After a cold and gray summer in the San Francisco Bay Area, the weather for tonight's flight is hot, so hot that record high temperatures were set today for several California cities. The goal is to complete back-to-back cross-country flights to meet commercial pilot requirements: One flight during the day, one at night, both a minimum of 2 hours with a straight-line distance of at least 100 nautical miles between departure and destination. Along the way I'll test the commercial candidate's ability to navigate with VORs, GPS, dead reckoning, and pilotage. The unstated goal, as is the case anytime pilots decide to go flying, will be to savor the joy of flight, even if the air is hot and dry.
These back-to-back cross-country flights are not new to me and I have a few possible destinations up my sleeve that will meet the distance and time requirements. For tonight, we'll fly to Harris Ranch, near Coalinga, California, at the Southern end of the San Joaquin Valley. Harris Ranch is more than 100 miles from Oakland. We can easily get there in less than 2 hours, so the solution is to give the pilot a diversion and there are many airports from which to choose. After diverting, we'll land at Harris Ranch, buy some fuel, sit in the air conditioned restaurant, have a bite to eat, if necessary we'll wait for official night to begin, and hope for a cooler two-hour return flight.
A luxury on long flights is the ample opportunity for a pilot to demonstrate their skills in a relaxed, slower paced setting. And since we'll be doing two cross-country flights with a break in between, the candidate gets a chance to integrate what he learns on the trip down and apply it on the trip back. Learning is a change in behavior ... A flight instructor candidate will be riding along in the back seat, observing, taking some photos and videos, and sharing the fun. The surface temperature at Oakland is a sizzling 34˚C, the air is still and bone dry, and it will be a thousand years until the winter rains come.
The aircraft for tonight's flight is a well-equipped, late-model G1000 Cessna 172 with a nice, accurate autopilot. That should help relieve the tedium of the long flight. We depart Oakland, turn to the East and begin a slow climb. Norcal Approach eventually clears us up to 5,500 feet and the outside air temperature gradually drops to 28˚C. That's over twenty degrees warmer than the standard temperature for this altitude, but the air flowing out the tiny cabin air vents feels surprisingly cool.
The initial route takes us over Tracy, California and then we begin some IFR flying (I Follow Roads) along Victor I-5, a major commercial freeway that runs the length of the state. It's hard to get lost following a big swath of pavement and there are several small airports along the route, just in case we unexpectedly need one.
Dead ahead is the Lemoore Military Operations Area, which brings up the first topic of discussion: Is the Lemoore MOA active? The pilot had planned a different route than what I've asked him to fly. He planned the trip primarily using IFR charts and confesses a dislike for VFR charts, but now he consults his sectional and finds the Lemoore MOA is listed as active. Just to be sure, he asks the approach controller who tells us the MOA is cold. Good to know that in the entire state of California, something is cold.
As we near Los Banos, it's time to divert and the fun begins. I take away the GPS navigational information and after drawing a course line, measuring the magnetic course and distance, estimating the time en route and fuel required, another lesson is learned: On long trips it sure helps to have a big plotter instead of one of those small, compact rulers. Flying along the new course using dead reckoning and pilotage distracts us from the heat. The winds aloft are negligible, the ride is smooth, and as the sun sinks to the horizon the Sierra Madre are bathed in a golden light.
The pilot locates and identifies various airports along the way, Madera, Fresno, Reedly. During the descent to Woodlake, California, the new destination, the temperature climbs. The Sierra foothills shimmer in the twilight and seem to be glowing from within. Peaceful orchards and farmland are slipping by underneath us, lush and green in spite of the heat. The life of a professional flight instructor is fraught with difficulties, but this view makes the trials and imperfections melt away. A little voice in my head says, "Fix these sights in your memory and they will give you solace in the future."
Gliding closer to the runway, we can see that the pavement appears freshly resurfaced. I recall landing here in a Caravan during 135 indoc training, doing a 180 and back-taxiing on the poorly surfaced runway because the parallel taxiway was even worse: A trail of broken asphalt and potholes. Back to the present, the Skyhawk seemingly hovering in the landing flare, I glance to the left and see a familiar wooden building. This unassuming structure houses something out of a time warp, the archetypal $100 hamburger restaurant straight out of a pilot's dream. I had a grilled cheese sandwich here years ago and the check airman had a cheeseburger. Alas, the restaurant is not open at this hour and after a touch and go, we depart straight-out for Harris Ranch.
My half-liter stainless steel water bottle that was filled with ice cubes and cold water is now empty. My stomach is growling and I didn't pack any snacks. The pilot neglected to bring any water at all, which spawns a quick discussion of aeromedical factors. In hot weather the body loses water fast and with low relative humidity perspiration dries so quickly you may not realize you're dehydrated until the symptoms start: Headache, dizziness, dry mouth, difficulty concentrating. Not to worry, we'll soon be ensconced in cool, air-conditioned comfort at the Harris Ranch restaurant.
On the way we briefly receive flight following from Lemoore Approach and the controller is busy talking to what I assume is a squadron of F-18 Hornets. Nothing appears on my traffic detector and I can only conclude their transponders are not turned on. Told to squawk VFR, the descent to Harris Ranch commences and the narrow, brightly lit runway comes into view next to I-5 and its endless stream of truck and automobile traffic. Turning final, something unexpected happens: The runway lights begin to flash on and off at regular intervals. We attempt to click the mic (the aviation equivalent of The Clapper), but the lights go off and stay off. We live in an imperfect world and it's time for a real-life diversion.
In the go-around there's a low-fuel annunciation, most likely due to the climb attitude combined with a somewhat low fuel quantity. We have at least an hour's worth of fuel, but a flashing yellow annunciator isn't soothing. The pilot chooses to divert to nearby New Coalinga where self-service fuel should be available. Then the sinking realization: No cold drinks, no snacks, no air-conditioned restaurant. The pilot needs water and I'm hungry. Another lesson relearned - something about Plan B ...
New Coalinga is deserted and save a few hangars, the only signs of any aviation activity whatsoever is a single Cessna, tied down on the ramp. The air is still and warm, but surprisingly, not that hot. And there's a smell in the air you'd instantly recognize if you've ever driven past Coalinga: We're downwind from a huge cattle stockyard. No matter, the fuel pump is functioning and there is a pilot's lounge/briefing room in a mobile-home style building just beyond the fence. A dog is barking somewhere in the darkness that has settled on the airport and then a light comes on.
The airport manager lives in the other half of the mobile home. He appears, dressed for the weather, barefoot, wearing jeans and sans t-shirt. I apologize if we've disturbed his evening. He says it's fine, turns on the lights for us and shows us what's available. There's no food to be had, but there is a vending machine with cold soft drinks. The CFI candidate riding along takes some pictures and the sounds his digital camera makes are all we hear.
I bring up FltPlan on my iPhone, locate Harris Ranch and give them a call. I get the hotel receptionist and describe the problem with the runway lights. I'm not sure the receptionist understands the nuances of runway lighting, but she assures me they'll look into it.
After departing, I ask the pilot to head toward Madera, he programs the GPS and contacts Lemoore Approach. We get flight following through the MOA, which seems to be active and the runway lights at Harris Ranch are working again. The controller is still talking to a bunch of Hornets, but we can only hear one side of the conversation since we're using a VHF transceiver and the F-18s are using high frequency transceivers. We see some flashing red beacons, but my traffic detector insists we're all alone.
When I was a kid and we were reaching the end of a road trip, I recall how a peculiar silence would engulf the car and make every small rattle, click, or bump in the road seem significant. That same feeling overtakes me as we cross over Tracy and turn toward San Francisco Bay. The pilot elects to fly a practice ILS approach and while Oakland's North Field is quiet, the South Field is humming with activity. A single tower controller is working all the frequencies for the entire airport: Tower, Ground, and Clearance Delivery. Whatever gets you through the night ...
The North Field is eerily quiet and the temperature is actually warmer here than it was at New Coalinga. With the plane back in the hangar, we're back to business cleaning all the leading edges and the windshield. A cynical Larry Summers famously claimed "In the history of the world, no one has ever washed a rental car." The same cannot be said of rental aircraft and Mr. Summers would get some serious remedial training if he were ever to fly with me. After a quick debrief and signing of the logbook, this evening's two cross-country flights are in the books.
Flying focuses our minds, offer tangible goals, tests physical and intellectual skills. Yet while we're focused on our flying performance, we're also taking in sights and sensations that only a flying animal can know and appreciate. The next time you go flying, bring a friend or a loved one, and drink in the world from above. May the joys you experience stay fixed in your mind and provide comfort as you make your way through this perfectly imperfect world.
Showing posts with label special use airspace. Show all posts
Showing posts with label special use airspace. Show all posts
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Monday, June 21, 2010
Limits of See and Avoid
On November 16, 2000, at 1548 eastern standard time, a U.S. Air Force F-16CG, operated by the 347th Wing, Air Combat Command, collided in mid air with a Cessna 172, N73829, near Bradenton, Florida. The F-16, based at Moody Air Force Base (AFB), Valdosta, Georgia, was on a low-altitude training mission. The Cessna 172, registered to Crystal Aero Group, was operating as a 14 CFR Part 91 personal flight. The airline transport (ATP)-rated Cessna pilot was killed. The F-16 pilot, who held a commercial pilot's certificate, ejected from the airplane and sustained minor injuries. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident.
This accident offers a dramatic illustration of the risks of fast-moving military aircraft operating in the vicinity of slow-moving GA aircraft. And as you'll see, the accident also illustrates that military personnel are human: They can and do make mistakes. Safely sharing airspace with military aircraft requires an understanding of regulatory and non-regulatory airspace, including special use and other airspace. It's also important to recognize the limits of the "see and avoid" collision avoidance technique. Last but not least, knowing where military aircraft are scheduled to be operating can help you avoid coming into close proximity with fast moving hardware.
Rules or No Rules?
