KAUG Notam Question

"Jose" wrote:

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?

My buddy Brent got a big "Hawk XP" decal on the fin of his 160 HP Skyhawk
when he had it painted.

Claims it gives him 100 FPM better ROC.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 21:11:14 GMT, Jose wrote:

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?

Every little bit helps!


Wow! Can I get more horsepower and better fuel economy that way too?


I think it depends on how you do it g

By the way, as of last night, that errant KAUG WAAS Notam is no longer in
the system!!
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Mar 7, 4:06 pm, Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
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!!

No bother at all, Ron. When a thread comes along that actually applies
to what I do for work, I want to find out what's going on and see
about resolving the issue(s) if I can.

All of this stuff doesn't mean anything if the end user can't benefit
from it. Y'all could just stay home, simulate flight, and order the
$100 burger for delivery, right?

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.

I'll see what I can find out regarding edge-of-coverage issues. It
comes down to where the "line is drawn", so to speak, but you bring up
a good point regarding KAUG being singled out. Was it the only one? I
haven't had time to look up if there were other locations at the edge-
of-coverage which also had vertical approaches.

An "unrel" Notam would have been proper, even then.

Perhaps. My best guess here is that a) the availability was so poor,
they felt it better to be safe and disable it entirely and b) to avoid
potential confusion, they decided not to use the UNREL contraction for
this purpose.

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.

Are you based up in ME or were you just flying there?

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

Regards,
Jon

On 8 Mar 2007 06:43:09 -0800, "Jon" wrote:

On Mar 7, 4:06 pm, Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
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!!

No bother at all, Ron. When a thread comes along that actually applies
to what I do for work, I want to find out what's going on and see
about resolving the issue(s) if I can.

Well, it seems it worked. Thanks.



All of this stuff doesn't mean anything if the end user can't benefit
from it. Y'all could just stay home, simulate flight, and order the
$100 burger for delivery, right?

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.

I'll see what I can find out regarding edge-of-coverage issues. It
comes down to where the "line is drawn", so to speak, but you bring up
a good point regarding KAUG being singled out. Was it the only one? I
haven't had time to look up if there were other locations at the edge-
of-coverage which also had vertical approaches.

KAUG was the only one that I recall that had the OTS Notam. And yes, there
are other approaches that have vertical guidance that are "further out"
than KAUG. KPQI comes to mind with an LPV approach. KPSM also has LPV
approaches, but I don't know if it is "further out". And, of course, there
are several, including KEPM, with LNAV approaches with "advisory vertical
guidance".




An "unrel" Notam would have been proper, even then.

Perhaps. My best guess here is that a) the availability was so poor,
they felt it better to be safe and disable it entirely and b) to avoid
potential confusion, they decided not to use the UNREL contraction for
this purpose.

I don't know -- but there were other airports further out of coverage which
did not get the OTS NOTAM, to the best of my recollection. In any event, I
don't believe OTS was ever defined for a WAAS Notam.


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.

Are you based up in ME or were you just flying there?

Primary base is KEPM -- Eastport, ME. I do a lot of flying between KASH
and KEPM as we have a second home in NH near some of our kids.


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

On Mar 3, 11:22 am, Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
KAUG AUGUSTA STATE

04/001 - WAAS LPV WAAS LNAV/VNAV OTS WIE UNTIL UFN

This Notam has been posted, well, since April.


Sorry I haven't replied sooner but the NOTAM was canceled on the 7th.

Just a few clarifications on WAAS notams, which are actually explained
in the chapter 1 section 1 of the AIM. WAAS unavailable NOTAMs
indicate loss or malfunction of the WAAS system. In flight, Air
Traffic Control will advise pilots requesting a GPS or RNAV (GPS)
approach of WAAS unavailable NOTAMs if not contained in the ATIS
broadcast.

WAAS unreliable NOTAMs indicate an expected level of service, e.g.,
LNAV/VNAV or LPV may not be available. In flight, Air Traffic Control
will not advise pilots of WAAS unreliable NOTAMs, and they are
generally not offered by FSS unless requested.

When the approach chart is annotated with the inverse W (not inverted
W, Jon! That's an 'M' ha!), site-specific WAAS unreliable NOTAMs or
Air Traffic advisories are not provided for outages in WAAS LNAV/VNAV
and LPV vertical guidance.

Safe flights!

