KAUG Notam Question

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:


Also, I just checked the web site now (6 MAR 07 12:06:17 GMT on the chart)
and the RED line excludes the eastern half of MA, almost all of VT, all of
NH and all of ME!
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

We have a WAAS availability problem in Southern California, too. It was
explained to me that coastal areas cannot be surrounded by reference
stations, thus the limitation.

On Mar 6, 3:47 pm, Sam Spade wrote:
Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

Also, I just checked the web site now (6 MAR 07 12:06:17 GMT on the chart)
and the RED line excludes the eastern half of MA, almost all of VT, all of
NH and all of ME!
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

We have a WAAS availability problem in Southern California, too. It was
explained to me that coastal areas cannot be surrounded by reference
stations, thus the limitation.

True.

In your area, having a WRS in Honolulu helps on that "side".

Regards,
Jon

On 6 Mar 2007 12:04:19 -0800, "Jon" wrote:

I believe you may still shoot the approach if the receiver indicates
it's available. The NOTAM
simply prevents you from flight planning on it.

Where is that documented?

The only documentation that I've been able to locate references the terms
"unreliable" to be used for site specific notams except when the chart has
a "w" (which IS present on the KAUG NACO GPS 35 approach chart); or
"unavailable" for area-wide gps outages.

If the "w" is present, site-specific Notams are not issued for that site.
You're supposed to know that "unreliable" applies.

That documentation also explains pilot options if those Notams exist.

But I've not seen any documentation as to the meaning of a site-specific
WAAS "OTS" Notam.

My suspicion is that this Notam got into the system in error, and has never
been removed. But no one has confirmed it as yet.

But if you have documentation for what you wrote, that would be helpful in
coming up with an alternate explanation.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 12:47:31 -0800, Sam Spade wrote:

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:


Also, I just checked the web site now (6 MAR 07 12:06:17 GMT on the chart)
and the RED line excludes the eastern half of MA, almost all of VT, all of
NH and all of ME!
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

We have a WAAS availability problem in Southern California, too. It was
explained to me that coastal areas cannot be surrounded by reference
stations, thus the limitation.

Looks like pretty good coverage right now. 23:42:16Z And VT, NH, ME and
the eastern 1/2 of MA are still outside the LPV zone.

I'll trade!
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

On 6 Mar 2007 12:04:19 -0800, "Jon" wrote:


I believe you may still shoot the approach if the receiver indicates
it's available. The NOTAM
simply prevents you from flight planning on it.


I will not (cannot) get into the nuances of the NOTAMS. I am not
familiar with with 480 but I am with the 500W/530W. If the LPV
annunication is green, you are absolutely solid to fly the approach. If
the aunnication is yellow early on, it may still switch to green in time
to fly the approach. If it is green prior to the FAF it is golden.

On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:54:42 -0800, Sam Spade wrote:

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

On 6 Mar 2007 12:04:19 -0800, "Jon" wrote:


I believe you may still shoot the approach if the receiver indicates
it's available. The NOTAM
simply prevents you from flight planning on it.


I will not (cannot) get into the nuances of the NOTAMS. I am not
familiar with with 480 but I am with the 500W/530W. If the LPV
annunication is green, you are absolutely solid to fly the approach. If
the aunnication is yellow early on, it may still switch to green in time
to fly the approach. If it is green prior to the FAF it is golden.

The problem *is* the nuances of the NOTAMS. For other approaches, OTS
generally means you can't use the approach. That may be why they chose to
use UNREL for WAAS notams.

The 480 also annunciates the approach that the signal quality (and
approach) will allow. It is in green letters on the various pages.

LNAV
LNAV/VNAV for either that level or an LNAV approach with advisory vertical
guidance
LPV

In addition, if the signal is not good enough to support vertical guidance,
the GP indicator will flag.
If the signal is not good enough for an LNAV approach, the CDI will flag.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Mar 6, 6:46 pm, Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
On 6 Mar 2007 12:04:19 -0800, "Jon" wrote:

I believe you may still shoot the approach if the receiver indicates
it's available. The NOTAM
simply prevents you from flight planning on it.

Where is that documented?

It was 2003 since I last worked on it, will have to go dig up the
docos. I may have misspoken and the above (wrt flight planning only)
applies only for the case of the inverted 'w'.

The only documentation that I've been able to locate references the terms
"unreliable" to be used for site specific notams except when the chart has
a "w" (which IS present on the KAUG NACO GPS 35 approach chart); or
"unavailable" for area-wide gps outages.

If the "w" is present, site-specific Notams are not issued for that site.
You're supposed to know that "unreliable" applies.

Yep. The inverted 'w' definitely means you can't flight plan on it.