The national airspace system is divided into two basic categories: Regulatory and Non-regulatory. Regulatory includes Class A, B, C, D, and E (aka Controlled Airspace and defined in 14 CFR 71) as well as Restricted and Prohibited areas (aka Special Use Airspace and defined in 14 CFR 73). As implied by its name, regulatory airspace has specific regulations that define who can enter and operate in that airspace. Break those regulations and you'll find yourself in trouble with the FAA.
Non-regulatory airspace includes Military Operation Areas (MOAs) as well as Warning, Alert, and Controlled Firing areas and these are defined in FAA order JO 7400.8: Special Use Airspace, which describes the location, dimensions, times of use, and identifies the controlling agency. There are no specific regulations restricting flight into these areas, other than those for VFR cloud clearance and visibility. There are some common sense operating procedures that pilots should follow and failing to use those procedures may get you some unwanted adventure, or worse.
Mysterious MTRs
The above-cited accident involved, at least peripherally, a Military Training Route (MTR), a type of non-regulatory airspace that has been given the innocuous classification of other airspace. MTRs are depicted on VFR charts as subtle (some say nearly invisible) charcoal lines with a two-character prefix followed by a three or four digit number. Flights on MTRs with an IF prefix are conducted under IFR while those with a VF are usually conducted under VFR. A three digit number following the prefix indicates the military aircraft should be operating above 1500' AGL and, to the maximum extent possible, under IFR. A four digit number indicates the aircraft may be operating below 1500' AGL. In general, you can expect military aircraft on these routes will be operating in excess of 250 knots. They may be operating close to the surface or they may be at higher altitudes during descent to or climb out from the route.
Other that what's encoded in the MTR identifier, there is precious little information available to the average pilot who does not possess a current copy of the DoD's flight information publication Area Planning: Military Training Routes: North and South America, also known as the AP/1B. About the size of a small phone book, the AP/1B is published every 56 days and defines each MTR's location, hours of operation, route description, operating procedures (VMC or IMC), route width, and entry/exit points. Many routes have specific restrictions and can only be flown by certain types of military aircraft, but I know of no way for civilian pilots to get their hands on a current copy of AP/1B.
The flight lead stated that the two F-16s were assigned a block altitude of between 25,000 feet and 26,000 feet en route to the entry point of visual military training route (MRT) VR-1098. As the flight approached the SRQ area, Miami Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) cleared the F-16s to descend to 13,000 feet. At 1543:39, the Miami ARTCC controller instructed the flight lead to contact Tampa Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) controllers. The flight lead was not successful (because he was given an incorrect frequency), and he reestablished contact with Miami ARTCC and canceled IFR. Miami ARTCC advised him of traffic at 10,000 feet, which was acquired on radar. The controller accepted the cancellation and asked the pilot if he wished to continue receiving radar traffic advisory services. The flight lead declined. According to the air traffic control (ATC) transcripts, the controller then stated, "radar service terminated, squawk VFR [transponder code 1200], frequency change approved, but before you go you have traffic ten o'clock about 15 miles northwest bound, a Beech 1900 at ten thousand [feet]." The flight then began a VFR descent to enter VR-1098.
See and Avoid
In addition to the laissez-faire character of special use airspace is the fact that most traffic collision avoidance is accomplished with the see and avoid technique. When a mid-air accident occurs, the NTSB always states that the cause of a mid-air was the pilots' failure to maintain adequate lookout for other traffic.
There have been several studies that attempted to determine how pilots scan for traffic, what a good scan is and what a bad scan is, how head-down time (due to complex avionics and pretty colored moving maps) affects the scan. Traffic collision avoidance hardware (whether installed or portable) can be a help and I always fly with a Zaon PCAS affixed above the instrument glare shield. The problem is that in spite of training, admonishments, and collision avoidance hardware, mid-air collisions continue to occur at about the same rate and most occur in visual conditions.
Speed can Kill
When quizzing pilots about 14 CFR 91.117 (airspeed limits) during a flight review, I hear comments that these regulations don't apply because they fly slow moving aircraft. I usually counter that it's important to know how fast the other guy might be going and then add that there is an escape clause which can result in the other guy going even faster (emphasis added):
(d) If the minimum safe airspeed for any particular operation is greater than the maximum speed prescribed in this section, the aircraft may be operated at that minimum speed.
The minimum recommended cruising speed for an F-16 below 10,000 feet is 300 knots, but this flight of two was going even faster (emphasis added):
The F-16 flight entered the top of the class B airspace about 380 knots airspeed and left the airspace at 6,000 feet about a minute later at 360 knots. Speeds of up to 450 knots were noted during the descent. The airspace between Tampa class B airspace and Sarasota class C airspace is Class E airspace, with a lower floor at 700 feet. About 30 seconds after leaving the Tampa class B airspace, the flight entered the Sarasota class C airspace at 380 knots. The flight remained in the Sarasota class C airspace where the midair collision took place. The flight lead's speed remained above 300 knots until the accident F-16's collision with the Cessna.
A Cessna 172 cruises between 110 to 120 knots, but a normal climb speed is around 80 knots. Needless to say the closure rate between the two accident aircraft was very rapid with just over 20 seconds between the time ATC received a conflict alert and the impact.
A review of altitude data and ground track data (and airspace boundaries) determined that Tampa TRACON's intruder conflict detection software noted a conflict between the flight lead and the Cessna, and generated an aural conflict alert in the TRACON facility at 1547:39 that continued until 1548:03.
It's interesting to note that training activities figure prominently in this accident. The flight of F-16s were training and the Tampa TRACON controller was receiving instruction from another controller.
After continuing to descend, the flight lead looked back to the left and observed the accident F-16 slightly below him at the 7 o' clock position and about 4,000 feet to 5,000 feet behind him. The flight lead also observed a white, high-wing white airplane (the Cessna) in a 30 to 45-degree right turn. The Cessna and the accident F-16 collided in a left-to-left impact at the flight lead's 10 o' clock position, he stated. After the collision, the flight lead observed vaporizing fuel on the F-16's right side. The flight lead did not see the Cessna. The flight lead called the accident pilot and stated, "it appears you have had a mid air and are streaming fuel." There was no response.
The Cessna pilot had departed Sarasota-Bradenton, was inside class C airspace, and was in communication with Tampa approach.
The Miami ARTCC controller contacted Tampa TRACON at 15:47:55 and asked Tampa TRACON for the flight lead's altitude because he had lost radar contact with the lead F-16 (only the flight lead had his transponder activated because formation flights are handled as a single aircraft by ATC). Tampa TRACON replied at 20:48:00, stating "ahh hang on I see him down at two thousand." At 15:48:09, Tampa TRACON informed N73829 that he had traffic off his left side at 2,000 feet. N73829 did not respond.
The biggest single factor in this accident may have been that collision occurred inside Class C airspace where the Cessna pilot least expected encountering fast moving fighters because the F-16s were off course by several miles. The lead pilot may have thought he was at the entry point for VR1098, but he was mistaken.
Lockheed Martin examined the download data from the crash survivable flight data recorder (CSFDR), the SDR, data printouts from the general avionics computer (GAC), the global positioning system (GPS), the inertia navigation system (INS) and the AVTR tapes from the flight lead's airplane. Lockheed Martin's examination report stated that M Aero stated that GPS "was removed from the navigation solution at some time prior to the midair. It cannot be determined from the data why the GPS was removed from the navigation solution." The report added: "A position error of approximately 9-11 nm was entered into the navigation system at some time on the mishap flight prior to the video recording. It can not be determined from the data what caused this position error."
Avoiding Military Activity
There is no regulation that prevents you from operating in or around an MOA or MTR, but the conventional wisdom is to avoid these areas when they are active. If you must operate in or around these areas, then by all means get flight following from ATC. This accident illustrates that ATC traffic advisories are no guarantee that you'll be safe, but you want as much help as you can get.
To determine if an area is scheduled for use, contact Flight Service before you fly or talk the controlling agency. The FAA's VFR charts require that you first look up the identifier for the area you're interested in, then look on the edge of your chart to find information about times of use, altitudes, and the relevant radio frequencies. It would be a heck of a lot simpler if they just put that information next the depiction of the area, but they don't.
You can also reference this web site to get a graphical representation of regulatory and non-regulatory airspace, though there's a disclaimer that the most up-to-date information is only available through Flight Service.
The conventional wisdom I've heard from fighter pilots is that best strategy for avoiding an imminent collision with a fast moving military aircraft is descend. The fighter aircraft is likely going to climb to convert their fast airspeed into altitude, so you're best bet may to descend rather that turn away.
If you think military pilots can see you on radar and will avoid you, think again. They are focused on their training mission and don't have a lot of extra time to look for you. If you think military pilots are so highly-trained that they never make mistakes or errors in judgement, read the NTSB's probable cause (emphasis added).
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows: the failure of the F-16 flight lead pilot and F-16 accident pilot to maintain an adequate visual lookout while maneuvering. Factors contributing to the accident were: the F-16 flight lead pilot’s decision to discontinue radar traffic advisory service, the F-16 flight lead pilot’s failure to identify a position error in his aircraft’s navigational system, the F-16 pilots subsequent inadvertent entry into class C airspace without establishing and maintaining required communications with air traffic control (ATC); and ATC’s lack of awareness that there was more than one F-16 aircraft in the formation flight, which reduced the ATC controllers ability to detect and resolve the conflict that resulted in the collision.
And if you think you're Super Pilot, you can operate in these areas whenever you want, and that you'll be able to see a flight of two fighter jets operating close to the ground at high speed, well good luck to you. You're going to need it.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Sunday, April 11, 2010
The iPad EFB: One Week of Use
There is so much to say about the iPad it's hard to know where to start, but the first thing pilots should know is that the iPad is simultaneously very cool and it's not the perfect electronic flight bag. In spite of it's problems and limitations, the iPad is probably the best performing piece of portable hardware I've used to date in the cockpit. The iPad's suitability for use in the cockpit is due in large part to the availability of some very good aviation apps. The apps the post will consider are ForeFlight Mobile 3, Skycharts Pro, and GoodReader. In the process, I'll try to address the issue of screen readability as well as the usability of the iPad itself and these three apps.
