The future of Digital NOTAMs
04-03-2014, 03:18 AM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: Seat: Vegan friendly faux leather
Posts: 987
Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy
I have a question you might be able to answer.
AC 90-108 Use of Suitable Area Navigation (RNAV) Systems on Conventional Routes and Procedures discusses when you can and can't use RNAV systems to substitute for an inoperative NAVAID.
For example, you can't substitute an RNAV system for a out-of-service NAVAID when the navigation or procedure is NA (not authorized), when substituting for a final approach course, or substituting for a LOC or BCLOC final approach course.
With that being said, with the invention of RNAV RNP procedures, why would you still need to have raw data on a final approach course? The tolerances for an RNP approaches are tighter and safer than raw data VOR or NDB. Most operators today fly VOR and NDB approaches in LNAV/VNAV or similar fashion. If combined with RNP procedures, who cares if the NAVAID was working or not? Maybe not the right question. The FAA apparently cares. How about, why do they care? What am I missing?
AC 90-108 Use of Suitable Area Navigation (RNAV) Systems on Conventional Routes and Procedures discusses when you can and can't use RNAV systems to substitute for an inoperative NAVAID.
For example, you can't substitute an RNAV system for a out-of-service NAVAID when the navigation or procedure is NA (not authorized), when substituting for a final approach course, or substituting for a LOC or BCLOC final approach course.
With that being said, with the invention of RNAV RNP procedures, why would you still need to have raw data on a final approach course? The tolerances for an RNP approaches are tighter and safer than raw data VOR or NDB. Most operators today fly VOR and NDB approaches in LNAV/VNAV or similar fashion. If combined with RNP procedures, who cares if the NAVAID was working or not? Maybe not the right question. The FAA apparently cares. How about, why do they care? What am I missing?
04-03-2014, 04:43 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy
Oh yeah, those VORs need testing. How long are they slated to be around?
With everything going to RNAV RNP, I imagine a day very soon that flying an NDB or VOR approach in the USA will be a thing of the past.
During my trips I prefer to takeoff, eat, sleep, fly, eat, sleep, fly ,and then land.
With everything going to RNAV RNP, I imagine a day very soon that flying an NDB or VOR approach in the USA will be a thing of the past.
During my trips I prefer to takeoff, eat, sleep, fly, eat, sleep, fly ,and then land.
I'm sorry if you seem to think my job isn't important.
You asked a question and I gave you an example.
I think we might have had this type of conversation in the pass when I mentioned that as a former tanker pilot, I would think you would have a greater understanding of the *support* required for YOU to accomplish your job. How far do you think you would get without the cast of thousands of supporting actors everyday KC?
The legacy NAS is still going to be around for probably the rest of my career - but who do you think is a part of getting all those RNAV procedures up and running too.
Yep - my organization is a last part in that cog too so I'm sure when the NDBs are gone - I'll still be checking other navigation systems.
I prefer to takeoff, eat, sleep, fly, eat, sleep, fly ,and then land
As to your other question, it is at least partly because not everyone is using RNAV. The NAS has to support ALL users - not just the airlines. Also - as you well know, GPS can be jammed and also has periods of unavailablility. Legacy NAS systems often backup those procedures.
For a more legal interpretation of the issues and why the FAA cares about this or that - I'd have to refer you to the policy makers. I am part of a flying crewdriver that makes sure things are working according to the tolerences set by those policy makers and to find problems in the system, and then in conjunction with other supporting players, we fix the system and ensure that it is operating back up to standards. Here is a blurb of our mission statement:
Flight Inspection ensures the integrity of instrument approaches and airway procedures that constitute our National Airspace System infrastructure and the FAA’s international commitments. We accomplish this through the airborne inspection of all space and ground-based instrument flight procedures and the validation of electronic signals in space that are transmitted from approximately 13,500 various navigation systems. Airborne inspection of navigational aids is a two-part operation, requiring the skills of highly trained flightcrews. The first part is an evaluation of the "signal in space" - the radiation pattern of the navigational aid much like that of a radio station. The second part is to certify the instrument approach procedures that are designed to allow pilots to safely use airport runways in adverse weather.
04-03-2014, 05:31 AM
#13
Day puke
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: Out.
Posts: 3,865
Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy
Oh yeah, those VORs need testing. How long are they slated to be around?
