HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rkaplan@netcom.com (Richard Kaplan)
Subject: Interesting Navaid:  ANDREW NDB
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 04:10:08 GMT


I recently had the opportunity to rent a C-172 in 
South Florida while I was on vacation.  (With 70
degree weather and a 2000 foot broken layer, I couldn't
resist the opportunity for terrific sight seeing
and a chance at some "winter" actual IFR.)  I
flew from Ft. Lauderdale (FXE) to Marathon Key (MTH)....
a gorgeous flight including views of the shore, 
downtown Miami, the Everglades, the Keys, and a night-time
tour of downtown Ft. Lauderdale.  Highly recommended.

I was amused by the recent addition of ANDREW NDB
slightly northeast of the old Biscayne VOR.    According
to FSS, the change in location is because the NDB is
now on an island, whereas the VOR had been on a man-made
platform in Biscayne Bay.  More interesting is that
this is charted as an NDB/DME, with DME being provided
under the old Biscayne VOR frequency.  Even
more interesting is that there is an FDC Notam disallowing
use of ANDREW NDB at present, yet FSS allows one
to file direct to/from ANDREW with anticipated radar
vectors.  I filed this way (I was VFR on top for this part
of the trip and hence lost com would not have left
me relying on the NDB) and was surprised to get
radar vectors for my ENTIRE trip!  I am used
to Midwest courtesy from ATC, but even Minneapolis
center isn't usually THAT accommodating.

Some thoughts on this:

1.  I would not be particularly comfortable navigating
an NDB airway in actual IFR in busy airspace.  I just 
do not trust the accuracy.  Why replace a VOR with an
NDB?

2.  How common are NDB/DMEs?  I have never encountered
one before.  Is the distance to the old Biscayne VOR/DME
or to a new ANDREW DME?

-- 
Richard Kaplan M.D.           Medical Software Exchange BBS
806 2nd St. SW # 104          (507) 281-1989 14,400 HST
Rochester, MN  55902          (507) 281-1689 Voice
PP-ASEL-IA     N4VRB          rkaplan@mayo.edu|netcom.netcom.com
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: GPS and IFR Approache
Date: 5 Jan 93 22:01:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

KK> .Sorry Greg, but I have to disagree with your choice of words.  There is
  > .no such thing as a "backup".  There is only one way to determine DA(H)
  > .with a CAT I approach, and that's with the altimeter on the GS.

That depends on what the charted approach includes.

KK> .I just want it make absolutely clear that the examples you cited above
  > .may NOT be substituted for the DH.  Someone might read your post wrong.

I can't conceive of a CAT-I approach based on RA indications, but it's
possible.  And if the RA reading for DH was charted, it'd be legal to
use.  Ditto with DME-based DH.

KK> .It is also my understanding, and someone can correct ME if I'm wrong,
  > .that the 200' DH for CAT I approaches includes a possible 75' error
  > .in the altimeter.  There is that much safety margin, provided the
  > .approach is flown properly (on or above the GS, etc.).

A properly designed approach takes into account all sorts of
inaccuracies, including altimeter error, and provides adequate clearance
for the approach.

Missing a DH when flying an ILS is actually safer than missing an MDA on
a non-precision approach.  Even in zero-zero conditions, you could fly
the ILS to the ground, and as long as you kept the needles centered,
you'd be in protected airspace.  With a non-precision approach no such
assurance is available.

If you have sufficient interest (and endurance) get a copy of TERPS and
see what goes into the design of an approach.  Not exactly trivial.