Screen Quality and Readability
Before plunking down $500 or more for an iPad, skeptics rightly want to know if the screen can be read easily in the cockpit. The answer is yes, it can. No display is perfect, but I demonstrated the iPad in flight to several pilots with a wide range of experience (from student to airline pilot) and the conclusion was unanimous: The screen is very readable, though you may have to adjust the position in bright sunlight or other lighting conditions. Here are some samples, but keep it mind it's hard to capture the quality of the screen in a photograph. If you disagree, fine, but please, no drive-by comments: We're all adults, right?
Software Makes the iPad
Kudos to the developers at Skycharts, ForeFlight, and Goodiware for having versions of their apps ready when the iPad became generally available. This was no small task, so keep that in mind before complaining about plunking down some cash to buy their products. A complete review of these apps is not going to follow, just a brief overview of some of the features and needed improvements.
Both Skycharts and ForeFlight allow you to enter a route and have that route depicted on a VFR or IFR chart. They will both calculate rough performance numbers based on airspeed and fuel consumption, but keep in mind these are ballpark numbers: There's no allowance for time to climb, fuel to climb, or winds aloft.
At US$0.99, GoodReader is the app for accessing and reading long PDF documents. You can use GoodReader to download and use terminal procedures from PDFPlates or Nacomatic. You can also use GoodReader to download and store PDF versions of the FAA's publications, even aircraft flight manuals. The user interface in the iPad version is a bit different than the iPhone version, but the app really shines with the iPad's bigger screen.
In addition to these apps, Mac users can access their email accounts, their calendars, and browse the web provided they have WiFi connectivity. Kinda makes me wonder if I'll continue to use an iPhone when my contract runs out. The iPhone has never been a very good phone, after all.
WishList
Both ForeFlight Mobile 3 and Skycharts Pro need to provide a way to store and retrieve a route: Currently neither app supports multiple routes, which becomes tedious very quickly. At least Skycharts remembers what you entered the last time you ran the app.
ForeFlight tries to do a lot of needed tasks and it does a reasonable job. Without multi-tasking, switching tasks is time-consuming and that leads some apps to try to do a lot of different stuff so a user doesn't have to exit. ForeFlight really needs to partition its features into pre-flight tasks and in-flight tasks. As it stands now, navigating between say an IFR chart display and a terminal chart display requires too much fiddling and head-down time for single-pilot operations. ForeFlight on the iPad currently doesn't support filing flight plans, animated radar displays, or support for different aircraft, but that was a time-to-market issue and will undoubtedly be addressed in a future release. Last but not least, if you were already a FFM3 subscriber with the iPhone app you automatically get access to the iPad version at no extra charge. A very classy thing to do, if you ask me.
With its chart-centered interface and tap-to-zoom feature, Skycharts Pro gets high marks for usability in the cockpit. No more fumbling to unfold a paper chart, or searching for your Airport Facility Directory, or approach chart binder. It's all at your fingertips for a low purchase price. Unfortunately Skycharts Pro doesn't provide all the information you'd find on a paper chart. In particular, I'd like to see tap-to-zoom for special use airspace: Tap on the label for an MOA sector or a restricted, prohibited, or alert area and you should see the altitudes, times of use, and the controlling agency. Also missing from the terminal area charts is data on special flight rules as well as Class Bravo transitions, flyways, and oddball stuff like the LAX mini-route. Without all the data, Skycharts Pro can't completely replace a paper chart - not yet!
I'd like to see both apps support routes containing Victor Airways and T-Routes as well as support for aircraft performance and winds aloft integrated into a navigation log.
iPad CRM, Enhancements & Limits
Using the iPad can be a challenge in a cramped cockpit. I'll examine some mounting and kneeboard options in a future post, but for now I just set the device in my lap on top of my kneeboard. My biggest fear is accidentally damaging the display with the control yoke or a sharp object like a pen. So far, my set up works and no hardware has been hurt.
iPad battery life seems fine in my one week of use. I used my iPad off and on for 12 to 14 hours a day and when I went to recharge it at night the battery still showed 45% charge remaining. With a power adapter for in-cockpit use, battery life is a non-issue.
Using an iPad at altitudes above 10,000' MSL could be problematic as Apple lists this as a limiting factor. It's hard to know why this limit exists, but theories abound. I've yet to get mine above 8,5000' though in a future post I hope to test my iPad at higher altitudes.
There is no satisfactory way I know of the write with the iPad, so I keep a pad of paper handy somewhere. ForeFlight does provides a scratch pad, but you have to switch screens and writing with an index finger is primitive. Of course my handwriting sucks to begin with ...
There currently is no way to drawn on, highlight, or otherwise mark-up a chart which is a feature I'd love to see. This could have huge potential beyond aviation uses, too. Imagine college students submitting papers as PDF files to their professors who would read them, mark them up on a device like an iPad, and send them back to the student.
The iPad currently does not support a Dvorak keyboard mapping, which is a pain for people like me who use Dvorak. Rumors are it may be in an upcoming release. One can but hope.
The iPad needs some sort of multi-tasking and that is slated to arrive with the next major software release. I've seen some hints at how this might work and I have to say I'm a bit underwhelmed. Still, the construction quality of the iPad and it's overall usability is what saves it from being just an interesting toy.
Apple's obsession with not supporting Flash is ... well ... it seems like an emotional issue. Some may argue that there is a business reason for doing this, but it just seems kooky to me. It's like watching a good friend make a really dumb decision: You're still their friend, but you can't help but cringe.
Overall, Four Stars
With the iPad, pilots have a choice for a reasonably-priced, roll-you-own electronic flight bag, with some caveats. The iPad does more than simple book readers like the Kindle or Sony, but it does so at a higher cost and with a bit more weight. The screen is readable in most conditions and what's more, the iPad does more that just display documents and charts. Manufacturers and producers of other chart products, both paper and electronic, should consider themselves on notice: Overpriced EFB solutions now have serious competition. Pilots on a budget have a new, relatively low-cost option that is a lot more usable and convenient that paper charts. This is just the next chapter in what one hopes will be an on-going revolution in how navigation data is produced and delivered to the cockpit.
Screen Quality and Readability
Before plunking down $500 or more for an iPad, skeptics rightly want to know if the screen can be read easily in the cockpit. The answer is yes, it can. No display is perfect, but I demonstrated the iPad in flight to several pilots with a wide range of experience (from student to airline pilot) and the conclusion was unanimous: The screen is very readable, though you may have to adjust the position in bright sunlight or other lighting conditions. Here are some samples, but keep it mind it's hard to capture the quality of the screen in a photograph. If you disagree, fine, but please, no drive-by comments: We're all adults, right?
Low-wing aircraft, bright sunlight, but shaded.
High-wing aircraft at dusk.
At night, the lowest screen brightness was a bit too bright.
In bright sunlight the screen is hard to read, but then so is a paper chart.
Software Makes the iPad
Kudos to the developers at Skycharts, ForeFlight, and Goodiware for having versions of their apps ready when the iPad became generally available. This was no small task, so keep that in mind before complaining about plunking down some cash to buy their products. A complete review of these apps is not going to follow, just a brief overview of some of the features and needed improvements.
Both Skycharts and ForeFlight allow you to enter a route and have that route depicted on a VFR or IFR chart. They will both calculate rough performance numbers based on airspeed and fuel consumption, but keep in mind these are ballpark numbers: There's no allowance for time to climb, fuel to climb, or winds aloft.
Skychart Pro's subtle, blue course line doesn't obscure important chart details, but it's also hard to see. On an IFR low-altitude en route chart, the course line looks a lot like a T-route. Skycharts will remember your last route if you exit the app, which is important given the iPad currently doesn't support multi-tasking.
ForeFlight's course line is more prominent, but it also can obscure chart details. ForeFlight will not remember your last course if you exit and return to the app later.
ForeFlight can superimpose a course line over other types of displays like radar (assuming you have WiFi). You can see there currently is a bug when you change map displays - you have to resize the image to get the course line to redraw correctly.
At US$0.99, GoodReader is the app for accessing and reading long PDF documents. You can use GoodReader to download and use terminal procedures from PDFPlates or Nacomatic. You can also use GoodReader to download and store PDF versions of the FAA's publications, even aircraft flight manuals. The user interface in the iPad version is a bit different than the iPhone version, but the app really shines with the iPad's bigger screen.
In addition to these apps, Mac users can access their email accounts, their calendars, and browse the web provided they have WiFi connectivity. Kinda makes me wonder if I'll continue to use an iPhone when my contract runs out. The iPhone has never been a very good phone, after all.
WishList
Both ForeFlight Mobile 3 and Skycharts Pro need to provide a way to store and retrieve a route: Currently neither app supports multiple routes, which becomes tedious very quickly. At least Skycharts remembers what you entered the last time you ran the app.
ForeFlight tries to do a lot of needed tasks and it does a reasonable job. Without multi-tasking, switching tasks is time-consuming and that leads some apps to try to do a lot of different stuff so a user doesn't have to exit. ForeFlight really needs to partition its features into pre-flight tasks and in-flight tasks. As it stands now, navigating between say an IFR chart display and a terminal chart display requires too much fiddling and head-down time for single-pilot operations. ForeFlight on the iPad currently doesn't support filing flight plans, animated radar displays, or support for different aircraft, but that was a time-to-market issue and will undoubtedly be addressed in a future release. Last but not least, if you were already a FFM3 subscriber with the iPhone app you automatically get access to the iPad version at no extra charge. A very classy thing to do, if you ask me.
With its chart-centered interface and tap-to-zoom feature, Skycharts Pro gets high marks for usability in the cockpit. No more fumbling to unfold a paper chart, or searching for your Airport Facility Directory, or approach chart binder. It's all at your fingertips for a low purchase price. Unfortunately Skycharts Pro doesn't provide all the information you'd find on a paper chart. In particular, I'd like to see tap-to-zoom for special use airspace: Tap on the label for an MOA sector or a restricted, prohibited, or alert area and you should see the altitudes, times of use, and the controlling agency. Also missing from the terminal area charts is data on special flight rules as well as Class Bravo transitions, flyways, and oddball stuff like the LAX mini-route. Without all the data, Skycharts Pro can't completely replace a paper chart - not yet!
