Cannes LFMD Mandatory training
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cannes LFMD Mandatory training
Hi there,
just to advise the drivers that a mandatory training procedure was put in place at Cannes ( LFMD).
Prior to operate, all pilots should have register in the system.
My advice : have a printer ready to print the briefing, and/or save the pdf on a computer where you can print it later on.
The address is your personal one,
a team was hired to check the compliance of the FPL vs the database.
Mandatory Briefing LFMD
have fun..
just to advise the drivers that a mandatory training procedure was put in place at Cannes ( LFMD).
Prior to operate, all pilots should have register in the system.
My advice : have a printer ready to print the briefing, and/or save the pdf on a computer where you can print it later on.
The address is your personal one,
a team was hired to check the compliance of the FPL vs the database.
Mandatory Briefing LFMD
have fun..
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
Thanks!
Thanks for the heads-up! I've done it and am good for a year. Question: does this apply only to Pilot in Command or do First Officers need to complete it as well?
Keith
Keith
Ineresting that, in the interests of CMA (cover my a*se) the site includes the warning:
"Informations contained on this page are not official and shall not be used for navigation purpose."
Ah well. At least it's not exactly an onerous process...
"Informations contained on this page are not official and shall not be used for navigation purpose."
Ah well. At least it's not exactly an onerous process...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To my understanding, only the pilot named on the FPL is checked against the database, therefore i would say only the PIC. but as said above it does not impact too much to do it.
as for the disclaimer, Cannes Airport is controlled by SA ACA, a private consortium, not DGAC or DSNA, as a consequence, if DSNA is changing the approach or a mistake is done on a track ( due to magnetic variation for example), then they are not liable. But the essence of this training is to give heads up on this particular circle to land ( altitudes, tracks, speeds, configuration, etc..)
the next AIP will give the same type of informations, along with the address of the site. A little update on the email sent will now include a link in order to be able to download the briefing, if it was not able to do so at time of completion.
This is a version 1 of the training, so critics are welcomed...
as for the disclaimer, Cannes Airport is controlled by SA ACA, a private consortium, not DGAC or DSNA, as a consequence, if DSNA is changing the approach or a mistake is done on a track ( due to magnetic variation for example), then they are not liable. But the essence of this training is to give heads up on this particular circle to land ( altitudes, tracks, speeds, configuration, etc..)
the next AIP will give the same type of informations, along with the address of the site. A little update on the email sent will now include a link in order to be able to download the briefing, if it was not able to do so at time of completion.
This is a version 1 of the training, so critics are welcomed...
Just a couple of points.
I don't think I like the wording "reverse above idle only in case of emergency - report to be filed". What's wrong with "for safety reasons only"? If I land on a wet runway in Cannes and the runway may be slippery after a long period without rain I will use reversers early on in the landing roll. That's where they are most effective as we all know. No point in waiting to see if wheel braking will be sufficient...
Yes, normally landing performance is not based on the use of reverse thrust but we are talking everyday real life here and not test pilot activities. Not all landings in Cannes are factored, either.
The other point is clean config on downwind. I think for some faster typpes it would make sense to allow first stage of slats/flaps to bring the nose down for imroved visibility and slower speeds. Clean is not a typical configuartion for a circle and it's not really trained that way. I do understand that the 1800' circling is not a standard circling approach, though.
I just think the emphasis should be on track awareness and noise awareness, keeping the noise to a minimum as operationally required.
But don't tell us not to use reverse above idle or extend flaps on downwind.
Just my opinion, though.
I don't think I like the wording "reverse above idle only in case of emergency - report to be filed". What's wrong with "for safety reasons only"? If I land on a wet runway in Cannes and the runway may be slippery after a long period without rain I will use reversers early on in the landing roll. That's where they are most effective as we all know. No point in waiting to see if wheel braking will be sufficient...
Yes, normally landing performance is not based on the use of reverse thrust but we are talking everyday real life here and not test pilot activities. Not all landings in Cannes are factored, either.
The other point is clean config on downwind. I think for some faster typpes it would make sense to allow first stage of slats/flaps to bring the nose down for imroved visibility and slower speeds. Clean is not a typical configuartion for a circle and it's not really trained that way. I do understand that the 1800' circling is not a standard circling approach, though.