        D/
---
 . QMPro 1.0 41-3345 . Bring back A-N airways!!    Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
                                                                                   
From: mtc@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Mark Cousins)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 23:53:19 GMT
Subject: Re: New VOR approach to Moffett Field
Organization: HP General Systems Division
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr

In rec.aviation.ifr, cep@taligent.com (Christophe Pettus) writes:

>In article <1993Jan05.040933.3173@qdeck.com> jbrown@qdeck.com (Jordan Brown) writes:
>>My understanding is that the problem with an approach to PAO is that it
>>would interfere with SFO final.  At least that's what some controllers
>>at PAO told me a few years ago.  Moffett is both further away and presumably
>
>You know, I've heard this argument for quite some time, and I'm not
>sure I buy it.  After all, IFR _departures_ from PAO don't interfere
>with the SFO finals; they don't go anywhere near them.  So why couldn't
>a missed approach follow the same path?

When I asked about this some ATC guy told me that there are no more ILS
frequencies available.  Of course, I wasn't asking about an ILS approach but
that didn't seem to matter to him . . . sigh.

The base of the TCA is 4000 feet right over the field, although that drops to
2500 just west of the airport.  Recall that airliners must stay inside the
TCA; there's just no way that I can see for any significant interference.

One of the LA airports is LOTS closer to LAX than PAO is to SFO and it has
instrument approaches (Hawthorne I think).

Some years ago I sketched out a VOR 30 approach based off the SJC VOR.  I
don't have the TERPS but it seemed fairly workable.  The missed was as
Christophe states:  the standard IFR departure from PAO (right turn heading
060, maintain 3000, direct SJC VOR and hold).  My guess at an MDA was 400 for
category A, with circling NA southwest of the runway 12/30 centerline (in
other words, stay on the Bay side).  The airport elevation is 5.

Another "excuse" for no instrument approach that I've heard is that NUQ
(Moffett) didn't want it -- they didn't want to be delayed in their operations
by aircraft on approach to PAO.  So I too am hoping that with the Navy's
departure from NUQ we might get something.

Mark
--
Mark Cousins                Hewlett-Packard Co.        mtc@hpsemc.cup.hp.com
HP-UX VAB programs    19055 Pruneridge Ave., MS 46T5
(408) 447-4659             Cupertino, CA  95014          FAX: (408) 447-4364

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Subject: Re: New VOR approach to Moffett Field
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Distribution: usa
Date: 7 Jan 93 18:25:08 GMT

In article <C0GMG1.36I@taligent.com> cep@taligent.com (Christophe Pettus) writes:
>
>Yep, it depends on the facility.  Fritzsche Army Air Field down in Ft.
>Ord, near Monterey, is _very_ accomodating for GCAs as well (it will be
>a real bummer when Ft. Ord closes down from that point of view).  I
>assume that since Moffett is a pretty busy field, they get all the GCA
>practice they can handle from the Navy P-3s, and don't need GA to get
>the operations counts up.

In the past 3-4 months, my CFI and I were in the area and inquired on
operations.  Fritzsche is basically a 9-5 M-F shop for GCA approaches.
Kinda bad news if you're like me and predominantly fly at night.

Kerry
From: davea@col.hp.com (Dave Allen)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: Interesting Navaid:  ANDREW NDB
Date: 6 Jan 1993 18:31:48 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: qadata.col.hp.com

rkaplan@netcom.com (Richard Kaplan) writes:
> I was amused by the recent addition of ANDREW NDB ...
> Why replace a VOR with an NDB?

An NDB can be set up and tested much quicker than a VOR. They must be short
on VOR's anyway. Seems whenever they go down, they go down for a LONG time.
How many months was HUT (Hutchinson KS) VOR down a summer or so ago? SEVERAL.
And now the Nashville VOR is down or lots of airways are unusable (from the
NOTAMS and temporary charts I'm getting). Thought it said it would be out of
whack until Sep 93. Seems like it should be offline for several hours rather
than several months.

dave allen - Fly because you love it.
From: nikke.gaby@compart.fi (Nikke Gaby) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: PILOTE TRAINING SCHOOL
Date: 5 Jan 93 22:16:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: ComPart BBS, Helsinki-Finland, +358 0 506 3329 (14 lines V.32bis)
Reply-To: nikke.gaby@compart.fi (Nikke Gaby) 

        Hi !