I'd like to see both apps support routes containing Victor Airways and T-Routes as well as support for aircraft performance and winds aloft integrated into a navigation log.
iPad CRM, Enhancements & Limits
Using the iPad can be a challenge in a cramped cockpit. I'll examine some mounting and kneeboard options in a future post, but for now I just set the device in my lap on top of my kneeboard. My biggest fear is accidentally damaging the display with the control yoke or a sharp object like a pen. So far, my set up works and no hardware has been hurt.
iPad battery life seems fine in my one week of use. I used my iPad off and on for 12 to 14 hours a day and when I went to recharge it at night the battery still showed 45% charge remaining. With a power adapter for in-cockpit use, battery life is a non-issue.
Using an iPad at altitudes above 10,000' MSL could be problematic as Apple lists this as a limiting factor. It's hard to know why this limit exists, but theories abound. I've yet to get mine above 8,5000' though in a future post I hope to test my iPad at higher altitudes.
There is no satisfactory way I know of the write with the iPad, so I keep a pad of paper handy somewhere. ForeFlight does provides a scratch pad, but you have to switch screens and writing with an index finger is primitive. Of course my handwriting sucks to begin with ...
The iPad currently does not support a Dvorak keyboard mapping, which is a pain for people like me who use Dvorak. Rumors are it may be in an upcoming release. One can but hope.
The iPad needs some sort of multi-tasking and that is slated to arrive with the next major software release. I've seen some hints at how this might work and I have to say I'm a bit underwhelmed. Still, the construction quality of the iPad and it's overall usability is what saves it from being just an interesting toy.
Apple's obsession with not supporting Flash is ... well ... it seems like an emotional issue. Some may argue that there is a business reason for doing this, but it just seems kooky to me. It's like watching a good friend make a really dumb decision: You're still their friend, but you can't help but cringe.
Overall, Four Stars
With the iPad, pilots have a choice for a reasonably-priced, roll-you-own electronic flight bag, with some caveats. The iPad does more than simple book readers like the Kindle or Sony, but it does so at a higher cost and with a bit more weight. The screen is readable in most conditions and what's more, the iPad does more that just display documents and charts. Manufacturers and producers of other chart products, both paper and electronic, should consider themselves on notice: Overpriced EFB solutions now have serious competition. Pilots on a budget have a new, relatively low-cost option that is a lot more usable and convenient that paper charts. This is just the next chapter in what one hopes will be an on-going revolution in how navigation data is produced and delivered to the cockpit.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Eschew Obfuscation
I always get a kick out of the government's Federal Rulemaking process, a procedural system for changing regulations that has had far-reaching consequences on US citizens. When a decision is made to change a regulation, there is a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and that's supposed to give the general public a chance to comment. If enough comments are received, the proposed changes may be modified or abandoned altogether. This is just what happened a few months ago when there was an NPR to restrict public access to bird-strike data, there was a significant and negative public reaction, and the proposed change was abandoned. This makes the NPR seems like a good process, but sometimes the notices are so arcane that it can be nearly impossible to determine just what is being proposed without being a subject matter expert or hiring an attorney.
I wrote a while ago about proposed T-routes that were submitted to the public simply as a series of latitude and longitude coordinates. Well it's happened again. There is a NPR to create a new restricted area in Southern California in the vicinity of Fort Irwin that would extend from the surface to 16,000 feet and would change the boundaries of an existing Military Operations Area. I don't fly in that area too often, but my curiosity was piqued because of how the area was described.
Riiight ...
For their part, AOPA announced the NPR and provided a teeny tiny graphic of what was being proposed. So being a good citizen, I used MacGPS Pro and dutifully entered the six lat/long coordinates onto a downloaded LA VFR sectional. This should give you a better idea of the new restricted area being proposed.
The area is just West of the Baker airport and North of the Barstow-Daggett airport and the Daggett VOR. I don't have a problem with the new restricted airspace since it doesn't seem to eat into the narrow corridor of available airspace that pilots use when transitioning over the Mojave Desert, I do have a problem with the area not being described in a way that the average person can understand, thereby preventing or limiting the amount of comments.
Perhaps I've missed something and this proposed restricted area is a bad idea. Or maybe the idea of further carving up the national airspace system for military use rubs you the wrong way. In any event, if you'd like to comment on this NPR I'll make it very easy: Click here and fire away. You have until August 27, 2009.
I wrote a while ago about proposed T-routes that were submitted to the public simply as a series of latitude and longitude coordinates. Well it's happened again. There is a NPR to create a new restricted area in Southern California in the vicinity of Fort Irwin that would extend from the surface to 16,000 feet and would change the boundaries of an existing Military Operations Area. I don't fly in that area too often, but my curiosity was piqued because of how the area was described.
R-2502A Fort Irwin, CA [New]
Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 35[deg]25'48'' N., long.
116[deg]18'48'' W.; to lat. 35[deg]25'30'' N., long. 116[deg]09'46''
W.; to lat. 35[deg]23'15'' N., long. 116[deg]09'47'' W.; to lat.
35[deg]06'54'' N., long. 116[deg]30'17'' W.; to lat. 35[deg]07'00'' N.,
long. 116[deg]34'03'' W.; to lat. 35[deg]18'45'' N., long.
116[deg]18'48'' W. to point of beginning.
Designated altitudes. Surface to 16,000 feet MSL.
Time of designation. Continuous.
Controlling agency. FAA, Hi-Desert TRACON, Edwards, CA.
Using agency. Commander, Fort Irwin, CA.
Riiight ...
For their part, AOPA announced the NPR and provided a teeny tiny graphic of what was being proposed. So being a good citizen, I used MacGPS Pro and dutifully entered the six lat/long coordinates onto a downloaded LA VFR sectional. This should give you a better idea of the new restricted area being proposed.
The area is just West of the Baker airport and North of the Barstow-Daggett airport and the Daggett VOR. I don't have a problem with the new restricted airspace since it doesn't seem to eat into the narrow corridor of available airspace that pilots use when transitioning over the Mojave Desert, I do have a problem with the area not being described in a way that the average person can understand, thereby preventing or limiting the amount of comments.
Perhaps I've missed something and this proposed restricted area is a bad idea. Or maybe the idea of further carving up the national airspace system for military use rubs you the wrong way. In any event, if you'd like to comment on this NPR I'll make it very easy: Click here and fire away. You have until August 27, 2009.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
The Changing Aviation Landscape
Don Brown has an interesting post on the hassles that aerial survey flights can create for ATC. He also touches on the hassles of direct, off-airway routings. I thought about posting a comment, but didn't think I could get my points across in 300 words or less, so ...
Don's first observation is how much of a pain aerial survey flights can be for controllers. I've flown a number of survey flights and let me tell you, they are a pain for the pilots and camera operators, too. I'm sure working these flights as a controller is tedious, but imagine the concentration required to maintain altitude +/-20 feet and course within 10 meters for hours at a time. Add to that the problems created by turbulence, an occasion cloud shadow, the odd traffic alert, camera malfunctions, and a mapping site located smack-dab in the middle of an arrival path for two major Bay Area airports. It's clear that no one is having fun.
Aerial survey flights are a lot of work for everyone involved, starting with the GIS person who lays out the job. During my survey flying, I've been fortunate to have received excellent and understanding service from the controllers in Northern California as well as from airline crews that had to alter their course or altitude while we bored holes in the sky, back and forth.
I had one mission that involved a bunch of east-west lines right over the top of Travis AFB and the Travis Alert Area. The controller did a pretty good job, but he kept asking what we were doing and which direction we were going. I explained at least three times that we would be flying east-west lines, gradually working our way from south to north, but he couldn't visualize it. I tried explaining it different ways while simultaneously flying my photo lines. It was distracting, but I finally managed to word it in a way that he understood. Or maybe he just gave up trying to understand?
I'd say any sort of training that helps controllers appreciate aerial survey missions is probably a good thing. One silver lining during that Travis flight was that someone reported hearing an emergency locator transmitter (ELT) signal and I began monitoring the guard frequency on our second radio. As we went back and forth, I was able to give the controller a pretty good idea of where the signal was strongest.
On the subject of direct, off-airway routings, there are several problems the FAA needs to address. It's obvious that the aviation navigational landscape is changing and the ATC system is not providing pilots and controllers with enough tools to keep up with the changes. Here are just a few examples:
Any pilot who uses a GPS receiver knows that the FAA's way of identifying airports on charts with three-character identifiers is ambiguous, especially when there is an airport and a VOR station with the same name. This could be solved if the FAA would just use four-character ICAO airport identifiers on the charts they publish. That way, pilots and controllers would have a better idea of when they were referring to, say, the Santa Rosa Airport (KSTS) versus the Santa Rosa VOR (STS).
The FAA has started to create routes specifically designed for RNAV-equipped aircraft. T-routes, Q-routes, and GPS MEAs on established airways are all steps in the right direction. But T-routes and Q-routes mimic the old Victor airway paradigm and don't really address random, off-airway routings.
The section 5-1-8(c) of the AIM has specific suggestions for pilots who wish to file direct routes between VORs and off-airway routings. It briefly explains how you can file VOR to VOR or use off-airway routings. One requirement is that an off-airway route must contain at least one waypoint within each Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) through which the flight will travel, but I imagine from a controller's perspective this can be like finding a needle in a haystack.
The AIM explains that you can use latitude and longitude coordinates to specify off-airway waypoints, but lat/long is a pain for pilots and controllers alike. Just yesterday I had an instrument pilot show me his DUATS-generated IFR navigation log, which contained a couple of automatically generated lat/long waypoints. When he asked me how he would go about entering them into his Garmin 530W, I cringed. I thought about delving into how you first need to create a user waypoint and then enter the latitude and longitude, a digit at a time, but there is need to know and nice to know. User waypoints defined with lat/long is not a need to know item, in my opinion.