With everything going to RNAV RNP, I imagine a day very soon that flying an NDB or VOR approach in the USA will be a thing of the past.
During my trips I prefer to takeoff, eat, sleep, fly, eat, sleep, fly ,and then land.
With everything going to RNAV RNP, I imagine a day very soon that flying an NDB or VOR approach in the USA will be a thing of the past.
During my trips I prefer to takeoff, eat, sleep, fly, eat, sleep, fly ,and then land.
Now, go back to sleep
04-03-2014, 07:45 AM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Update:
Due a schedule change - I'm now going to 11 different airports on Tuesday (all day).
and for the record - I'm doing a mix of a reconfiguration of runway lights/Night eval of an airport that hasnever had IFR service before, obstacle evaluations of RNAV approaches, a VORTAC inspection, a TACAN inspection, and an ILS at KICT, and GASP! an NDB at a small airport west of Wichita.
An update to the update. Make that 12 airports since I now see that the IAB TACAN has four approaches into McConnell AFB (which presently has only 11 NOTAMS itself so far!).
Due a schedule change - I'm now going to 11 different airports on Tuesday (all day).
and for the record - I'm doing a mix of a reconfiguration of runway lights/Night eval of an airport that hasnever had IFR service before, obstacle evaluations of RNAV approaches, a VORTAC inspection, a TACAN inspection, and an ILS at KICT, and GASP! an NDB at a small airport west of Wichita.
An update to the update. Make that 12 airports since I now see that the IAB TACAN has four approaches into McConnell AFB (which presently has only 11 NOTAMS itself so far!).
Last edited by USMCFLYR; 04-03-2014 at 10:23 AM.
04-03-2014, 09:25 AM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,026
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
Update:
Due a schedule cahnge - I'm now going to 11 different airports on Tuesday (all day).
and for the record - I'm doing a mix of a reconfiguration of runway lights/Night eval of an airport that hasnever had IFR service before, obstacle evaluations of RNAV approaches, a VORTAC inspection, a TACAN inspection, and an ILS at KICT, and GASP! an NDB at a small airport west of Wichita.
An update to the update. Make that 12 airports since I now see that the IAB TACAN has four approaches into McConnell AFB (which presently has only 11 NOTAMS itself so far!).
Due a schedule cahnge - I'm now going to 11 different airports on Tuesday (all day).
and for the record - I'm doing a mix of a reconfiguration of runway lights/Night eval of an airport that hasnever had IFR service before, obstacle evaluations of RNAV approaches, a VORTAC inspection, a TACAN inspection, and an ILS at KICT, and GASP! an NDB at a small airport west of Wichita.
An update to the update. Make that 12 airports since I now see that the IAB TACAN has four approaches into McConnell AFB (which presently has only 11 NOTAMS itself so far!).
Even top that off with a night eval of airport that has never had IFR service before? Yowsah!
Tip of the hat to you sir.
04-03-2014, 09:45 AM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Legacy FO
Posts: 4,096
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
A long time - so don't hold your breath on that KC.
I'm sorry if you seem to think my job isn't important.
You asked a question and I gave you an example.
I think we might have had this type of conversation in the pass when I mentioned that as a former tanker pilot, I would think you would have a greater understanding of the *support* required for YOU to accomplish your job. How far do you think you would get without the cast of thousands of supporting actors everyday KC?
The legacy NAS is still going to be around for probably the rest of my career - but who do you think is a part of getting all those RNAV procedures up and running too.
Yep - my organization is a last part in that cog too so I'm sure when the NDBs are gone - I'll still be checking other navigation systems.
Yep - life of an airline pilot - AND you still think you are underpaid
As to your other question, it is at least partly because not everyone is using RNAV. The NAS has to support ALL users - not just the airlines. Also - as you well know, GPS can be jammed and also has periods of unavailablility. Legacy NAS systems often backup those procedures.
For a more legal interpretation of the issues and why the FAA cares about this or that - I'd have to refer you to the policy makers. I am part of a flying crewdriver that makes sure things are working according to the tolerences set by those policy makers and to find problems in the system, and then in conjunction with other supporting players, we fix the system and ensure that it is operating back up to standards. Here is a blurb of our mission statement:
I'm sorry if you seem to think my job isn't important.
You asked a question and I gave you an example.
