Circling MDA with crane in vicinity
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FltPath OBN:
I have TARGETS on my computer. It is primarily an air traffic deveoped tool. The flight procedures staff at AeroNav services won't touch TARGETS with a 10-foot pole.
The other two programs I'll verify with my management contact in procedures development.
terpster,
the FAA hasnt used IAPA for years....
they currently use RNAV-Pro, SAAAR-Pro, and specifically TARGETS
the FAA hasnt used IAPA for years....
they currently use RNAV-Pro, SAAAR-Pro, and specifically TARGETS
The other two programs I'll verify with my management contact in procedures development.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can validate the use of all of them, when a 3rd party developer designs procedures, the various departments put the procedures into the respective design tools to review the design.
Different departments between AVN, and the numerous AFS use the software I described, but for different uses.
Within the FAA, Procedures are designed, then routed to numerous departments for review and evaluation.
AFS-460/420 use RNAV-Pro is used for DME coverage evaluations of procedures and diverse departure design.
AFS-460/420 also use SAAR-Pro is used to evaluate and design RNP procedures along with TARGETS.
TARGETS is used to design procedures, locate and evaluate waypoints, and evaluate the obstacles on the ARAC cycles.
Currently, AVN is also using IPDS by MDA as the main procedure design tool, but this is being implemented in several stages...so I am not sure which departments have the software...
I would agree, TARGETS is an abomination, and the main reason we still have to submit 8260 forms.... and IPDS isnt any better...
Different departments between AVN, and the numerous AFS use the software I described, but for different uses.
Within the FAA, Procedures are designed, then routed to numerous departments for review and evaluation.
AFS-460/420 use RNAV-Pro is used for DME coverage evaluations of procedures and diverse departure design.
AFS-460/420 also use SAAR-Pro is used to evaluate and design RNP procedures along with TARGETS.
TARGETS is used to design procedures, locate and evaluate waypoints, and evaluate the obstacles on the ARAC cycles.
Currently, AVN is also using IPDS by MDA as the main procedure design tool, but this is being implemented in several stages...so I am not sure which departments have the software...
I would agree, TARGETS is an abomination, and the main reason we still have to submit 8260 forms.... and IPDS isnt any better...
Since you mention PSP...
You know, rather than change the whole amazing spiral down RNP AR (Y or Z) to 13R for the displaced threshold, they just recoded the new RW13R threshold waypoint into the existing procedure, resulting in a 'noticeably' shallower vertical path from NUDCI inbound.
Must be some high rollers living off the approach end of 13R.......
You know, rather than change the whole amazing spiral down RNP AR (Y or Z) to 13R for the displaced threshold, they just recoded the new RW13R threshold waypoint into the existing procedure, resulting in a 'noticeably' shallower vertical path from NUDCI inbound.
Must be some high rollers living off the approach end of 13R.......
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not sure what you mean...by shallower, are you being facetious?
PSP has had a displaced threshold for as long as I can remember, well, okay, at least 10 years.
On the public procedure, I noted an issue with the design, the controlling obstacle was actually an eval point left in the database from the new tower location studies...which was why my 3rd party procedure had much lower minima...(and they had issue with my design!, and new tower at PSP?? so one knows how long the point sat in the database...)
I might add, that I raised enough hell regarding all of the obstacle points, temp or not, that were in the database that everyone had to design around, that the FAA initiated a major clearing operation.. self serving of course, blaming the past holder of the info vs the current...
PSP has had a displaced threshold for as long as I can remember, well, okay, at least 10 years.
On the public procedure, I noted an issue with the design, the controlling obstacle was actually an eval point left in the database from the new tower location studies...which was why my 3rd party procedure had much lower minima...(and they had issue with my design!, and new tower at PSP?? so one knows how long the point sat in the database...)
I might add, that I raised enough hell regarding all of the obstacle points, temp or not, that were in the database that everyone had to design around, that the FAA initiated a major clearing operation.. self serving of course, blaming the past holder of the info vs the current...
You're most likely right.
I haven't looked at it since 2004, when some engine out missed containment stuff was done before TOGA to LNAV was available.