Pilots need to do some careful pre-flight planning to be sure their direct route stays at least 3 miles from restricted and prohibited airspace as well as military operation areas (MOAs). APOAs new Internet Flight Planer is definitely a step in the right direction. Using it, pilot's should be able to layout direct, off-airway routings that meet all the requirement specified in the AIM. But what about controllers? What tools do they have?
A big problem with off-airway routes is that these routes are often hard for controllers and pilots to understand and visualize. As Don correctly points out, who the hell knows where lat/long fix 3217/8326 is actually located? Without some known context, a landmark, an airport, or a VOR, it's just a string of numbers. It seems to me that controllers would benefit from a tool or feature that would allow them to quickly resolve an unfamiliar airport identifier, fix, or lat/long waypoint to a position on their radar screen. I remember sitting next to an ZOA controller during a facility tour several years ago and seeing how he could select an aircraft target on his screen, press a button, and see that aircraft's projected track. Wouldn't it be cool if a controller could select a target, press a button, and see the aircraft's current IFR routing appear on their screen? Maybe this feature already exists, but based on what I hear controllers say, I doubt it.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. I wrote a while back about how ATC's automation often can't accommodate flight plans with RNAV, off-airway routings. It seems that most controllers don't even know which targets on their screen are RNAV capable. Pilots often have no choice but to accept a clearance and, once airborne, begin asking the controller for a shortcut, reminding or informing the controller that they are RNAV-capable.
Pilots and controllers live in intersecting, yet different worlds. Most pilots don't fully appreciate the constraints under which controllers operate, the rules and procedures they need to follow, and the complexities of managing a bunch of aircraft traveling different directions at different speeds. Controllers often have a hard time understanding the operational constraints that pilots face, too. And the primary way these two worlds communicate with each other is through a half-duplex radio system. Given all this, it's amazing that things work as well as they do.
Wouldn't it be nice if someone came up with a way to reconcile some of the differences between these two worlds? I'm not touting NexGen, I'm interested in hearing what my readers have to say. What features or tools do you think are needed for the new aviation navigational world we seem to be entering? What do you think would help GA pilots?
Don's first observation is how much of a pain aerial survey flights can be for controllers. I've flown a number of survey flights and let me tell you, they are a pain for the pilots and camera operators, too. I'm sure working these flights as a controller is tedious, but imagine the concentration required to maintain altitude +/-20 feet and course within 10 meters for hours at a time. Add to that the problems created by turbulence, an occasion cloud shadow, the odd traffic alert, camera malfunctions, and a mapping site located smack-dab in the middle of an arrival path for two major Bay Area airports. It's clear that no one is having fun.
Aerial survey flights are a lot of work for everyone involved, starting with the GIS person who lays out the job. During my survey flying, I've been fortunate to have received excellent and understanding service from the controllers in Northern California as well as from airline crews that had to alter their course or altitude while we bored holes in the sky, back and forth.
I had one mission that involved a bunch of east-west lines right over the top of Travis AFB and the Travis Alert Area. The controller did a pretty good job, but he kept asking what we were doing and which direction we were going. I explained at least three times that we would be flying east-west lines, gradually working our way from south to north, but he couldn't visualize it. I tried explaining it different ways while simultaneously flying my photo lines. It was distracting, but I finally managed to word it in a way that he understood. Or maybe he just gave up trying to understand?
I'd say any sort of training that helps controllers appreciate aerial survey missions is probably a good thing. One silver lining during that Travis flight was that someone reported hearing an emergency locator transmitter (ELT) signal and I began monitoring the guard frequency on our second radio. As we went back and forth, I was able to give the controller a pretty good idea of where the signal was strongest.
On the subject of direct, off-airway routings, there are several problems the FAA needs to address. It's obvious that the aviation navigational landscape is changing and the ATC system is not providing pilots and controllers with enough tools to keep up with the changes. Here are just a few examples:
Any pilot who uses a GPS receiver knows that the FAA's way of identifying airports on charts with three-character identifiers is ambiguous, especially when there is an airport and a VOR station with the same name. This could be solved if the FAA would just use four-character ICAO airport identifiers on the charts they publish. That way, pilots and controllers would have a better idea of when they were referring to, say, the Santa Rosa Airport (KSTS) versus the Santa Rosa VOR (STS).
The FAA has started to create routes specifically designed for RNAV-equipped aircraft. T-routes, Q-routes, and GPS MEAs on established airways are all steps in the right direction. But T-routes and Q-routes mimic the old Victor airway paradigm and don't really address random, off-airway routings.
The section 5-1-8(c) of the AIM has specific suggestions for pilots who wish to file direct routes between VORs and off-airway routings. It briefly explains how you can file VOR to VOR or use off-airway routings. One requirement is that an off-airway route must contain at least one waypoint within each Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) through which the flight will travel, but I imagine from a controller's perspective this can be like finding a needle in a haystack.
The AIM explains that you can use latitude and longitude coordinates to specify off-airway waypoints, but lat/long is a pain for pilots and controllers alike. Just yesterday I had an instrument pilot show me his DUATS-generated IFR navigation log, which contained a couple of automatically generated lat/long waypoints. When he asked me how he would go about entering them into his Garmin 530W, I cringed. I thought about delving into how you first need to create a user waypoint and then enter the latitude and longitude, a digit at a time, but there is need to know and nice to know. User waypoints defined with lat/long is not a need to know item, in my opinion.
Pilots need to do some careful pre-flight planning to be sure their direct route stays at least 3 miles from restricted and prohibited airspace as well as military operation areas (MOAs). APOAs new Internet Flight Planer is definitely a step in the right direction. Using it, pilot's should be able to layout direct, off-airway routings that meet all the requirement specified in the AIM. But what about controllers? What tools do they have?
A big problem with off-airway routes is that these routes are often hard for controllers and pilots to understand and visualize. As Don correctly points out, who the hell knows where lat/long fix 3217/8326 is actually located? Without some known context, a landmark, an airport, or a VOR, it's just a string of numbers. It seems to me that controllers would benefit from a tool or feature that would allow them to quickly resolve an unfamiliar airport identifier, fix, or lat/long waypoint to a position on their radar screen. I remember sitting next to an ZOA controller during a facility tour several years ago and seeing how he could select an aircraft target on his screen, press a button, and see that aircraft's projected track. Wouldn't it be cool if a controller could select a target, press a button, and see the aircraft's current IFR routing appear on their screen? Maybe this feature already exists, but based on what I hear controllers say, I doubt it.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. I wrote a while back about how ATC's automation often can't accommodate flight plans with RNAV, off-airway routings. It seems that most controllers don't even know which targets on their screen are RNAV capable. Pilots often have no choice but to accept a clearance and, once airborne, begin asking the controller for a shortcut, reminding or informing the controller that they are RNAV-capable.
Pilots and controllers live in intersecting, yet different worlds. Most pilots don't fully appreciate the constraints under which controllers operate, the rules and procedures they need to follow, and the complexities of managing a bunch of aircraft traveling different directions at different speeds. Controllers often have a hard time understanding the operational constraints that pilots face, too. And the primary way these two worlds communicate with each other is through a half-duplex radio system. Given all this, it's amazing that things work as well as they do.
Wouldn't it be nice if someone came up with a way to reconcile some of the differences between these two worlds? I'm not touting NexGen, I'm interested in hearing what my readers have to say. What features or tools do you think are needed for the new aviation navigational world we seem to be entering? What do you think would help GA pilots?
Friday, October 10, 2008
Fresh Perspective
A while back I wrote:
There isn't a VFR+GPS chart available yet for Northern California, so I purchased one that covers a particularly complicated area of airspace in the Southeastern U.S. that I flew through on my trip to the Caribbean back in June. The area around Eglin Air Force Base is pretty messy. I count about 6 restricted areas, one alert area, 2 military operation areas, several warning areas with a smattering of Class Delta and Charlie thrown in for good measure. When I transited the area en route from Lake Charles to Tallahassee, the FAA's depiction on the New Orleans sections was complicated enough that I decided to cut the Gordian knot and transited the area under IFR.
Compare the NACO representation with the new Jeppesen VFR+GPS Chart ... Now this is where I'd like to show you part of a Jeppesen VFR+GPS chart (marked "Do Not Use for Navigation" of course), but I'm unable to do so since their products are protected by copyright and they don't seem to want to respond to my request for permission to show an excerpt. Sigh ...
Nevertheless, I see several advantages with the Jepp VFR+GPS charts.
VFR charts use basically two colors and various types of shading to depict all possible airspace. And if you don't think pilots are confused, just sit in on one of the many flight reviews I give and you'll have more than enough evidence. Sure I complain, but here's just one constructive suggestion. For MOAs, Prohibited, Restricted, and Alert areas, NACO could just put the altitude depictions and the frequency of the controlling agency right next to the airspace depiction. That way, pilots won't have to remember an identifying number, unfold their sectional in flight, and look it up on another part of the chart. Who cares about the hours of operation for an area when you can just talk to the controlling agency and ask them if the area is hot?Well the FAA hasn't changed the sacred VFR sectional and terminal area charts that most U.S. pilots use, but Jeppesen seems to think there's a market for improved VFR charts. They've begun introducing what they call VFR+GPS charts that have an easier-to-read layout and some nifty features. As of this writing the VFR+CPS charts are only available for selected areas in the U.S., but Jeppesen says they plan to cover all the major Class B areas within the next few months.
There isn't a VFR+GPS chart available yet for Northern California, so I purchased one that covers a particularly complicated area of airspace in the Southeastern U.S. that I flew through on my trip to the Caribbean back in June. The area around Eglin Air Force Base is pretty messy. I count about 6 restricted areas, one alert area, 2 military operation areas, several warning areas with a smattering of Class Delta and Charlie thrown in for good measure. When I transited the area en route from Lake Charles to Tallahassee, the FAA's depiction on the New Orleans sections was complicated enough that I decided to cut the Gordian knot and transited the area under IFR.