        I'd like to introduce myself : I'm a 25 years old student at the
        Helsinki University of Technology. (Finland)

        I got me Private Pilote Licence last summer in France where I
        was instructed on Robin DR-400, DR-300 and ATL by a former Navy
        Fouga-Magister instructor. Anyway, my interest on flying is
        growing everyday and I will graduate in the next future from the
        University.

        So, I'm looking for me and my brother Patrick a high caliber
        pilote training in a professional environment. We're searching
        full-time training and high quality education. We're certified
        physically fit and drug-free. We both have the Private Pilote
        Licence.

        What we want is that the institute, or academy is an FAA
        approved Part 141 Flight School and provides Certificates of
        Eligibility for Nonimmigrant (M-1 & I-20) Student Status or
        equivalent.

        If you know such a school that will provide us a Professional
        Multi-Engine Turbine Instrument Flight Degree, please live a
        message or send your proposition to the following address :

                                        Nicolas Gabriel-Robez
                                        Alalinnake 1 E 47
                                        02160 ESPOO
                                        Finland
                                        fax : (358-0) 425 940

        Thank you !
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
                                                                                                                             
----
+--------------------------------------------------+
| ComPart BBS    +358-0-506-3329 (ZyXEL V.32bis)   |
| Helsinki, Finland  -  Number 1 BBS in Finland    |
+--------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: philf@xymox.palo-alto.ca.us (Phil Fernandez)
Subject: Re: New VOR approach to Moffett Field
Organization: Jade and Jett Incorporated
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 05:14:42 GMT

In article <1993Jan05.040933.3173@qdeck.com> jbrown@qdeck.com (Jordan Brown) writes:
>philf@xymox.palo-alto.ca.us (Phil Fernandez) writes:
>>I don't know whether this is good news or bad news for the possibility
>>of an approach for Palo Alto.  It sure would be nice...
>
>My understanding is that the problem with an approach to PAO is that it
>would interfere with SFO final.  At least that's what some controllers
>at PAO told me a few years ago.  Moffett is both further away and presumably
>would have relatively little traffic.  Geography might also be a factor, since
>it's more possible to have an approach perpendicular to SFO final at Moffett
>than at PAO.

I definitely understand the low-traffic issue.  Of course, Bay TRACON
could meter traffic to PAO with long delays for the approach while
there was inbound traffic to SFO.

I don't think I agree with your point about geography of distance.
Moffett is about 4 or 5 nm from PAO, with "idential" bay-side
geography and essentially identical geography on the foothill side.
The new NUQ approach is supposed to use the OAK 139 radial; an
approach from OAK to PAO would use the 144 or 145 radial.

>(I think Moffett already has a TACAN approach; why do they need a VOR
>approach?)

The TACAN approach goes away when the Navy goes away...

pmf


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: witr@rwwa.COM (Robert Withrow)
Subject: Re: GPS vs DGPS info needed
Reply-To: witr@rwwa.com
Organization: R.W. Withrow Associates
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 01:49:25 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.153539.7780@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>,
 mikec@ginger.lcs.mit.edu (Mike Ciholas) writes:

| While DGPS does nullify the SA errors, its primary value is to improve
| the basic accuracy of the positioning information.  Even if SA where
| turned off permanently, straight GPS would not be good enough for
| precision approaches, whereas GPS with SA turned on might (most
| likely) be adequate for non-precision approaches, and is certainly
| accurate enough for enroute navigation.

OK.  Let's separate things out so I can make sense of this (all questions
obviously apply to IFR use):

1) For enroute use, is GPS with SA accurate enough?
2) What standards apply to the above?
3) For approach use, is GPS with SA accurate enough for *any* approach?
4) What about GPS without SA?
5) What standards apply to 3 and 4.

My back of the envelope calculations seem to indicate to me that GPS with SA
is more accurate than VOR navigation enroute, except when quite close to the
transmitter (when you consider the allowable error in a VOR check).  Thus
I don't understand your implication that DGPS would be required for enroute
GPS use...