I just think the emphasis should be on track awareness and noise awareness, keeping the noise to a minimum as operationally required.
But don't tell us not to use reverse above idle or extend flaps on downwind.
Just my opinion, though.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the beginning, Cannes had to be a Category B airport for Eu-Ops operators, for these operators, at the weight they have to operate into Cannes ( factored landing and even SLO), for all types from VLJ to Falcon 900 through CL604, 160 kt clean was proven OK. Now the training incitates pilot not to drop the gear 3.5 Nm off the sea, flaps approach and travel like this for all the downwind leg exposing a lot of the community to undue noise.
In truth the hi resolution cameras that look at the planes in downwind cannot always spot one notch of flaps, but can see the gear every time.. ;-)
The fact to tell, keep the noise to a minimum is very well a personal appreciation, we interviewed pilots pulling full reverse to exit at first taxiway, they said : we do it because we can.., or this was for safety reasons; this is not acceptable.This is why during the last 3 years we tuned, with the help of some operators, this briefing to encompass all the requirements ( DGAC, green lobby, operators).
As for the reverse on landing, i do not think that the "green jackets" will log you on on a wet runway, but like in Nice , no reverses beyond idle. On the latest types , the fact to select the reverses, is setting the FCU in a higher ground idle, as for the old types, soon a list of unwanted planes will be published.
This briefing was tested among around 1000 pilots over 3 years and increased the compliance of tracks and noise from 15% compliant to 90% compliant, just for a piece of paper. Non compliant tracks/ noise were a consequence of people whom did not bother ( mainly).
So , and in short, if you want to be able to operate at cannes without too much hurdles ( more slots etc...) in the coming future, we all need to help and to try to follow these guidelines.
We are working for new departures one to the North, and one to the south with a level off at 3000 ft. this is for November.. as well as on new type of approaches... Stay tuned..
In truth the hi resolution cameras that look at the planes in downwind cannot always spot one notch of flaps, but can see the gear every time.. ;-)
The fact to tell, keep the noise to a minimum is very well a personal appreciation, we interviewed pilots pulling full reverse to exit at first taxiway, they said : we do it because we can.., or this was for safety reasons; this is not acceptable.This is why during the last 3 years we tuned, with the help of some operators, this briefing to encompass all the requirements ( DGAC, green lobby, operators).
As for the reverse on landing, i do not think that the "green jackets" will log you on on a wet runway, but like in Nice , no reverses beyond idle. On the latest types , the fact to select the reverses, is setting the FCU in a higher ground idle, as for the old types, soon a list of unwanted planes will be published.
This briefing was tested among around 1000 pilots over 3 years and increased the compliance of tracks and noise from 15% compliant to 90% compliant, just for a piece of paper. Non compliant tracks/ noise were a consequence of people whom did not bother ( mainly).
So , and in short, if you want to be able to operate at cannes without too much hurdles ( more slots etc...) in the coming future, we all need to help and to try to follow these guidelines.
We are working for new departures one to the North, and one to the south with a level off at 3000 ft. this is for November.. as well as on new type of approaches... Stay tuned..
CL300
Why the ban on exiting at B and C? I don't see how continuing to the end of the runways before exiting helps the environment.
What are the penalties for non-compliance to any of the requirements?
Why the ban on exiting at B and C? I don't see how continuing to the end of the runways before exiting helps the environment.
What are the penalties for non-compliance to any of the requirements?
CL300,
Firstly, many thanks for the post.......gave the opportunity for all at my company to register so all good on that point !!
With regard to improvement on the brief, personally looked very good but was thinking that with the use of the photos, maybe a complete plan view with the LUXUS and PIBON marked and the whole procedure from the break off onto a track of 027 might be helpful, as from the pictures it can appear a little muddled - other than that all good !
F/O
Firstly, many thanks for the post.......gave the opportunity for all at my company to register so all good on that point !!
With regard to improvement on the brief, personally looked very good but was thinking that with the use of the photos, maybe a complete plan view with the LUXUS and PIBON marked and the whole procedure from the break off onto a track of 027 might be helpful, as from the pictures it can appear a little muddled - other than that all good !
F/O
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ban was put in place in order to incitate pilots not to go full reverses.
the plan view is already on the jeppessen, the pictures were selected for the 'key points' of the procedure.
