approaches ( as per Pan-Ops standard) in order to have no more Circle to land but approaches for each runway ( 35 & 17), then they will be codable and accessible directly; otherwise we have to wait for the next iteration of avionics and DSNA to comply with the latest classification ( scheduled November)
The reason is to prevent insertion error at this stage.
Honeywell and INDS confirmed that from their side the points are active in all master databases; it is down to the plane manufacturer. G-Spot & flyby ; i do not know about your specific plane configuration, but I spoke yesterday to Sovereign and Collins equipped cessna pilots , they have the points in the database.
As for the approach in the database, Collins is leader on this, but we are working on declassifying the approaches ( as per Pan-Ops standard) in order to have no more Circle to land but approaches for each runway ( 35 & 17), then they will be codable and accessible directly; otherwise we have to wait for the next iteration of avionics and DSNA to comply with the latest classification ( scheduled November)
CL300
As I proposed simply ask Jepps to put the lat/long on the plate, its not as if its a PRNAV procedure.
As I proposed simply ask Jepps to put the lat/long on the plate, its not as if its a PRNAV procedure.
https://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv...set_aip_fr.htm
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 53
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PIBON and LUXUS are in the database on our Citation 680 Sovereign (Honeywell Epic) and our CJ2+ (Collins FMS3000)
We just add the waypoints manually to the flight plan after the approach segment then use it as a reference whilst flying it on the Heading Bug so the aircraft does not try and short cut the waypoints.
But I do agree it would be nice if the whole circle procedure was added to the list of approaches in the FMS database so that we dont need to add the waypoints manually at a busy time in the flight.
We just add the waypoints manually to the flight plan after the approach segment then use it as a reference whilst flying it on the Heading Bug so the aircraft does not try and short cut the waypoints.
But I do agree it would be nice if the whole circle procedure was added to the list of approaches in the FMS database so that we dont need to add the waypoints manually at a busy time in the flight.
I'll go interogate my FMS one more time this time with a screwdriver
PS thanks Richard - was a bit tongue in cheek regarding the validity of the lat/longs
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NBAA,EBAA, some handling companies ( like Universal), some USA operators are concerned about the Mandatory Briefing prior operating in Cannes. Since this came from readers of pprune, I do reply here, an email will be send to them via NBAA i suppose.
The email should be something like : We have to congratulate ourselves for the reaction of the aviation community to this event. Actually, without increasing the operational constraints, Aéroport Cannes-Mandelieu, the Airport operator, managed to unite the energies and to automate, in this regard to make mandatory, (the upcoming Sup AIP will emphasize this) a briefing applicable to everyone.
This briefing is mandatory, because the airport operator decided to do so, this briefing exists in order to try to firewall the operators/pilots against consequences (like fines) when the environmental body (ACNUSA) will rule the nuisances.
It is a fine border between recommended and mandatory, shifting discussions from limitations to globalization of movements, increase the rate of arrival, get a plane like the Falcon 7X to become from a no-go to a may-be, is in perspective of this small hurdle, a victory towards bizjets freedom.
The personal data collection, ( datafile is compliant with the French authorities regulation) is necessary in order to make people realize the need to adhere as close as possible to the environmental necessities of the airport, all this is already published in the official IAC or in Jeppesen; but also a necessity in order to have a good quality of service.
This briefing is the result of three years of discussions, with all the actors, it has been tested for many months among a widespread population of pilots, and today is an acceptable solution to the various requests from the numerous commissions.
So, yes this briefing is mandatory, and no, there is no sanctions if not completed; however the sanctions (fines) will exist , not on the briefing by itself, but on the consequences if the operational guidelines are not followed.
Truly yours
What it is meant to say ( I am lucky I have the french version ;-) ) is the following :
Do the briefing now, because it will become mandatory as soon as the Sup AIP will be published; since handling is mandatory at Cannes, so the Briefing.
Be aware that a third party is coming into play (ACNUSA), totally independant from the Airport operator or DGAC ( read FAA or CAA or whatever), this means that all neighbourhood complaints will be analysed and queried, leadind to fines ( from a simple warning to a ban, with in between some penalties up to 20000€). The accessibilty is at a small price compare to what we can ( could or will ) face if no improvement of the flying behaviour.