Compare the NACO representation with the new Jeppesen VFR+GPS Chart ... Now this is where I'd like to show you part of a Jeppesen VFR+GPS chart (marked "Do Not Use for Navigation" of course), but I'm unable to do so since their products are protected by copyright and they don't seem to want to respond to my request for permission to show an excerpt. Sigh ...
Nevertheless, I see several advantages with the Jepp VFR+GPS charts.
- The background contrast is much better than what you see in the NACO charts. I've never been a big fan of light blue lettering against a background consisting of varying shades of green and yellow. The improved contrast certainly makes the Jepp charts easier to read.
- TRSA, Class E, D, C and Class B are all labeled and have explicit depictions of the altitudes for each area.
- Areas of controlled airspace that begin at the surface are shaded so they stand out.
- Since all controlled airspace is explicitly labeled, you don't have to remember a particular color or shading to determine what type of airspace you're looking at.
- The altitudes for restricted, prohibited, and other special use airspace are explicitly labeled.
- If you've ever struggled to locate intersecting lines of latitude and longitude, the Jepp charts highlight these as bold red crosses.
- Popular VFR reporting points, intersections, and waypoints are clearly depicted, making them easier to use for GPS navigation.
- Instead of Minimum Elevation Figures that provide an obstruction clearance of 300 to 400 feet, the Jepp charts depict a much more conservative Minimum Grid Area Elevation that provide 1000 feet of clearance for obstructions below 5000 feet MSL and 2000 feet of clearance for obstructions above 5000 feet MSL.
- Approach control frequencies are not depicted on the chart next to the associated airspace. Instead, you have to look on the back of the chart to find the particular Class C or Class B airspace and then determine the sector you are closest to before you can determine the frequency to use. I think this is a big oversight on Jeppesen's part because it forces pilots to engage in chart wrestling (having to unfold the chart and turn it over), which is a real safety concern for single-pilot operations.
- The special use airspace table on the back of the chart I purchased does not list any frequencies for the controlling agencies. What's up with that?!
- I would have preferred to see the altitude depictions for Restricted, Prohibited, Warning Areas, and MOAs be the same as for controlled airspace rather than use a different convention.
Overall, I think the Jepp VFR+GPS charts offer improved readability over NACO charts. And while these charts are a bit more expensive that their NACO counterparts, the Jepp charts will not be published on a regular basis. Instead, you'll need to visit the Jepp site or subscribe to their email chart updates and, one would assume, pencil in the changes on the chart yourself. Time will tell whether or not this will be a usable system of updating charts.
I have yet to see the VFR Area Charts that Jeppesen is producing. I'll wait until they publish these new charts for the SFO Class B area and then post another review. Who knows, by then Jeppesen might have responded to my copyright request. Overall, I say kudos to Jeppesen for trying to build a better mouse trap.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
California's Burning
While the midwest is soaked and flooded, Northern California is choked with smoke. Here's a listing of today's TFRs (Temorary Flight Restrictions). All but one of the blue dots that depicts the various TFR are associated with a wildfire. From Big Sur (just south of Monterey) to Mt. Shasta, over 800 fires are burning and most are less than 40% contained.
Low winds have kept the fires from getting even larger, but the lack of wind has also created a smoke inversion layer. The visibility and air quality in the SF Bay Area has been pretty bad, but it's even worse in the Livermore and Central Valleys. As a result, flying has been a bit constrained. I did a couple of practice approaches into Concord and afterward, I felt as if I'd smoked two packs of Gauloises.
I hope these fires come under control pretty soon. Unfortunately, the forecast for this weekend is predicting dry lightning.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Messin' with Mr. T
If there was any doubt in your mind that this is the most obscure aviation blog around, this post should put the issue to rest once and for all. After my last post that included some information about T-routes, I got curious about the routes that have been proposed for the San Francisco and Sacramento areas. A little searching uncovered Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 Docket No. FAA-2008-0037; Airspace Docket No. 07-AWP-6, Proposed Establishment of Low Altitude Area Navigation Routes (T-Routes); Sacramento and San Francisco, CA.
A couple of things about this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. First, the public comment period has expired so it seems doubtful that there will be any further public input. If you feel left out, keep in mind that most pilots to whom I've spoken hadn't heard of these proposed T-routes either. Another fascinating aspect of this proposal is that I could find no depiction of the routes, just the waypoints that define the routes and their Lat/Long coordinates.
Using a Mac-based mapping program and a San Francisco Sectional raster map that I purchased and downloaded from NACO, I entered the waypoints and created some maps of these routes. I couldn't find any reference to the proposed minimum en route altitudes for these routes, which would be really good to know about since the smaller aircraft that will probably use these routes tend to be susceptible to airframe icing.
I shouldn't have to say this, BUT DON'T USE ANY OF THESE DEPICTIONS FOR NAVIGATION UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
Here's T-257, which routes you from the Big Sur VORTAC to the Point Reyes VORTAC. I'd previously thought the waypoint SUTRO was just west of the ADIZ (Air Defense Identification Zone) and that the route was quite a distance from the shore which would entail more risk for single-engine aircraft. However an astute reader pointed out an error in the lat/long that as specified in the NPR. This route is very close to a direct route between Point Reyes and Big Sur.
Here's T-259, which gets you between the SAC VORTAC and the San Jose VOR. This route looks pretty good to me, but again I have no idea what the MEA is for this proposed route.
Here's T-261, which could be handy for getting from Half Moon Bay to points east, across the SFO and Oakland arrivals. Again, no MEA seems to be available.
Here's T-263 which gets you from SUNOL to the Scaggs Island VORTAC and points northwest and vice versa. This route is basically the radar vectored route you get when you are arriving into Oakland or Hayward on an IFR flight plan from the northwest. When the Bay Area is on the Southeast Plan, this route might allow you to get on top of the arrivals to Oakland and SFO, rather than being sent to the northeast side of Mt. Diablo and then up the Carquinez Strait. Keep in mind that all of this is pure conjecture at this point.
This all seem reminicent of the NPR for the Leemore MOA that was recently created, a process that was only slightly more publicized. Of course the difference is that these T-routes will provide something that the average pilot might use rather than defining airspace that pilots should avoid.
A couple of things about this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. First, the public comment period has expired so it seems doubtful that there will be any further public input. If you feel left out, keep in mind that most pilots to whom I've spoken hadn't heard of these proposed T-routes either. Another fascinating aspect of this proposal is that I could find no depiction of the routes, just the waypoints that define the routes and their Lat/Long coordinates.
Using a Mac-based mapping program and a San Francisco Sectional raster map that I purchased and downloaded from NACO, I entered the waypoints and created some maps of these routes. I couldn't find any reference to the proposed minimum en route altitudes for these routes, which would be really good to know about since the smaller aircraft that will probably use these routes tend to be susceptible to airframe icing.
I shouldn't have to say this, BUT DON'T USE ANY OF THESE DEPICTIONS FOR NAVIGATION UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
Here's T-257, which routes you from the Big Sur VORTAC to the Point Reyes VORTAC. I'd previously thought the waypoint SUTRO was just west of the ADIZ (Air Defense Identification Zone) and that the route was quite a distance from the shore which would entail more risk for single-engine aircraft. However an astute reader pointed out an error in the lat/long that as specified in the NPR. This route is very close to a direct route between Point Reyes and Big Sur.
Here's T-259, which gets you between the SAC VORTAC and the San Jose VOR. This route looks pretty good to me, but again I have no idea what the MEA is for this proposed route.
Here's T-261, which could be handy for getting from Half Moon Bay to points east, across the SFO and Oakland arrivals. Again, no MEA seems to be available.
Here's T-263 which gets you from SUNOL to the Scaggs Island VORTAC and points northwest and vice versa. This route is basically the radar vectored route you get when you are arriving into Oakland or Hayward on an IFR flight plan from the northwest. When the Bay Area is on the Southeast Plan, this route might allow you to get on top of the arrivals to Oakland and SFO, rather than being sent to the northeast side of Mt. Diablo and then up the Carquinez Strait. Keep in mind that all of this is pure conjecture at this point.
This all seem reminicent of the NPR for the Leemore MOA that was recently created, a process that was only slightly more publicized. Of course the difference is that these T-routes will provide something that the average pilot might use rather than defining airspace that pilots should avoid.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Lemoore MOA
Well it's official. On February 4, 2008 the Department of Defense will have added yet another chunk of the National Airspace System for military training over the Lemoore Naval Air Station in California's San Jouquin Valley. Apparently there have been a lot of meetings, starting back in October of 2003. I say apparently, because I only got wind of the proposed Military Operations Area (MOA) about a year ago. It appears AOPA and several local pilots, FBOs, and other operators were consulted about the design of the airspace.
When I first started training to be a private pilot, I remember how startled I was at the sheer volume of airspace set aside for military operations is the U.S. I wish I had a percentage figure, but I don't. A quick search of the internet did reveal that in 1987 and 1988 the General Accounting Office criticized the DoD and the FAA for inefficient use of existing special use airspace and for the lack of utilization data. In 1989 the DoD and the FAA committed to creating a special use airspace scheduling system, but it wasn't until 1995 under the Clinton Administration that a task force appears to have been formed to further the cooperation of military and civilian airspace users to reduce airline delays. The airlines are complaining mightily these days that the skies are too crowded, so this sort of cooperation sure seems like a good idea. It's just not clear that it's happening.
The DoD says the new MOA is needed because the F18 squadrons based at Lemoore and the F16 National Guard aircraft based at Fresno often find the restricted areas over China Lakes and Edwards Air Force Base are too crowded to use for their training. This forces them to fly long distances and burn lots of fuel just to do training. The claim is that most of the training in the new MOA will be high altitude operations at 15,000 feet and above. No ordinance will be carried and no "aggressive maneuvers" will be allowed, according to the Lemoore website.