Financial penalties are under study, not for the facts but for the amount....
edit : 'report to be filed' it a bit like an ASR or an MOR in doubt file one. This is not punitive, this is just to be able to justify to the environmental commission, that indeed this aircraft used full reverse, not to exit B , but because it lost the brakes....Now , you can try to sneak around, but believe me, you might try an succeed once, but not twice, if noone is releasing your aircraft after your "brake failure" or that you taxi to the ramp with "no brakes" and depart again with "no problems"; you will be followed by a nice letter.
A fully trained team is looking into everything, from noise to tracks to behaviour, during this summer, you might even have your track printed after landing as well as your noise footprint....
Keep the place open, keep the restrictions out, we, pilots are the ultimate responsible of this, no one else..
the plan view is already on the jeppessen, the pictures were selected for the 'key points' of the procedure.
Financial penalties are under study, not for the facts but for the amount....
edit : 'report to be filed' it a bit like an ASR or an MOR in doubt file one. This is not punitive, this is just to be able to justify to the environmental commission, that indeed this aircraft used full reverse, not to exit B , but because it lost the brakes....Now , you can try to sneak around, but believe me, you might try an succeed once, but not twice, if noone is releasing your aircraft after your "brake failure" or that you taxi to the ramp with "no brakes" and depart again with "no problems"; you will be followed by a nice letter.
A fully trained team is looking into everything, from noise to tracks to behaviour, during this summer, you might even have your track printed after landing as well as your noise footprint....
Keep the place open, keep the restrictions out, we, pilots are the ultimate responsible of this, no one else..
Last edited by CL300; 18th May 2010 at 11:27.
Can't you make a dispensation for certain aircraft to exit via B and C? We don't even have reverse thrust (CJ2) so we are not going to be tempted to use it if we do exit before the end of the runway...
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 53
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would also be helpful to have LUXUS and PIBON finally approved into FMS databases, its not in mine (Type C680) and only the Aerad charts have the lat and long published on the plate NOT jepps.
The aircraft is RNP 0.3 capable and will do a great VNAV/LNAV job if we had the data.
DO you have a link to a French AIS site with official data for PIBON/LUXUS.
As well as instigating hi res cameras and compliance police maybe LFMD should have spoken to Jepps, everybody can enter a pilot waypoint in a GPS/FMS, You cant reference it from another waypoint either.
The aircraft is RNP 0.3 capable and will do a great VNAV/LNAV job if we had the data.
DO you have a link to a French AIS site with official data for PIBON/LUXUS.
As well as instigating hi res cameras and compliance police maybe LFMD should have spoken to Jepps, everybody can enter a pilot waypoint in a GPS/FMS, You cant reference it from another waypoint either.
We have LUXUS and PIBON in all the IFR aircraft I fly - one with Rockwell Collins FMS3000, one with Universal Avionics UNS1-B, and the other G1000.
Last edited by Trim Stab; 18th May 2010 at 20:43.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In september 3 years ago, we had jeppessen to have Luxus and Pibon to be made visible in all databases, you are the first one to come with this issue, Collins , universal and Honeywell as well as Garmin were contacted and confirmed that these points were accessible. This is the reason why the coordinates were removed from the briefing.
They are located on the enroute Rnav waypoints publication :
https://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv...06_ENR-4.3.pdf
but be cautious these are not in decimal, but sexagesimal...Your provider should be giving you access to these points
As for exit on the middle taxiways, for the time being this is not really negotiable at the moment. Common sense will prevail, it is on the agenda, but winning a war goes through small battles, but I would rather give the middle taxyway exit against no limitation on movements...
They are located on the enroute Rnav waypoints publication :
https://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv...06_ENR-4.3.pdf
but be cautious these are not in decimal, but sexagesimal...Your provider should be giving you access to these points
As for exit on the middle taxiways, for the time being this is not really negotiable at the moment. Common sense will prevail, it is on the agenda, but winning a war goes through small battles, but I would rather give the middle taxyway exit against no limitation on movements...
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 53
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We're PRNAV approved and the FMS data we subscribe to is PRNAV compliant, the problem being is that its a VFR procedure and the points are not referenced to anywhere. I've checked the database again this afternoon and there does seem to be a sensible shaped approach but the waypoints are not called Pibon/Luxus.....
Much simpler just to ask Jepps to stick the lat/long on the plate.