More than one thousand pilots did complete the briefing already, a clear difference in noise among the communities is already noted, thank you to keep up the good work !
The email should be something like : We have to congratulate ourselves for the reaction of the aviation community to this event. Actually, without increasing the operational constraints, Aéroport Cannes-Mandelieu, the Airport operator, managed to unite the energies and to automate, in this regard to make mandatory, (the upcoming Sup AIP will emphasize this) a briefing applicable to everyone.
This briefing is mandatory, because the airport operator decided to do so, this briefing exists in order to try to firewall the operators/pilots against consequences (like fines) when the environmental body (ACNUSA) will rule the nuisances.
It is a fine border between recommended and mandatory, shifting discussions from limitations to globalization of movements, increase the rate of arrival, get a plane like the Falcon 7X to become from a no-go to a may-be, is in perspective of this small hurdle, a victory towards bizjets freedom.
The personal data collection, ( datafile is compliant with the French authorities regulation) is necessary in order to make people realize the need to adhere as close as possible to the environmental necessities of the airport, all this is already published in the official IAC or in Jeppesen; but also a necessity in order to have a good quality of service.
This briefing is the result of three years of discussions, with all the actors, it has been tested for many months among a widespread population of pilots, and today is an acceptable solution to the various requests from the numerous commissions.
So, yes this briefing is mandatory, and no, there is no sanctions if not completed; however the sanctions (fines) will exist , not on the briefing by itself, but on the consequences if the operational guidelines are not followed.
Truly yours
What it is meant to say ( I am lucky I have the french version ;-) ) is the following :
Do the briefing now, because it will become mandatory as soon as the Sup AIP will be published; since handling is mandatory at Cannes, so the Briefing.
Be aware that a third party is coming into play (ACNUSA), totally independant from the Airport operator or DGAC ( read FAA or CAA or whatever), this means that all neighbourhood complaints will be analysed and queried, leadind to fines ( from a simple warning to a ban, with in between some penalties up to 20000€). The accessibilty is at a small price compare to what we can ( could or will ) face if no improvement of the flying behaviour.
More than one thousand pilots did complete the briefing already, a clear difference in noise among the communities is already noted, thank you to keep up the good work !
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps you could exclude aircraft without thrust reversers from this rule?
Making us taxi all the way to the end of 17, then all the way back (crossing the secondary runway in the process) is not going to be very helpful to environmental impact.
Making us taxi all the way to the end of 17, then all the way back (crossing the secondary runway in the process) is not going to be very helpful to environmental impact.
I suspect someone bimbling along at a minimum of 160kts in a PA28 or even an SR20 could be difficult (80kts would be pushing it some days), and then having landed and stopped within the first 400m or so of the runway only then having to taxi all the way to the end is going to cause all manner of problems ...
Yes, I understand why they're doing this, but suspect that there needs to be some exception for aircraft not able to comply/not directly targetted (or are you banning potentially all single engine IFR/VFR traffic?)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is so little approaches per hour available in Cannes ( 4 for the time being), and the weather is usually good , that SE or light twins are not common in IFR ( except flying schools); anyway those are able to exit the middle taxyway.
The reason on not exiting at middle taxiway for jets if due to the noise generated on the neighbourhood just opposite AND thisis to incitate, not to use reverses upon landing.
As for the departure, this is max 160 kt AND 1000 ft/min, this would require a thrust reduction at around 400 ft. A picturewith the microphome implementation will be posted as soon as i can.
The reason on not exiting at middle taxiway for jets if due to the noise generated on the neighbourhood just opposite AND thisis to incitate, not to use reverses upon landing.
As for the departure, this is max 160 kt AND 1000 ft/min, this would require a thrust reduction at around 400 ft. A picturewith the microphome implementation will be posted as soon as i can.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Left seat of a Boeing... mostly!
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If anyone is interested in CL 605 (same for a 4) manoeuvring speeds, seeing as it probably one of the more demanding types operated into Cannes, here they are:
Based on a 31000 ldg wt (27600 BOW + 1000 payload + 2500 fuel reserves) normal 'ish' for Cannes.
FCOM states that for full manoeuvre (that's stated as 30 degs + 10 degs over bank in the Bombardier FCOM) add 10 kts to the adequate manoeuvre approach speeds, so Flaps 0 degs = Verf 45 + 40 kts. I think we'd all agree that full manoeuvre margin capability is a good idea over those hills around Cannes.
So Vref 45 at 31000 lbs = 119kts +40kts = 159 kts for Flap 0 (clean), this will give you 45 degs of bank, then the stick shaker (1.07 x reference stall speed).
So 31000 lbs is OK at 160 kts clean, any heavier and you'll need Flap 20 out to get down to 160kts. Flap 20 reduces the reference stall speed by approx 9kts at these sorts of weights.
These people who write these regulations do need to understand the basic characteristics of the aircraft operating into their airfield. I guess on the day the Commander will configure the aircraft as required for a safe operation.
The same with thrust reverse higher than idle detent, if they are needed for a safe operation, I.E. for brake cooling limitations (short turn around time) or the runway surface state, then that's the requirement to operate safely.
Based on a 31000 ldg wt (27600 BOW + 1000 payload + 2500 fuel reserves) normal 'ish' for Cannes.
FCOM states that for full manoeuvre (that's stated as 30 degs + 10 degs over bank in the Bombardier FCOM) add 10 kts to the adequate manoeuvre approach speeds, so Flaps 0 degs = Verf 45 + 40 kts. I think we'd all agree that full manoeuvre margin capability is a good idea over those hills around Cannes.
So Vref 45 at 31000 lbs = 119kts +40kts = 159 kts for Flap 0 (clean), this will give you 45 degs of bank, then the stick shaker (1.07 x reference stall speed).
So 31000 lbs is OK at 160 kts clean, any heavier and you'll need Flap 20 out to get down to 160kts. Flap 20 reduces the reference stall speed by approx 9kts at these sorts of weights.
These people who write these regulations do need to understand the basic characteristics of the aircraft operating into their airfield. I guess on the day the Commander will configure the aircraft as required for a safe operation.
The same with thrust reverse higher than idle detent, if they are needed for a safe operation, I.E. for brake cooling limitations (short turn around time) or the runway surface state, then that's the requirement to operate safely.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So therefore, 160 Kts clean , straight and level is not an issue. Since you start to configure at Pibon, you will increase your margin, and the bank angle is somewhere around 22° for 150 Kias; all good then..
Issue being the "private" Ops or people keeping the numbers for max gross.
The 2000 EXy max gross has a green dot of 181, but for the weight it operates in Cannes EU-Ops it is 156;
The best figures are always the Vref + , they give better awareness of the maneuvering capability..
Peopke whom wrote the recommandations DO understand how planes are flown, and surveyed 32 types of planes operating in Cannes, and asked the crews of their MLM and speed associated with it.
The flight test directorate gave the green light on it; now people can start to arguing about the inconsistence with their Sops or else; but this is why the briefing is for; a basis for Cat B briefing for EU-OPS operator, or something to put in the Ops-specs for the other, or best practices for the remaining of the crowd.
IF this does not work, a step forward will be done, and then anything can happen, from flight restrictions to Simulator training prior operating or worse..
Issue being the "private" Ops or people keeping the numbers for max gross.
The 2000 EXy max gross has a green dot of 181, but for the weight it operates in Cannes EU-Ops it is 156;
The best figures are always the Vref + , they give better awareness of the maneuvering capability..
Peopke whom wrote the recommandations DO understand how planes are flown, and surveyed 32 types of planes operating in Cannes, and asked the crews of their MLM and speed associated with it.
The flight test directorate gave the green light on it; now people can start to arguing about the inconsistence with their Sops or else; but this is why the briefing is for; a basis for Cat B briefing for EU-OPS operator, or something to put in the Ops-specs for the other, or best practices for the remaining of the crowd.
IF this does not work, a step forward will be done, and then anything can happen, from flight restrictions to Simulator training prior operating or worse..