If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:44:27 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote: It's a little weird that they don't depict the ILS on the chart the way they do on NOS charts, though, don't you think? Until I read the "ILS" on the minimum section, I thought the "025 degree" course after 5.4 AJO meant a 025 bearing to and then from CT. LOL, I just saw that too. Initially I thought it was an NDB approach. z |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
... http://faris.nerim.net/LFKJ.JPG I especially like the fact that while altitudes are in feet (and speeds in knots), RVRs and visibility figures are in metres. That's standard ICAO (blue table), used almost everywhere outside N America, except the old eastern block, some of whom use metres for vertical level. Visibilities and RVRs are all quoted in metres in METARs. What I find weird about that LFKJ approach is the minimum RVR of 1200 m with a DH of 1050 ft above the threshold. Thus the decision point is 3 miles out: they must have some pretty bright boats moored on the approach... BTW, you can access all the French IAPs in PDF form at http://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv..../IAC/index.htm Some of the Paris ones are complex in a rather different way -- three plates required for one approach. Julian Scarfe |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Julian Scarfe" wrote in message ... ....snip... BTW, you can access all the French IAPs in PDF form at http://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv..../IAC/index.htm Superior website! One-stop online shopping (free) for all the instrument and visual approach plates, airport diagrams, local procedure information, all the flight-directory-type information, enroute low and high level charts, navaids, regulations, and much more. NAV-Canada and Transport Canada: please take a hint. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
As to subtleties of procedures, the frogs have chosen to make one chart
needlessly complex to save paper. Jeppesen charts that procedure (three procedures actually) on three separate charts. Lots of human-factors opportunity for error when using unfamilar charts to fly instrument procedures. G Farris wrote: We're always complaining about the subtleties of this or that procedure, so I thought I'd throw in this one from Corsica. I particularly like the missed approach - in IMC at night. http://faris.nerim.net/LFKJ.JPG G Faris |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Y'All,
I can recall at early visit to SFBay Tracon early in my career that the radar scope showed all the freeway traffic as well as the few aircraft aloft. Very difficult to interpret until the French came up with a way, electronically to remove all the slow moving targets. Initially it was possible for an aircraft flying an arc around the antenna at a specific distance to disappear from the scope. Don't know if problem has been solved. Anyone know? Gene Whitt wrote in message ... As to subtleties of procedures, the frogs have chosen to make one chart needlessly complex to save paper. Jeppesen charts that procedure (three procedures actually) on three separate charts. Lots of human-factors opportunity for error when using unfamilar charts to fly instrument procedures. G Farris wrote: We're always complaining about the subtleties of this or that procedure, so I thought I'd throw in this one from Corsica. I particularly like the missed approach - in IMC at night. http://faris.nerim.net/LFKJ.JPG G Faris |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
In a previous article, "Gene Whitt" said:
electronically to remove all the slow moving targets. Initially it was possible for an aircraft flying an arc around the antenna at a specific distance to disappear from the scope. Don't know if problem has been solved. Anyone know? I would think that the speed gate would only apply to primary targets, not transponders, don't you think? If it weren't, it seems that it would be a mere matter of programming to fix it. I'm told that fighter planes use the same technique to evade enemy radar guided missiles, flying an arc around the in-coming missile (although they use terminology like "putting your z-pole on the target" or something). I believe fancier radars can apply the speed gate to your speed even if it's parallel to the antenna, even if it's primary only, but I don't believe either ATC radar (which is, after all, designed to track cooperative targets) or older missiles like Sparrow have that capability. I wouldn't be surprised if AMRAAM and other newer missiles do. -- Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/ I am not a vegetarian because I love animals; I am a vegetarian because I hate plants. -- A. Whitney Brown |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
There is a particular piece of digital signal processing used in radar (or at
least, it was in use when I was an undergraduate electrical engineering student 25 years ago) called the "chirp Z-transform." The singularities in the function are called the "poles," after an analogue computing technique used in the 1930s for finding those points. It may be that pilots are taught to figure out the poles in the particular function in use and to fly a pattern that corresponded to the singularity, or perhaps their onboard computers do this. Just a guess. Perhaps there are some more current EEs reading who can fill in? David Paul Tomblin wrote: I'm told that fighter planes use the same technique to evade enemy radar guided missiles, flying an arc around the in-coming missile (although they use terminology like "putting your z-pole on the target" or something). I believe fancier radars can apply the speed gate to your speed even if it's parallel to the antenna, even if it's primary only, but I don't believe either ATC radar (which is, after all, designed to track cooperative targets) or older missiles like Sparrow have that capability. I wouldn't be surprised if AMRAAM and other newer missiles do. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
David Kazdan wrote:
The singularities in the function are called the "poles," after an analogue computing technique used in the 1930s for finding those points. I thought they were called poles because if you made a surface plot of z(x,y), it looked like a big tent, and the sigularities were like the spikes where the tent poles stuck through. I'm sure I'm dating myself, but I actually used analog computers in college. The EE lab had a bunch of them for control systems work. It was kind of fun programing systems of differential equations by plugging patch cords into a big plugboard and watching the answer get drawn on a scope. I wouldn't be surprised if the aerodynamics of most of the light planes we fly today were worked out on exactly such machines. Hmmmm. Just did some googling. The more I look at the picture, the more I'm convinced it was a TR-20 we must have been using. We also had a TR-48 in the lab, but most students didn't get to use that. http://dcoward.best.vwh.net/analog/eai.htm |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Disappearance of the primary target when it has no radial velocity relative
to the radar antenna is due to zero range rate and zero doppler. Radar signal processing usually eliminates returns with very low dopplers to reduce ground clutter. Radar data processing frequently eliminates targets that show zero range rate even though they may have a doppler signature. Flying an arc relative to an enemy radar is one technique sometimes employed to reduce detectability, but it has to fit in with other tactics. As for the "z-pole on the target", I have never heard that expression, but my best guess is that it refers to the z-axis of a 3-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system, which would be the vertical axis. Flying a circular pathway in the x-y plane relative to the origin of this coordinate system, and positioning the origin at the radar (z-axis vertical through the radar) would result in zero doppler of the main body return. Stan "David Kazdan" wrote in message ... There is a particular piece of digital signal processing used in radar (or at least, it was in use when I was an undergraduate electrical engineering student 25 years ago) called the "chirp Z-transform." The singularities in the function are called the "poles," after an analogue computing technique used in the 1930s for finding those points. It may be that pilots are taught to figure out the poles in the particular function in use and to fly a pattern that corresponded to the singularity, or perhaps their onboard computers do this. Just a guess. Perhaps there are some more current EEs reading who can fill in? David Paul Tomblin wrote: I'm told that fighter planes use the same technique to evade enemy radar guided missiles, flying an arc around the in-coming missile (although they use terminology like "putting your z-pole on the target" or something). I believe fancier radars can apply the speed gate to your speed even if it's parallel to the antenna, even if it's primary only, but I don't believe either ATC radar (which is, after all, designed to track cooperative targets) or older missiles like Sparrow have that capability. I wouldn't be surprised if AMRAAM and other newer missiles do. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
VOR/DME Approach Question | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 47 | August 29th 04 05:03 AM |
Canadian holding procedures | Derrick Early | Instrument Flight Rules | 24 | July 22nd 04 04:03 PM |
Procedure Turn | Bravo8500 | Instrument Flight Rules | 65 | April 22nd 04 03:27 AM |
Missed approach procedure... | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 39 | November 11th 03 03:46 PM |
Which of these approaches is loggable? | Paul Tomblin | Instrument Flight Rules | 26 | August 16th 03 05:22 PM |