Likewise, for approach use my kneejerk reaction is that a GPS (even with SA)
approach is likely to be more accurately flown than, say, a ndb approach,
given typical pilot performance.  By this I mean that the resulting approaches
would be, on the average, closer to the ``nominal'' approach.

In the precision approach case, is your claim that DGPS is not accurate
enough in the ``localization'' aspect or the glidepath aspect, or both?
Again, given the allowable errors in the onboard instrumentation, it seems
that DGPS would certainly be accurate enough in the localization plane, but
I am not sure about the glidepath aspect...

References to technical documents would be appreciated...

-- 
 Robert Withrow, Tel: +1 617 598 4480, Fax: +1 617 598 4430, Net: witr@rwwa.COM
 R.W. Withrow Associates, 21 Railroad Ave, Swampscott MA 01907-1821 USA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: cep@taligent.com (Christophe Pettus)
Subject: Re: New VOR approach to Moffett Field
Organization: Taligent, a little subsidiary of two really big companies.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:49:34 GMT

In article <1993Jan05.040933.3173@qdeck.com> jbrown@qdeck.com (Jordan Brown) writes:
>My understanding is that the problem with an approach to PAO is that it
>would interfere with SFO final.  At least that's what some controllers
>at PAO told me a few years ago.  Moffett is both further away and presumably
>would have relatively little traffic.  Geography might also be a factor, since
>it's more possible to have an approach perpendicular to SFO final at Moffett
>than at PAO.

You know, I've heard this argument for quite some time, and I'm not
sure I buy it.  After all, IFR _departures_ from PAO don't interfere
with the SFO finals; they don't go anywhere near them.  So why couldn't
a missed approach follow the same path?

>( [...] A NORDO approach would shut down Burbank because of the missed
>approach area, but a supervisor at Burbank TRACON told me "none of our
>missed approaches really work anyway, we'd have to just clear the airspace".)

I rest my case.

>(I think Moffett already has a TACAN approach; why do they need a VOR
>approach?)

Probably so that NASA doesn't have to maintain the TACAN once the Navy
leaves.
--
-- Christophe

"Bad analogy!  No biscuit!"
From: khubbard@ems.cdc.com (Kelvin Hubbard)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: GPS vs DGPS info needed
Keywords: DGPS, GPS
Date: 8 Jan 93 14:07:21 GMT
Reply-To: khubbard@ems.cdc.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of CDC

Could someone give me some info on DGPS, and contract it to plain GPS.  Is DGPS
that much better than GPS? Does it require additional ground equipment? I have
just started my ground scholl for my IFR ticket and the subject of GPS came up.
When I mentioned DGPS in class, no one had a clue what I was talking about.
Unfortunately, neither did I.

Since I have internet access, and I saw DGPS discussed briefly here before, I
volunteered to see what information I could dig up.

Thanks,

==========================================================================
Kelvin R. Hubbard                           email: khubbard@ems.cdc.com
Active Software, Inc.           
C/O Empros Systems International            Phone: (612) 553-4560
2300 Berkshire Lane North                     FAX: (612) 553-4018
Plymouth, Minnesota  55441-3694 USA      Mailstop: PLY013

                        In search of the Big Iron.
==========================================================================
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: GPS and IFR Approache
Date: 9 Jan 93 17:55:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

  > .Actually, I have heard (indirectly) that Jepp says one of the problems
  > .is database accuracy.  They apparently estimate their databases at 10-5
  > .error rate, which is only good enough for non-precision approaches.

I don't follow this at all...  What sort of errors are they referring
to?  Errors in the approach description?  Errors in translated
coordinates?  I'm having trouble understanding what that 10^-5 error
rate means, and why it's "only good enough for non-precision
approaches."  A horizontal coordinate error in the database will affect
both precision and non-precision approaches equally.