I think we might have had this type of conversation in the pass when I mentioned that as a former tanker pilot, I would think you would have a greater understanding of the *support* required for YOU to accomplish your job. How far do you think you would get without the cast of thousands of supporting actors everyday KC?
The legacy NAS is still going to be around for probably the rest of my career - but who do you think is a part of getting all those RNAV procedures up and running too.
Yep - my organization is a last part in that cog too so I'm sure when the NDBs are gone - I'll still be checking other navigation systems.
Yep - life of an airline pilot - AND you still think you are underpaid
As to your other question, it is at least partly because not everyone is using RNAV. The NAS has to support ALL users - not just the airlines. Also - as you well know, GPS can be jammed and also has periods of unavailablility. Legacy NAS systems often backup those procedures.
For a more legal interpretation of the issues and why the FAA cares about this or that - I'd have to refer you to the policy makers. I am part of a flying crewdriver that makes sure things are working according to the tolerences set by those policy makers and to find problems in the system, and then in conjunction with other supporting players, we fix the system and ensure that it is operating back up to standards. Here is a blurb of our mission statement:
I agree, the NAVAIDs need testing. My post(s) is more about with the increasing RNAV approaches, if you saw a time in the near future when VORs and NDBs will be decommissioned.
Likewise, the question about why you have to monitor an underlying NAVAID when using RNAV, but during an RNP there isn't any NAVAIDs.
Last edited by KC10 FATboy; 04-03-2014 at 10:09 AM.
04-03-2014, 10:08 AM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Legacy FO
Posts: 4,096
Originally Posted by FlyJSH
Considering that satellites can be affected by solar flares, hopefully not very soon.
Now, go back to sleep
Now, go back to sleep
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
As to your other question, it is at least partly because not everyone is using RNAV. The NAS has to support ALL users - not just the airlines. Also - as you well know, GPS can be jammed and also has periods of unavailablility. Legacy NAS systems often backup those procedures.
For a more legal interpretation of the issues and why the FAA cares about this or that - I'd have to refer you to the policy makers. I am part of a flying crewdriver that makes sure things are working according to the tolerences set by those policy makers and to find problems in the system, and then in conjunction with other supporting players, we fix the system and ensure that it is operating back up to standards. Here is a blurb of our mission statement:
For a more legal interpretation of the issues and why the FAA cares about this or that - I'd have to refer you to the policy makers. I am part of a flying crewdriver that makes sure things are working according to the tolerences set by those policy makers and to find problems in the system, and then in conjunction with other supporting players, we fix the system and ensure that it is operating back up to standards. Here is a blurb of our mission statement:
Do you think with the invention of GPS and RNAV systems, the costs of maintaining all of those NAVAIDs outweigh the benefits?
I understand a lot of people use them, especially the DOD.
I think it would be cheaper for the government to pay and upgrade all the airplanes without RNAV capability, than it would be to keep managing these NAVAIDs. Now we are paying for both systems when only one is required.
04-03-2014, 10:23 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy
Negative transfer USMC. I wasn't saying anything about your job or its relevance. You seem to be bringing up feelings about the government shutdown. And I stand by my thoughts on that. But that is another thread.
I agree, the NAVAIDs need testing. My post(s) is more about with the increasing RNAV approaches, if you saw a time in the near future when VORs and NDBs will be decommissioned.
Likewise, the question about why you have to monitor an underlying NAVAID when using RNAV, but during an RNP there isn't any NAVAIDs.
That is all. Simmer down man.
I agree, the NAVAIDs need testing. My post(s) is more about with the increasing RNAV approaches, if you saw a time in the near future when VORs and NDBs will be decommissioned.
Likewise, the question about why you have to monitor an underlying NAVAID when using RNAV, but during an RNP there isn't any NAVAIDs.
That is all. Simmer down man.
If you are saying that I read to much into YOUR felings about NAVAID certification, then that is possible. We all know how hard it is to distiguish intent over the internet sometimes, but your quote of "Oh yeah, those VORs need testing.", I took that as you saying that it wasn't very important that that piece of *old* technology needed to be tested/certified or that it was worth the effort - especially in light of your follow on statements/questions about what is the use of them in the light of NEW NAS technologies.