I swear the coords for waypoint RW13R at the time were the same as the coords for the full length. The path from FAF inbound shows 3.00 in the database and still does but I thought it now shallowed out from the intermediate fix to something less. Maybe not.
When I retired, I think I also retired my memory.
I haven't looked at it since 2004, when some engine out missed containment stuff was done before TOGA to LNAV was available.
I swear the coords for waypoint RW13R at the time were the same as the coords for the full length. The path from FAF inbound shows 3.00 in the database and still does but I thought it now shallowed out from the intermediate fix to something less. Maybe not.
When I retired, I think I also retired my memory.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK,
No, you likely remember it correctly...that is still the problem with the FAA database, it allows for one runway endpoint. You actually have to induce a false runway within the FAA software if there is a displaced threshold.
Unfortunately, the navdatabase providers may or may not pick up a displaced threshold...so the FMC on the aircraft will not have the displ thres in the procedure.
I have many problems with the Jepp database in these regards, as well as others, as I can place a custom waypoint on approach, but not a custom waypoint for the runway.
Jepp is a competitor, they are not likely to listen.
(in regards to PSP, years ago, when in structural engineering consulting, the issue of the runway design for psp was one o my projects. it appeared that the new runway, at that time, (designed in the english/metric transition fiasco) the pavement thickness was screwed up as the contractor thought the thickness was inches, rather than cm...so the entire section is far to thin, hence the displaced threshold, given the lawsuits, I would have thought this was solved long ago, hence my surprise, when designing RNP to PSP, that the issue was still unresolved and there is 3000 feet of unused runway to date.)
No, you likely remember it correctly...that is still the problem with the FAA database, it allows for one runway endpoint. You actually have to induce a false runway within the FAA software if there is a displaced threshold.
Unfortunately, the navdatabase providers may or may not pick up a displaced threshold...so the FMC on the aircraft will not have the displ thres in the procedure.
I have many problems with the Jepp database in these regards, as well as others, as I can place a custom waypoint on approach, but not a custom waypoint for the runway.
Jepp is a competitor, they are not likely to listen.
(in regards to PSP, years ago, when in structural engineering consulting, the issue of the runway design for psp was one o my projects. it appeared that the new runway, at that time, (designed in the english/metric transition fiasco) the pavement thickness was screwed up as the contractor thought the thickness was inches, rather than cm...so the entire section is far to thin, hence the displaced threshold, given the lawsuits, I would have thought this was solved long ago, hence my surprise, when designing RNP to PSP, that the issue was still unresolved and there is 3000 feet of unused runway to date.)
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlightPathOBN
The FAA hasnt hasnt used IAPA for years....
they currently use RNAV-Pro, SAAAR-Pro, and specifically TARGETS
This is in response to your above posting, which I sent toa senior manager in AeroNav Services in OKC, the division that designs public instrument approach procedures:
“We are currently using IAPA and IPDS. We do not use RNAV-Pro nor TARGETS, or anything else he listed. He must be referring to those folks in Air Traffic that are designing SIDs and STARs using TARGETS and RNAV-Pro.”
You need to do your homework.
terpster,
The FAA hasnt hasnt used IAPA for years....
they currently use RNAV-Pro, SAAAR-Pro, and specifically TARGETS
“We are currently using IAPA and IPDS. We do not use RNAV-Pro nor TARGETS, or anything else he listed. He must be referring to those folks in Air Traffic that are designing SIDs and STARs using TARGETS and RNAV-Pro.”
You need to do your homework.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OKC465:
What is that path? It doesn't show any path change on my Jepp chart from NUDCI inbound.
How's that? A shallower path would yield more noise. In any case along the final segment to 13R there old, cheap housing, then further out a whole lot of power-generating windmills.
Since you mention PSP...
You know, rather than change the whole amazing spiral down RNP AR (Y or Z) to 13R for the displaced threshold, they just recoded the new RW13R threshold waypoint into the existing procedure, resulting in a 'noticeably' shallower vertical path from NUDCI inbound.
You know, rather than change the whole amazing spiral down RNP AR (Y or Z) to 13R for the displaced threshold, they just recoded the new RW13R threshold waypoint into the existing procedure, resulting in a 'noticeably' shallower vertical path from NUDCI inbound.