The data is certified but I'd rather just create a waypoint with the lat/long supplied to be sure instead of creating a point called PD*12JMD07 and hoping its the right one.
Lets keep it simple - if you are part of a user group at LFMD CL300 please investigate the chances of asking Jepps to pony up a lat long
Much simpler just to ask Jepps to stick the lat/long on the plate.
The data is certified but I'd rather just create a waypoint with the lat/long supplied to be sure instead of creating a point called PD*12JMD07 and hoping its the right one.
Lets keep it simple - if you are part of a user group at LFMD CL300 please investigate the chances of asking Jepps to pony up a lat long
is that its a VFR procedure and the points are not referenced to anywhere
FWIW, the coordinates of LUXUS and PIBON are (from up to date Flitestar)
LUXUS N43 32.9 E 6 59.5
PIBON N43 35.9 E 6 59.0
Hope that helps.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will follow up, we surveyed around 200 planes and all of them got these two points in their database.
Everyone is using Jeppesen as a provider for the database ?
Everyone is using Jeppesen as a provider for the database ?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 53
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
is that its a VFR procedure and the points are not referenced to anywhere
It's not a VFR procedure - it is circling with prescribed flight tracks which is an IFR procedure.
FWIW, the coordinates of LUXUS and PIBON are (from up to date Flitestar)
LUXUS N43 32.9 E 6 59.5
PIBON N43 35.9 E 6 59.0
Hope that helps.
is that its a VFR procedure and the points are not referenced to anywhere
It's not a VFR procedure - it is circling with prescribed flight tracks which is an IFR procedure.
FWIW, the coordinates of LUXUS and PIBON are (from up to date Flitestar)
LUXUS N43 32.9 E 6 59.5
PIBON N43 35.9 E 6 59.0
Hope that helps.
Besides what if you were flying there IFR in an aircraft which only has "standard" equipment with no GPS equipment at all? - perfectly possible.
So there you are, inbound IFR in your Piper Cherokee with your FM Immune KNS80 you fly the localiser to the 3.0 mile point or whatever it is and then you have a track to fly and a prescribed distance referenced from nowhere so its a wind corrected heading and your stopwatch. Not the best recipe for accuracy especially with somebody with a microphone and hi res camera looking up at you.
I like Cannes and I appreciate its a finite resource and its important that we manage noise properly, but isn't it nealry always the case that the simplest fixes are the best? Have Jepps put the lat and long on the plate (As Aerad do) and everyones a winner.
Thanks for the LAT/LONG when I get busted on arrival I'll tell the guy from the DGAC I got them off prune
PS in the 680 its worldwide data provided by a joint venture with Honeywell/Jeppesen called INDS, we use the same data as G450/G550/Falcon 2000/900 easy's
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we worked with INDS , and our Falcons Easy and Classic, 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)
I will chase up with Cessna and honeywell on this, but if you have access to a tech rep on the sovereign it is worth a call.
As for the tracks, you can loose sight of the airport during the circle to land, but not from the ground, but you can only leave mda when in view of the landing threshold. As said on the briefing, if the weather is not great you should ask for a normal circle to land, descend to the minimas depicted on the first page of the Jepps, and THEN this is a full visual, and have to keep the airport in sight therefore you will be unable to fly the tracks..
We are working on a better approach on 35 ( not circle to land), the problem there is , is that the final segment is not in accordance with Pan-ops4; this is why you do not have a LLZ DME 35 approach, but a circle to land ALL runways (except 04). So this is WIP...first things first...
I will chase up with Cessna and honeywell on this, but if you have access to a tech rep on the sovereign it is worth a call.
As for the tracks, you can loose sight of the airport during the circle to land, but not from the ground, but you can only leave mda when in view of the landing threshold. As said on the briefing, if the weather is not great you should ask for a normal circle to land, descend to the minimas depicted on the first page of the Jepps, and THEN this is a full visual, and have to keep the airport in sight therefore you will be unable to fly the tracks..
We are working on a better approach on 35 ( not circle to land), the problem there is , is that the final segment is not in accordance with Pan-ops4; this is why you do not have a LLZ DME 35 approach, but a circle to land ALL runways (except 04). So this is WIP...first things first...
Last edited by CL300; 19th May 2010 at 09:07.