Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Intercept Loc Outbound


Notices
Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Intercept Loc Outbound

Old 8th January 2011 | 13:01
  #61 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
From: On the Beach
Smile

tommy1-8706:

Flt Sim 2004 instals IPKN as a Localiser with course 120 degrees.
Hence, heading 300 in a Cessna, say, the needle is not normal sensing.
That program has many errors. It was written by programmers, not experienced pilots.

It's a game, not a simulator.
aterpster is offline  
Old 8th January 2011 | 13:15
  #62 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
From: On the Beach
PBL:

In my own work I encounter data integrity problems, and their significance for safety-related systems cannot be underestimated. But the problem of assuring integrity seems to be much more difficult than I had heretofore thought it.
I can only speak to the process in the U.S.

1. Survey issues and significant missed obstacles are resolved in initial flight inspection.

2. Source data for government chart-makers and third-party chart-makers is often, but not always, identical.

3. Errors in procedural data notes, such as uncovered in this thread at ASE, are a very weak link in the process, but this affects charts, not databases. And, incorrect or confusing procedural notes tend to create a "primrose path."

4. The FAA itself shows its own doubts about database integrity by requiring a second round of very controlled nav database verification for RNP AR IAPs (the "golden database.") (RNP AR is being terribly overused in the U.S., and well beyond its intended purpose, but that would make for its own thread.)
aterpster is offline  
Old 8th January 2011 | 14:59
  #63 (permalink)  
Community Builder
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 3,985
Likes: 568
From: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Aterpster

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the overuse of RNP AR IAPs, either here, in a separate thread or off-line. I can PM an email address, if you rather

GF
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 8th January 2011 | 17:20
  #64 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
From: On the Beach
gf:

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the overuse of RNP AR IAPs, either here, in a separate thread or off-line. I can PM an email address, if you rather.
Example: KGPI Runway 20, great application; Runwy 2, unnecessary.

Example: KRDU, all runways unecessary except for presumed fewer (green) flight path miles. This is like killing flies with a shot gun. But, the FAA and ICAO failed to develop comparable flight path criteria for fuel savings and non-critical obstacle clearance.
aterpster is offline  
Old 25th January 2011 | 22:54
  #65 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
From: On the Beach
It took some time but the FAA issued these NOTAM amendments today:

!FDC 1/3701 ASE FI/P ASPEN-PITKIN CO/SARDY FIELD, ASPEN, CO. VOR/DME OR GPS C, AMDT 4F... CHART PLANVIEW NOTE: I-PKN BACK COURSE OUTBOUND IS NORMAL SENSING. THIS IS VOR/DME OR GPS C, AMDT 4G.

!FDC 1/3699 ASE FI/P ASPEN-PITKIN CO/SARDY FIELD, ASPEN, CO. LOC/DME E, AMDT 1... CHART PLANVIEW NOTE: DUAL VHF NAVIGATION RECEIVERS REQUIRED. THIS IS LOC/DME E, AMDT 1A.
aterpster is offline  
Old 25th January 2011 | 23:12
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 2
From: USA
Good job. Another great mystery solved (and fixed).
SNS3Guppy is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.