I've written about the the future of the NAS as it is revelvant to our operations in other posts, but as I said above - oarts of the OLD NAS will be along for as long as I am in this job I'd be willing to wager. You can google MON (Minimum Operational Network) and read a little something about it if you are interested. I'll link just one of the many studies/papers out there on it:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...ll/VOR_MON.pdf
NDBs? Decommissioning them as we speak and others are being powered down to increase th life of the station/facility.
ILSs? Around for a long time to come. Procedures is putting out aroud 500 new RNAV procedures per year - and these are just the approaches I think - not even those new RNAV SIDs/STARs or DME/DME procedures. ADS-B is taking up most of the Lear60 fleets time right now because they are the only airframe with the equipment mods.
Now - back to digital NOTAMs and our desire to see more of this technology - no matter how many airports you may see in a single day whether you fly ETOPS/International/Atlantic/Pacific or a flight between KOKC and KICT.
04-03-2014, 11:00 AM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Legacy FO
Posts: 4,096
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
No - I think we both shared our feelings of the gov't shutdown in the previous threads.
If you are saying that I read to much into YOUR felings about NAVAID certification, then that is possible. We all know how hard it is to distiguish intent over the internet sometimes, but your quote of "Oh yeah, those VORs need testing.", I took that as you saying that it wasn't very important that that piece of *old* technology needed to be tested/certified or that it was worth the effort - especially in light of your follow on statements/questions about what is the use of them in the light of NEW NAS technologies.
I've written about the the future of the NAS as it is revelvant to our operations in other posts, but as I said above - oarts of the OLD NAS will be along for as long as I am in this job I'd be willing to wager. You can google MON (Minimum Operational Network) and read a little something about it if you are interested. I'll link just one of the many studies/papers out there on it:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...ll/VOR_MON.pdf
NDBs? Decommissioning them as we speak and others are being powered down to increase th life of the station/facility.
ILSs? Around for a long time to come. Procedures is putting out aroud 500 new RNAV procedures per year - and these are just the approaches I think - not even those new RNAV SIDs/STARs or DME/DME procedures. ADS-B is taking up most of the Lear60 fleets time right now because they are the only airframe with the equipment mods.
Now - back to digital NOTAMs and our desire to see more of this technology - no matter how many airports you may see in a single day whether you fly ETOPS/International/Atlantic/Pacific or a flight between KOKC and KICT.
If you are saying that I read to much into YOUR felings about NAVAID certification, then that is possible. We all know how hard it is to distiguish intent over the internet sometimes, but your quote of "Oh yeah, those VORs need testing.", I took that as you saying that it wasn't very important that that piece of *old* technology needed to be tested/certified or that it was worth the effort - especially in light of your follow on statements/questions about what is the use of them in the light of NEW NAS technologies.
I've written about the the future of the NAS as it is revelvant to our operations in other posts, but as I said above - oarts of the OLD NAS will be along for as long as I am in this job I'd be willing to wager. You can google MON (Minimum Operational Network) and read a little something about it if you are interested. I'll link just one of the many studies/papers out there on it:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...ll/VOR_MON.pdf
NDBs? Decommissioning them as we speak and others are being powered down to increase th life of the station/facility.
ILSs? Around for a long time to come. Procedures is putting out aroud 500 new RNAV procedures per year - and these are just the approaches I think - not even those new RNAV SIDs/STARs or DME/DME procedures. ADS-B is taking up most of the Lear60 fleets time right now because they are the only airframe with the equipment mods.
Now - back to digital NOTAMs and our desire to see more of this technology - no matter how many airports you may see in a single day whether you fly ETOPS/International/Atlantic/Pacific or a flight between KOKC and KICT.
But I do think, even in keeping back on thread topic, the government must become as lean and as efficient as the commercial side of aviation. To be blunt, it's the government side that's slowing everyone down.
There's no reason in the datalinked world that we live in the NOTAM system couldn't be automated and beamed directly into the cockpit/EFBs and towers.
We're in interesting times. We have all of this new technology, but we're paying for and clinging onto the past. The government must make the obvious decision or we're just wasting money away.
Another interesting observation. Whenever I fly overseas, we're always flying an NADP1 departure. But it's very rare in the USA. I'd imagine that if the noise sensitive communities in the USA found out that pilots weren't flying the most advantageous takeoffs from a noise perspective, they'd be angry. But we don't fly them because we're not required to. Which goes back to the theme, our government is slow to make the necessary changes.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