        D/
---
 . QMPro 1.0 41-3345 . Bring back A-N airways!!    Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: GPS and IFR Approache
Date: 5 Jan 93 21:48:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

  > .>Talk to anyone that's got a GPS unit in their aircraft now.  I know of
  > .>several people that have pulled their LORANs in favor of GPS.  That's
  > .>under real-world, current conditions, without the full constellation of
  > .>SVs up.  GPS at its worst is better than LORAN at its best.
  > .>

TN> .present experience of the current GPS used in VFR is not applicable to
  > .requirements for IFR precision approaches, such as integrity.

Would you agree that GPS is clearly better than LORAN for precision
approaches?  <~>

TN> .stuff deleted

TN> .>There's no question that the GPS environment has the potential to
  > .>completely replace the current VOR/DME environment as the primary
  > .>enroute nav. source.

TN> .true

TN> .>There's also no question that it can be used
  > .>for CAT-I approaches.

TN> .not true.  Note: I'm _not_ saying that GPS absolutely _cannot_ handle
  > .precision approaches.  I'm disagreeing with the "no question" part.
  > .There _are_ questions, and various folks are researching how to
  > .address/overcome them.


TN> .>There are no apparent issues preventing its use
  > .>for CAT-III approaches.  (This includes both integrity and availability
  > .>issues...)

TN> .not true.  Note: I'm _not_ saying that GPS absolutely _cannot_ handle
  > .precision approaches.  I'm disagreeing with the "no apparent issues" part.

Perhaps I didn't state it clearly enough.  The available technology is
such that there are no blocking issues.  There is lots of work being
done to choose specific technology and formulate specs, but the accuracy
and integrity issues are all resolvable with current technology.

        D/
---
 . QMPro 1.0 41-3345 . Bring back A-N airways!!    Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
From: falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: Do IFR maps exist?
Date: 13 Jan 1993 03:57:52 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: peregrine

In article <104448@netnews.upenn.edu> kupiec@hp800.lasalle.edu (Bob Kupiec) writes:
>I bought a couple of VFR maps of the area for a project that I am doing,
>and I was wondering if IFR maps exist?  If so, what are the differences?
>Are structures (building heights) more clearly defined than on VFR maps?

Yes, they do.  They are available from the Feds, and from Jeppesen.  The actual
maps are lower scale than VFR sectionals, and contain lots of navigation information
and almost no terrain information.  You use them in conjunction with big thick
books of "approach plates".  These are little miniature maps that describe
the individual approaches to individual airports.

IFR charts contain almost no terrain info or structure info.  The premise being
that if you could see those things, you'd be using VFR charts instead.

		-ed falk, sun microsystems
		 sun!falk, falk@sun.com
To be loyal to rags, to shout for rags, to worship rags, to die for rags 
-- that is a loyalty of unreason, it is pure animal (Mark Twain).
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: cep@taligent.com (Christophe Pettus)
Subject: Re: New VOR approach to Moffett Field
Organization: Taligent, a little subsidiary of two really big companies.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 01:21:36 GMT

In article <C0GGBn.An@spdg.com> jallred@spdg.com (John Allred) writes:
>In article <C0G88F.Jpu@taligent.com> cep@taligent.com (Christophe Pettus) writes:
>>Moffett doesn't allow GCAs, mainly for liability reasons.  But since the
>>VOR approach would be handled by Bay Approach, it's possible.
>
>Odd -- Gray Army Airfield (just south of Seattle) begs people to use
>the PAR, lest they lose their certificate to operate the approach.

Yep, it depends on the facility.  Fritzsche Army Air Field down in Ft.
Ord, near Monterey, is _very_ accomodating for GCAs as well (it will be
a real bummer when Ft. Ord closes down from that point of view).  I
assume that since Moffett is a pretty busy field, they get all the GCA
practice they can handle from the Navy P-3s, and don't need GA to get
the operations counts up.
--
-- Christophe

"Bad analogy!  No biscuit!"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr