Circling MDA with crane in vicinity
 

This one is probably for aterpster or FlightPathOBN.

Was flying into KTOA (Torrence) in L.A. the other day, ILS RWY 29R with ceiling around 1000 ft and easterly wind so it was a circle to RWY 11L. No NOTAM:s for the aerodrome but ATIS reported a crane 400 ft AGL half a mile something north of the field. The circle MDH is just 517 ft according to this plate

When I became visual and saw the crane, it really was tall. And close to the runway, circled outside of the crane. No idea if it was lit, still daylight. So my question is, shouldn't this crane affect the circling MDA? Very common to see FDC NOTAM:s with raised minimums due to temporary cranes. Why wasn't this one mentioned? Seemed like a quite a hazard to me.

Any ideas?

While waiting for the experts I would expect 700 (803) under TERPS. Sounds exciting!

Two possibilities:

1. The crane is more than 1.5 nautical miles from any part of Runway 29R/11L. (Keep in mind this airport has CAT A/B only circling minimums).

or,

2. The crane wasn't reported to the procedures department in OKC. This is not likely at an airport with a control tower but it has happened.

Not all they fouled up! There should be a difference of 40' between the two Altimeters for LOC and circle, or the original plate was wrong? Incidentally, why a different 'difference' for ILS, and LOC/Circle - 24'/40'?

I just called the KTOA ATIS. They state the crane is within 1/4 mile of the runway. So, I sent an email to my procedures pals in OKC. But, they all have already probably flown the coop for the holiday.

Thanks, would be interesting to hear if they've heard about the crane.

172 driver:

It has been escalated. But, being the day before Turkey Day, don't hold your breath for any fast action.

They got the NOTAM out, but they fouled up the straight-in minimums:

!FDC 1/7164 TOA FI/T IAP ZAMPERINI FIELD, TORRANCE, CA. ILS OR LOC
RWY 29R, AMDT 2B... S-ILS 29R: DA 473/HAT 376 CATS A/B. VISIBILITY
CATS A/B 1. CIRCLING: MDA 840/HAA 737 CATS A/B. LOS ANGELES
ALTIMETER SETTING MINIMUMS: S-ILS 29R: DA 497/HAT 300. CIRCLING:
MDA 860/HAA 757 CATS A/B. TEMPORARY CRANE 480 MSL 798 FEET N OF
RWY 11L.

Interesting order of posts now - why did BOAC's last reply bounce up to 4th place?

I've seen FDC NOTAM:s before which to me appeared 'fouled up', e.g. a circling MDA that was lower than the straight-in.

172 Driver:

Often they cut corners to get them out. And, they don't have a lot of rocket scientists working there.

Wow,

great work! :ok:

One would think that a crane operator, especially one that tall, would know how this all works....

(nothing shows up on OE-AAA in this one yet, so it was never submitted)

FlightPathOBN:

He did. More than one entity in the FAA didn't.

2011 AWP 1569 OE

That case states this is permanent construction for an additional antennae on an existing tower, not a temp crane, and while this filing is for the construction, I did not find a filing for the temp crane, or notification of start of construction.

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external...seID=138437415

FlightPathOBN:

The FAA transposed the number. The crane is a 2011 determination for the company "Mr. Crane."


2011-AWP-1596-OE

Looks like there is a displaced threshold here? In the FAA UDDF, the runway endpoint is surveyed, not the displaced threshold. In that case, the FAA software doesnt pick that up and the numbers are always wrong...

check out PSP, you get some really odd NOTAMS...

FlightPathOBN:

Quote:

---

Looks like there is a displaced threshold here? In the FAA UDDF, the runway endpoint is surveyed, not the displaced threshold. In that case, the FAA software doesnt pick that up and the numbers are always wrong...

---

This doesn't have anything to do with PSP and everything to do with a crane at KTOA. I gave you the correct OE for the crane the second time around. I don’t know what the FAA UDDF is, but he displaced thresholds for 11L/29R are most certainly in AeroNav Services official datasheet system:

RUNWAY Detail for KTOA

The UDDF is the dump of the FAA database. This is the same database that all of the FAA evaluation software uses. There is a significant problem, as the program lists the runway end as zero, not the threshold as zero. The datapoint is RW only, and this is the endpoint, there is no datapoint for displaced thresholds in the software. So when an evaluation is done, the obstacle surfaces are generated from the runway endpoint, not the displaced threshold.

http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/AERO/uddf/WE...A/TOA__02B.F77



TOA has displaced thresholds, so when evaluated by the FAA OE-AAA software, will have a much different result, that if one uses the displaced threshold origins for evaluation.

This is also the reason why many of the procedure designs the FAA generates, and the data on the plates, just dont ever seem to add up.

I used PSP as an extreme example, as there is a 3000 foot displaced threshold, but if you look at NOTAMS, you will see that it shows the obstacle, as an example, 4300 feet from one runway, and 1000 feet from another, yet both thresholds are right next to each other.....

FltPathOBN:

Those data look like the stuff OC charts used to be made of.

I don't much follow the OE process, but I can say with certainty that the terminal procedures design staff in OKC use IAPA for procedure design, which indeed have the displaced thresholds where they exist.

FlightPathOBN:

What is the displaced threshold for 13R, for example, the actual DER of 31L is where assessment for departure obstacles commences.

The British Way of solving this problem!
 

:confused:REF:C5659/11 From: 2011-Nov-22 Tue 12:15 To: 2011-Dec-02 Fri 20:00 ICAO:EGNHBLACKPOOL DUE TO CRANE ACTIVITY MDA(H) FOR THE FLW IAP INCREASED AS FLW - LOC/DME RWY 28 440(412) SRA RTR 2NM RWY 28 590(562) NDB/DME RWY 28 520(492) NDB/RADAR RWY 28 560(532) SRA RTR 2NM RWY 10 WITH 4.5 PERCENT CLIMB GRADIENT 590(558) NDB/DME RWY 10 WITH 4.5 PERCENT CLIMB GRADIENT 520(488) NDB RWY10 WITH 4.5 PERCENT CLIMB GRADIENT 560(528) VM(C) OCA(H) UNAFFECTED CRANE CAN BE LOWERED AND NORMAL MDA(H) REINSTATED WITH 30 MIN NOTICE TO ATC. :D

terpster,

the FAA hasnt used IAPA for years....

they currently use RNAV-Pro, SAAAR-Pro, and specifically TARGETS

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.

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...

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.......

:)

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...

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.

:)

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.)

FlightPathOBN

Quote:

---

terpster,

---

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.:)

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.

OK465:

Quote:

---

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. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...lies/smile.gif

---

PSP and environs are quite nice in the winter. That's why the population swells in the winter because of all the snowbirds.

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.... :rolleyes:

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.:)

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...

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.

When the going gets tough FltighPathOBN disappears. Seems to be a pattern.

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....:eek:

you may know alot, but you dont know everything.....