This makes one wonder why the area was not designated an Alert Area instead of an MOA: The main difference between the two being that in an MOA, military aircraft are exempt from the 250 knot speed limit below 10,000 feet while in an Alert Area they are not. Aircraft in an MOA are also exempt from the restriction on aerobatic flight in Class E or D surfaces areas or on an airway.
It's hard to tell from the graphics provided on the Lemoore website what the floor of each section of the MOA will be. Only sector C is explicitly mention as having a floor at 16,000 feet MSL. The other sectors may start as low as 5000 feet MSL, but that's just a guess. We won't have long to wait though, because the new MOA will be depicted on the next San Francisco sectional due out at the end of August, even though the MOA is not supposed to go active until February 2008.
Sector C of the new MOA was design as a corridor between Visallia/Fresno and the rest of the valley to the northwest and the reason the floor of the MOA is so high there is pretty easy to guess - there's a heck of a lot of freight and passenger operations that need to get back and forth in that area.
When the weather is bad in the valley the new MOA could limit a pilot's options. Winter time sees the valley regularly socked in for weeks at a time with thick Tule Fog and freight dogs will often go to some pretty small airports if the weather allows them to land. Most of these alternate airports are probably outside the boundaries of the new MOA, but the most efficient routes to those airports are not. Air Mass thunderstorms are not unheard of during the summer and they can require a lot of maneuvering to avoid. Remember that restricted and special use airspace exists primarily to separate military aircraft from IFR traffic?
One hopes that the new MOA will have minimal impact on VFR traffic transitioning through the valley along the I-5 corridor, but it could prevent IFR aircraft from getting a direct-to routing. I used to regularly transition through the affected area when I flew freight, but ATC never gave us a direct routing to our destination until it was obvious a direct route would be clear of Lemoore's Class Delta airspace by several miles.
Now every pilot should know that you can fly through an active MOA anytime you want. You're not even required to talk to anyone on the radio, but not talking to Lemoore approach when the area is hot would just be stupid. I still fly regularly through this area with commercial pilot candidates on long cross-countries, with one stop usually being at Harris Ranch for pit stop and a bite to eat. The Lemoore website says the MOA should only be active Monday through Friday from 8am to 10pm (6pm on Fridays). It may be active one weekend a month for National Guard training.
Since this new area will be an MOA, not an Alert Area, I won't be surprised if the floor of some of the MOA's sectors turn out to be below 10,000 feet. And I suspect there's a good chance that some fast moving aircraft will soon be flying over that area as low as 5,000 feet MSL.
Time will tell ...
When I first started training to be a private pilot, I remember how startled I was at the sheer volume of airspace set aside for military operations is the U.S. I wish I had a percentage figure, but I don't. A quick search of the internet did reveal that in 1987 and 1988 the General Accounting Office criticized the DoD and the FAA for inefficient use of existing special use airspace and for the lack of utilization data. In 1989 the DoD and the FAA committed to creating a special use airspace scheduling system, but it wasn't until 1995 under the Clinton Administration that a task force appears to have been formed to further the cooperation of military and civilian airspace users to reduce airline delays. The airlines are complaining mightily these days that the skies are too crowded, so this sort of cooperation sure seems like a good idea. It's just not clear that it's happening.
The DoD says the new MOA is needed because the F18 squadrons based at Lemoore and the F16 National Guard aircraft based at Fresno often find the restricted areas over China Lakes and Edwards Air Force Base are too crowded to use for their training. This forces them to fly long distances and burn lots of fuel just to do training. The claim is that most of the training in the new MOA will be high altitude operations at 15,000 feet and above. No ordinance will be carried and no "aggressive maneuvers" will be allowed, according to the Lemoore website.
This makes one wonder why the area was not designated an Alert Area instead of an MOA: The main difference between the two being that in an MOA, military aircraft are exempt from the 250 knot speed limit below 10,000 feet while in an Alert Area they are not. Aircraft in an MOA are also exempt from the restriction on aerobatic flight in Class E or D surfaces areas or on an airway.
It's hard to tell from the graphics provided on the Lemoore website what the floor of each section of the MOA will be. Only sector C is explicitly mention as having a floor at 16,000 feet MSL. The other sectors may start as low as 5000 feet MSL, but that's just a guess. We won't have long to wait though, because the new MOA will be depicted on the next San Francisco sectional due out at the end of August, even though the MOA is not supposed to go active until February 2008.
Sector C of the new MOA was design as a corridor between Visallia/Fresno and the rest of the valley to the northwest and the reason the floor of the MOA is so high there is pretty easy to guess - there's a heck of a lot of freight and passenger operations that need to get back and forth in that area.
When the weather is bad in the valley the new MOA could limit a pilot's options. Winter time sees the valley regularly socked in for weeks at a time with thick Tule Fog and freight dogs will often go to some pretty small airports if the weather allows them to land. Most of these alternate airports are probably outside the boundaries of the new MOA, but the most efficient routes to those airports are not. Air Mass thunderstorms are not unheard of during the summer and they can require a lot of maneuvering to avoid. Remember that restricted and special use airspace exists primarily to separate military aircraft from IFR traffic?
One hopes that the new MOA will have minimal impact on VFR traffic transitioning through the valley along the I-5 corridor, but it could prevent IFR aircraft from getting a direct-to routing. I used to regularly transition through the affected area when I flew freight, but ATC never gave us a direct routing to our destination until it was obvious a direct route would be clear of Lemoore's Class Delta airspace by several miles.
Now every pilot should know that you can fly through an active MOA anytime you want. You're not even required to talk to anyone on the radio, but not talking to Lemoore approach when the area is hot would just be stupid. I still fly regularly through this area with commercial pilot candidates on long cross-countries, with one stop usually being at Harris Ranch for pit stop and a bite to eat. The Lemoore website says the MOA should only be active Monday through Friday from 8am to 10pm (6pm on Fridays). It may be active one weekend a month for National Guard training.
Since this new area will be an MOA, not an Alert Area, I won't be surprised if the floor of some of the MOA's sectors turn out to be below 10,000 feet. And I suspect there's a good chance that some fast moving aircraft will soon be flying over that area as low as 5,000 feet MSL.
Time will tell ...
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Taking Notice
ATC: Cessna 123, say your route of flight.
Cessna 123: Ah ... we're going to do a Bay Tour, fly over the Golden Gate, and then head up the coast to Little River.
ATC: Cessna 123, are you aware of the temporary flight restriction today over San Francisco Bay due to the Blue Angels practicing?
Cesslna 123: Ah ... no, we didn't know there was a TFR.
ATC: Cessna 123, suggest a heading of 330 and that you remain East of interstate 80 to remain clear of the restricted area.
I cringe whenever I hear a pilot confess on the air to ATC that they didn't know about a TFR or some other sort of Notice to Airmen (NOTAM), but I'm not surprised. I feel sorry for these confused pilots because, while it is every pilot's responsibility to become familiar with all information concerning their flight, frankly the NOTAM system in the United States is one big mess. While wading through this mess, it's easy to overlook an important NOTAM among the sea of irrelevant NOTAMs.
NOTAMs are supposed to help pilots by telling them something important is happening, when it will happen, and for how long it will be happening. NOTAMs are categorized as Local, Distant, and FDC (Flight Data Center).
Local NOTAMs generally deal with events at an airport, such as personel and equipment working near a runway, taxiway closures, or some other fact related to that airport.
Distant NOTAMs deal with outages or events that could affect arriving or departing flights, such as a navigation aid being out of service, an airport's runway being closed, or an ATC radar outage.
FDC NOTAMs cover a lot of things, mostly related to changes to published charts or procedures, such as a change to a decision height on an instrument approach, the elimination of an approach, additional equipment required for an approach, or a particular route on an airway no longer being authorized.
Unfortunately, these categories do not really make it easier for pilots to digest all the NOTAMs they might get from DUAT or DUATS briefing.
I have one, simple idea that would make this unwieldy system easier to digest: Categorize NOTAMs as IFR or VFR so than VFR pilots don't have to wade through all changes to instrument approach, arrival and departure procedures. I mean really, these amendments to instrument procedures make up more than half the NOTAMs on any given day in my area. This shoud be pretty easy to do - just filter out any NOTAM that starts with "USD" or "UAR" and that would reduce this output:
NOTAMS
USD 02/051 OAK MARINA FOUR DEPARTURE.
DEPARTURE ROUTE DESCRIPTION: LINDEN, SACRAMENTO, AND SCAGGS
ISLAND TRANSITIONS NOTE: IF UNABLE TO COMPLY WITH MINIMUM ATC
CLIMB RATE OF 610 FEET PER NM TO 11000/WOODSIDE (OSI) VORTAC
R-028/24 DME, ADVISE ATC PRIOR TO DEPARTURE.
ALL OTHER DATA REMAINS AS PUBLISHED.
SFO 03/013 SFO 1R/19L CLSD 1100-1330 DLY WEF 0703131100-0703151330
SFO 03/014 SFO 1L CLSD LDG 0600-1400 DLY WEF 0703130600-0703161400
SFO 03/015 SFO 28R LDA OTS WEF 0703142130-0703150100
SFO 03/016 SFO 10L/28R CLSD WEF 0703161100-0703161400
USD 03/107 SFO SHORLINE ONE DEPARTURE...
RWY 28L/R, FOR OBSTACLE CLEARANCE A MINIMUM OF 499 FEET PER NM TO
2100 FEET IS REQUIRED.
LINDEN TRANSITION: CLIMB VIA OAK R-040 AND LIN R-240 TO LIN VORTAC.
CROSS OAK R-040 8 DME FIX AT OR ABOVE 7000. THENCE VIA (ASSIGNED
ROUTE).
ALL OTHER DATA REMAINS AS PUBLISHED.
USD 05/025 SFO EUGEN FIVE DEPARTURE...
NOTE: RWY 1L/R, FOR OBSTACLE CLEARANCE A MINIMUM CLIMB OF 233 FEET
PER NM TO 2500 FEET IS REQUIRED
USD 06/159 SFO REBAS THREE DEPARTURENOTE...
RWY 28L/R, FOR OBSTACLE CLEARANCE A MINIMUM CLIMB
OF 449 FEET PER NM TO 2100 IS REQUIRED.
UAR 09/005 SFO YOSEM ONE ARRIVAL...
YOSEM ONE ARRIVAL AVAILABLE VIA ATC ASSIGNMENT ONLY WEF 0609281300
USD 09/182 SFO QUIET TWO DEPARTURE CHICO TRANSITION NA.
RWY 28L/R, FOR OBSTACLE CLEARANCE A MINIMUM CLIMB OF
499 FEET PER NM TO 2100 FEET IS REQUIRED.
PAO 03/001 PAO TOWER UNKN (377 AGL) 2.5 N UNLGTD (ASR UNKN)
TIL 0703281400
PAO 03/002 PAO TOWER 411 (400 AGL) 2.9 NW LGTS OTS (ASR UNKN) TIL
0703282213
CCR 02/002 CCR 19R KANAN NDB/ILS LO OTS
CCR 12/004 CCR 19R ALS PCL OTS EXC MED INTST CONT
OAK 10/062 HAF AWOS CMSN 127.275/650-728-5649
LVK 03/002 LVK 25R ILS OTS WEF 0703141800-0703142000
USD 03/015 SJC ALTAM SEVEN DEPARTURE NOTE: RWY 11, 12L/12R,
TEMPORARY CRANE 1.4 NM FROM DEPARTURE END OF RWY 12L, 26 FEET LEFT
OF CENTERLINE, 227 FEET AGL/308 FEET MSL.
ALL OTHER DATA REMAINS AS PUBLISHED.
USD 03/016 SJC SUNOL SIX DEPARTURE NOTE: RWY 11, 12L/12R, TEMPORARY
CRANE 1.4 NM FROM DEPARTURE END OF RWY 12L, 26 FEET LEFT OF
CENTERLINE, 227 FEET AGL/308 FEET MSL.
ALL OTHER DATA REMAINS AS PUBLISHED.
USD 03/017 SJC MOONY TWO DEPARTURE TAKE-OFF MINIMUMS: RWY 12L/12R
STANDARD WITH A MINIMUM CLIMB OF 290 PER NM TO 4700.
NOTE: RWY 11, 12L/12R, TEMPORARY CRANE 1.4 NM FROM DEPARTURE END OF
RWY 12L, 26 FEET LEFT OF CENTERLINE, 227 FEET AGL/308 FEET MSL.
ALL OTHER DATA REMAINS AS PUBLISHED.
USD 03/018 SJC DANVILLE TWO DEPARTURE NOTE: RWY 11, 12L/12R,
TEMPORARY CRANE 1.4 NM FROM DEPARTURE END OF RWY 12L, 26 FEET LEFT
OF CENTERLINE, 227 FEET AGL/308 FEET MSL.
ALL OTHER DATA REMAINS AS PUBLISHED.
SJC 12/015 SJC 12R/30L RCLL OTS
APC 03/007 APC TOWER UNKN (200 AGL) 1.5W LGTS OTS (ASR UNKN) TIL
0703202359
APC 03/012 APC TOWER 176 (52 AGL) 1.36 ENE LGTS OTS (ASR 1240396)
TIL 0703261344
RHV 03/001 RHV TOWER 1435 (302 AGL) 7.71 SSE LGTS OTS (ASR 1055723)
TIL 0703220641
USD 01/107 VCB SOKOY ONE DEPARTURE TAKE-OFF MINIMUMS: RWY 2, 300-1
NOTE: RWY 2, TEMPORARY CRANE 3130 FEET FROM DEPARTURE END OF RWY,
189 FEET RIGHT OF CENTERLINE, 250 AGL/342 MSL. ALL OTHER DATA
REMAINS AS PUBLISHED.
RIU 03/005 F72 TOWER 1549 (1549 AGL) 4.85 SSW LGTS OTS (ASR
1012855) TIL 0703171625
OAK 03/022 2O3 FUEL UNAVBL TIL 0703161400
OAK 03/014 1C9 5/23 RWY LGTS OTS
SAC 03/013 SAC 16/34 CLSD WEF 0703131900
RIU 03/029 3O1 TOWER 391 (311 AGL) 6.55 NE LGTS OTS (ASR 1015154)
TIL 0703290916
SMF 03/013 SMF 16R ILS CAT 2/3 NA
SMF 03/014 SMF 16R ILS GP/LLZ OTS WEF 0703141400-0703141700
UAR 05/003 SMF TUDOR ONE ARRIVAL.
CHANGE ALL PLANVIEW REFERENCES TO FINAL APPROACH COURSE TO 165.74
DEGREES.
SMF 10/014 SMF 34L ILS MM DCMSND
MRY 03/002 MRY CCSA 1300-0400 DLY
MRY 03/003 MRY TWR 1300-0400 DLY
RIU 01/044 CPU CTAF NOW 123.0 VICE 122.8
MER 02/001 MER TWR 1500-0500 DLY PLUS SEE AFD
MER 02/002 MER CDSA AVBL 1500-0500 DLY
RIU 03/023 O61 TOWER 2523 (500 AGL) 6.93 ESE LGTS OTS (ASR 1011405)
TIL 0703271626
OAK 12/038 1O2 LOP NDB OTS
MYV 02/004 MYV 14 ILS GP UNUSBL CPD APCH BLW 576
MYV 03/002 MYV MARYSVILLE RCO 122.6 OTS
RIU 03/001 HNW RCO 122.1 OTS
RIU 05/017 E45 RTR 121.25 VICE 126.85
RIU 03/026 F34 TOWER 303 (162 AGL) 1.22 NNW LGTS OTS (ASR 1000095)
TIL 0703280123
GPS 03/005 ZOA GPS UNREL AND MAY BE UNAVBL WI A 320 NM RADIUS OF
NAWS CHINA LAKE/ARMITAGE AP (NID, 354116N/1174126W) AT FL400. THIS
AREA DECREASES WITH ALT TO A CIRCLE OF 267 NM RADIUS FROM NID AT
FL250, 212 NM RADIUS AT FL100, AND 191 NM RADIUS AT 4000 FT AGL.
THE IMPACT AREA ALSO EXTENDS APPROX 80 NM INTO MEXICAN AIRSPACE
TO THE SOUTHWEST, SOUTH AND SOUTHEAST OF THE CALIFORNIA BORDER FROM
APPROX FL150-FL400 WEF 0703152100-0703160001
GPS 03/015 GPS PRN 24 OTS WEF 0703151700-0703161900
GPS 08/045 GPS PRN 15 OTS WEF 0608211425
To this (for VFR pilots):
NOTAMS
SFO 03/013 SFO 1R/19L CLSD 1100-1330 DLY WEF 0703131100-0703151330
SFO 03/014 SFO 1L CLSD LDG 0600-1400 DLY WEF 0703130600-0703161400
SFO 03/016 SFO 10L/28R CLSD WEF 0703161100-0703161400
SJC 12/015 SJC 12R/30L RCLL OTS
APC 03/007 APC TOWER UNKN (200 AGL) 1.5W LGTS OTS (ASR UNKN) TIL
0703202359
APC 03/012 APC TOWER 176 (52 AGL) 1.36 ENE LGTS OTS (ASR 1240396)
TIL 0703261344
RHV 03/001 RHV TOWER 1435 (302 AGL) 7.71 SSE LGTS OTS (ASR 1055723)
TIL 0703220641
RIU 03/005 F72 TOWER 1549 (1549 AGL) 4.85 SSW LGTS OTS (ASR
1012855) TIL 0703171625
OAK 03/022 2O3 FUEL UNAVBL TIL 0703161400
OAK 03/014 1C9 5/23 RWY LGTS OTS
SAC 03/013 SAC 16/34 CLSD WEF 0703131900
RIU 03/029 3O1 TOWER 391 (311 AGL) 6.55 NE LGTS OTS (ASR 1015154)
TIL 0703290916
SMF 03/014 SMF 16R ILS GP/LLZ OTS WEF 0703141400-0703141700
MRY 03/002 MRY CCSA 1300-0400 DLY
MRY 03/003 MRY TWR 1300-0400 DLY
RIU 01/044 CPU CTAF NOW 123.0 VICE 122.8
MER 02/001 MER TWR 1500-0500 DLY PLUS SEE AFD
MER 02/002 MER CDSA AVBL 1500-0500 DLY
RIU 03/023 O61 TOWER 2523 (500 AGL) 6.93 ESE LGTS OTS (ASR 1011405)
TIL 0703271626
OAK 12/038 1O2 LOP NDB OTS
MYV 03/002 MYV MARYSVILLE RCO 122.6 OTS
RIU 03/001 HNW RCO 122.1 OTS
RIU 05/017 E45 RTR 121.25 VICE 126.85
RIU 03/026 F34 TOWER 303 (162 AGL) 1.22 NNW LGTS OTS (ASR 1000095)
TIL 0703280123
GPS 03/005 ZOA GPS UNREL AND MAY BE UNAVBL WI A 320 NM RADIUS OF
NAWS CHINA LAKE/ARMITAGE AP (NID, 354116N/1174126W) AT FL400. THIS
AREA DECREASES WITH ALT TO A CIRCLE OF 267 NM RADIUS FROM NID AT
FL250, 212 NM RADIUS AT FL100, AND 191 NM RADIUS AT 4000 FT AGL.
THE IMPACT AREA ALSO EXTENDS APPROX 80 NM INTO MEXICAN AIRSPACE
TO THE SOUTHWEST, SOUTH AND SOUTHEAST OF THE CALIFORNIA BORDER FROM
APPROX FL150-FL400 WEF 0703152100-0703160001
GPS 03/015 GPS PRN 24 OTS WEF 0703151700-0703161900
GPS 08/045 GPS PRN 15 OTS WEF 0608211425
Maybe someone is listening ... but probably not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
+copy.jpg)