That documentation also explains pilot options if those Notams exist.

But I've not seen any documentation as to the meaning of a site-specific
WAAS "OTS" Notam.

I know for a fact (I coded it) that we don't output such a NOTAM, so
it had to have been manually entered, probably down at the NOCC in
Herndon.

My suspicion is that this Notam got into the system in error, and has never
been removed. But no one has confirmed it as yet.

It's not clear to me that it was initially entered in error. If they
service availability dropped below an acceptable level (due to the GEO
repositioning last year), it might sense, since the approach plates
are already out there. I've heard it's similar to taking an ILS OTS?

It's certainly possible, though, that it should be canceled, but I
haven't gotten any responses from the several voicemails I've left to
folk. Will try a few more contacts during the day...

But if you have documentation for what you wrote, that would be helpful in
coming up with an alternate explanation.

Dusting off some folders, standby 1...

Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Regards,
Jon

On Mar 7, 7:41 am, Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:54:42 -0800, Sam Spade wrote:
Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

On 6 Mar 2007 12:04:19 -0800, "Jon" wrote:

I believe you may still shoot the approach if the receiver indicates
it's available. The NOTAM simply prevents you from flight planning on it.

Just to be sure it's not ambiguous, in my statement above "The NOTAM"
refers to "UNREL" NOTAMs not the "OTS" case.

Basically, the Inverted 'w' and the "UNREL NOTAM" fold into the same
case, as
far as the pilot is concerned: What the receiver indicates overrides.

I will not (cannot) get into the nuances of the NOTAMS. I am not
familiar with with 480 but I am with the 500W/530W. If the LPV
annunication is green, you are absolutely solid to fly the approach. If
the aunnication is yellow early on, it may still switch to green in time
to fly the approach. If it is green prior to the FAF it is golden.

The problem *is* the nuances of the NOTAMS.

For other approaches, OTS generally means you can't use the approach.

As it did (and does for a bit longer, see below) in this case. Still
no luck finding
specific text to point you to, but OTS applies as one would expect,
e.g. the approach
disabled.

That may be why they chose to use UNREL for WAAS notams.

The SVM (Service Volume Model) has conservatism built into it. Since
it can't model certain things
very well (if at all) such as Receiver Noise, it errs on the safe
side. So the actual performance will
tend to be better. It was a tradeoff between not generating too many
False Positives and (more
importantly) minimizing the number of Missed Detections.

Too many False Alerts = Issuing NOTAMs repeatedly and the pilot isn't
seeing the rcvr flag. The confidence
that the SVM is actually providing a useful S begins to decrease,
until you just stop using the service.

Too many Missed Detections = Unacceptable. The system would not be
certified with a very low probability of HMI.

The 480 also annunciates the approach that the signal quality (and
approach) will allow. It is in green letters on the various pages.

LNAV
LNAV/VNAV for either that level or an LNAV approach with advisory vertical
guidance
LPV

In addition, if the signal is not good enough to support vertical guidance,
the GP indicator will flag.
If the signal is not good enough for an LNAV approach, the CDI will flag.

Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

I just got a ahold of someone who indicated the NOTAM does indeed need
to
and shall be removed. Now that the 3rd GEO is commissioned, the
availability
in the NorthEast is good enough once again.

Personally, though, you'd have to be nuts to fly in the cold of the
last couple of days,
unless you have some way of taking the heat directly off the engine
block!

Regards,
Jon

On 7 Mar 2007 07:54:54 -0800, "Jon" wrote:

I just got a ahold of someone who indicated the NOTAM does indeed need
to
and shall be removed. Now that the 3rd GEO is commissioned, the
availability
in the NorthEast is good enough once again.

Personally, though, you'd have to be nuts to fly in the cold of the
last couple of days,
unless you have some way of taking the heat directly off the engine
block!

I guess between all of us bothering various Feds, someone finally got to
someone who could make the decision to remove!!

If the OTS was "properly" issued, because of the satellite being moved, it
does not make sense that it should only apply to a single airport in ME;
especially with our generally poor coverage (even after the new satellite
deployment) and also given the guidance published in 2003. An "unrel"
Notam would have been proper, even then.

I have spent years, by the way, to try to get sufficient heat into my a/c
to fly this time of year. I still have some drafts to seal up, but it's
better this year than it's ever been. One of the changes was adding an
extra heat muff (done via a logbook entry, by the way).

Flying this time of year is amazing so far as performance is concerned! If
I can preflight in a hangar, I'm good.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

One of the changes was adding an
extra heat muff (done via a logbook entry, by the way).

You can write "heat muff" in your logbook and make the airplane warmer?
Wow! Can I get more horsepower and better fuel economy that way too?

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.