Must be some high rollers living off the approach end of 13R.......
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK465:
PSP and environs are quite nice in the winter. That's why the population swells in the winter because of all the snowbirds.
Actually I pretty much make an effort to avoid going to California at all cost anyway so I wouldn't have a clue as to what's northwest of 13R. 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
terpster,
that was funny...looks like everyone at the FAA thinks they do procedure design! It doesnt surprise me that a sr mgr at the FAA is out of touch with what other divisions are doing... If you really want to test them, ask how well IPDS does with RF legs....
that was funny...looks like everyone at the FAA thinks they do procedure design! It doesnt surprise me that a sr mgr at the FAA is out of touch with what other divisions are doing... If you really want to test them, ask how well IPDS does with RF legs....
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlightPathOBN:
Well, it is his division that designs and issues FAR 97 instrument approach procedures for the FAA.
Terminal Procedures & Charting Group, AJV-35
I've worked with the guy at various meetings for many years. He has forgotten more about TERPs than either you or I know.
AFS-460 provides standards oversight of AJV-35, but AJV-35 and only AJV-35 designs FAR 97 IAPs. AJV-35 accepts input from the three area RAPTs.
I think you are about to saw yourself off on another limb.
terpster,
that was funny...looks like everyone at the FAA thinks they do procedure design! It doesnt surprise me that a sr mgr at the FAA is out of touch with what other divisions are doing... If you really want to test them, ask how well IPDS does with RF legs....
that was funny...looks like everyone at the FAA thinks they do procedure design! It doesnt surprise me that a sr mgr at the FAA is out of touch with what other divisions are doing... If you really want to test them, ask how well IPDS does with RF legs....
Terminal Procedures & Charting Group, AJV-35
I've worked with the guy at various meetings for many years. He has forgotten more about TERPs than either you or I know.
AFS-460 provides standards oversight of AJV-35, but AJV-35 and only AJV-35 designs FAR 97 IAPs. AJV-35 accepts input from the three area RAPTs.
I think you are about to saw yourself off on another limb.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check these guys out....
Flight Technologies and Procedures Division
Especially AFS-470
Flight Technologies & Procedures Division - Performance Based Flight Systems Branch
Here is where RNAV-Pro, SAAR-Pro, and EOSE reside....
https://fsl.faa.gov/Citrix/XenApp/auth/login.aspx
When you log in, you have your choice of programs...
Flight Technologies and Procedures Division
Especially AFS-470
Flight Technologies & Procedures Division - Performance Based Flight Systems Branch
Here is where RNAV-Pro, SAAR-Pro, and EOSE reside....
https://fsl.faa.gov/Citrix/XenApp/auth/login.aspx
When you log in, you have your choice of programs...
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlightPathOBN:
I know all about AFS-470 and I deal on occasion with the branch manager, Mr. Mark Steinbicker.
His branch establishes standards for compliance. His branch does not develop procedures.
That's nice of them. But, that is not where AJV-35 goes and, except for a few third-party developed procedures, all FAA-developed IAPs come out of AJV-35.
Check these guys out....
Flight Technologies and Procedures Division
Especially AFS-470
Flight Technologies & Procedures Division - Performance Based Flight Systems Branch
Flight Technologies and Procedures Division
Especially AFS-470
Flight Technologies & Procedures Division - Performance Based Flight Systems Branch
His branch establishes standards for compliance. His branch does not develop procedures.
Here is where RNAV-Pro, SAAR-Pro, and EOSE reside....
https://fsl.faa.gov/Citrix/XenApp/auth/login.aspx
When you log in, you have your choice of programs...
https://fsl.faa.gov/Citrix/XenApp/auth/login.aspx
When you log in, you have your choice of programs...
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not at all....I deal with these programs on a routine basis and was on the development team for IPDS and RNAV-Pro....
you are just a bore....
you may know alot, but you dont know everything.....
you are just a bore....
you may know alot, but you dont know everything.....
Last edited by FlightPathOBN; 6th Dec 2011 at 18:04.