Brad

On 9 Mar 2007 05:54:31 -0800, "Brad" wrote:

On Mar 3, 11:22 am, Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
KAUG AUGUSTA STATE

04/001 - WAAS LPV WAAS LNAV/VNAV OTS WIE UNTIL UFN

This Notam has been posted, well, since April.


Sorry I haven't replied sooner but the NOTAM was canceled on the 7th.

Just a few clarifications on WAAS notams, which are actually explained
in the chapter 1 section 1 of the AIM. WAAS unavailable NOTAMs
indicate loss or malfunction of the WAAS system. In flight, Air
Traffic Control will advise pilots requesting a GPS or RNAV (GPS)
approach of WAAS unavailable NOTAMs if not contained in the ATIS
broadcast.

WAAS unreliable NOTAMs indicate an expected level of service, e.g.,
LNAV/VNAV or LPV may not be available. In flight, Air Traffic Control
will not advise pilots of WAAS unreliable NOTAMs, and they are
generally not offered by FSS unless requested.

When the approach chart is annotated with the inverse W (not inverted
W, Jon! That's an 'M' ha!), site-specific WAAS unreliable NOTAMs or
Air Traffic advisories are not provided for outages in WAAS LNAV/VNAV
and LPV vertical guidance.

Safe flights!

Brad

Yes, thanks. I noticed the cancellation. And the information you post
from the AIM is the same as was posted in guidance back in 2003. As you
note by omission, OTS is not described with regard to a WAAS NOTAM.

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

On Mar 8, 5:51 pm, Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
On 8 Mar 2007 06:43:09 -0800, "Jon" wrote:



On Mar 7, 4:06 pm, Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
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!!

No bother at all, Ron. When a thread comes along that actually applies
to what I do for work, I want to find out what's going on and see
about resolving the issue(s) if I can.

Well, it seems it worked. Thanks.



All of this stuff doesn't mean anything if the end user can't benefit
from it. Y'all could just stay home, simulate flight, and order the
$100 burger for delivery, right?

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.

I'll see what I can find out regarding edge-of-coverage issues. It
comes down to where the "line is drawn", so to speak, but you bring up
a good point regarding KAUG being singled out. Was it the only one? I
haven't had time to look up if there were other locations at the edge-
of-coverage which also had vertical approaches.

KAUG was the only one that I recall that had the OTS Notam. And yes, there
are other approaches that have vertical guidance that are "further out"
than KAUG. KPQI comes to mind with an LPV approach. KPSM also has LPV
approaches, but I don't know if it is "further out". And, of course, there
are several, including KEPM, with LNAV approaches with "advisory vertical
guidance".

I spoke with someone this morning, and it turns out there actually
were 5 locations which had been NOTAMed out. It's now looking like the
cancellation for KAUG should have been handled the same as the others,
but wasn't.

An "unrel" Notam would have been proper, even then.

Perhaps. My best guess here is that a) the availability was so poor,
they felt it better to be safe and disable it entirely and b) to avoid
potential confusion, they decided not to use the UNREL contraction for
this purpose.

I don't know -- but there were other airports further out of coverage which
did not get the OTS NOTAM, to the best of my recollection.

Since they were apparently canceled much sooner, they may have not
been in the system all that long. Unless you were checking often
(presumably last year as well), you might have not ever seen them.

When I get some time, I can try to get access to the archives to find
out details on the lifetime of the other NOTAMs. Depending upon how
long ago they were canceled, it may not be trivial (USNS only journals
for a few months).

In any event, I don't believe OTS was ever defined for a WAAS Notam.

I concur and will try to raise it as a discussion point.

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.

Are you based up in ME or were you just flying there?

Primary base is KEPM -- Eastport, ME. I do a lot of flying between KASH
and KEPM as we have a second home in NH near some of our kids.

Nice. I've done a bit of camping/hiking in NH (mostly White Mountain
area, but get up to Fryeburg on the ME border once). I imagine it's
quite scenic from the air as well, esp. around peak color time in the
fall.

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

Regards,
Jon

On 19 Mar 2007 06:43:29 -0700, "Jon" wrote:

Nice. I've done a bit of camping/hiking in NH (mostly White Mountain
area, but get up to Fryeburg on the ME border once). I imagine it's
quite scenic from the air as well, esp. around peak color time in the
fall.

We once landed at Fryeburg on a peak color day. It was practically a
religious experience.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)