RNAV Arrival

[Ralph Jones]

I was scribbling too

Looks like a cave painting of a bull...;-)

[John O'Shaughnessy [FCM]]

Looks like a cave painting of a bull...;-)

Wow. Now that you mention it...

[Jeff Hartmann]

Scott..

Bill -- If you are flying the segment from WAGNR to ORTMN, and there is no NOPT on the chart, then you must fly the HILPT.

Am I reading this wrong. As I see it, if you are cleared to WAGNR, cleared for the approach, there is only a smart turn to final approaching ORTMN. Unless you meant if approaching from anywhere outside of the NOPT semicircle, but then you would not be on the segment, you would go direct ORTMN and HILPT.

[Tom Charlton]

I was out doing a little skywriting this afternoon.

Hi Scott,

Here’s my kind’a skywrite’n!
Back on 4/26/2018 south of Miami with one of the airplanes I use to fly.
Cessna TU206 @4,000' with a LiDAR sensor. 20:07 EDT~23:21 EDT
One way to drive ATC nuts. <grin>

Regards,
Tom Charlton

[Jeff Hartmann]

and there is no NOPT

OK...reread, you threw in a hypothetical, not this actual situation. (Roseanne Rosannadanna, Never mind))

[Scott Dyer HPN/NY]

I was scribbling too: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/...938Z/KFCM/KFCM

Much the same!

[Scott Dyer HPN/NY]

Procedural Track a/k/a Procedure Track. When I see a heavy, dark line with an arrow head that would indicate to me that I must fly that course. In the HILT example above I would not have performed a tear drop entry but would have flown the outbound course of 144.

When I see what I would consider a Procedure Turn symbol I almost always use a tear drop because it works best with my simple mind. When I see a Jepp (and I may be misreading the IAP) the Procedure Turn looks like a Procedure Track to me and I must fly the course as published.

Bill - You could do a direct entry, and turn to 144 outbound when direct ORTMN from WAGNR, that's ok too. And in civil flying, you can do just about any old course reversal (on the designated side of the course) that you want to do when a regular procedure turn is depicted.

I'm not sure what you're getting at about a difference between FAA/DoD plates and Jepp in depicting HILPTs or PTs....today, anyway, they are pretty much the same and all derived from the underlying regulatory approach description. The only thing about HILPTs in civil flying is that you must "enter the hold" when the HILPt is required...but entering the hold merely means that you cross the holding fix on the entry, you needn't do a circuit. Thus, for the HILPT that is illustrated, if you decided to do a teardrop entry on reaching ORTMN from WAGNR, you would turn to a heading of (about, no wind) 100, fly that for a minute (maybe less depending if there is a tailwind), and then turn right to intercept the inbound final approach course outside of ORTMN. HILPT complete, without having to fly a 144 degree course at all.

[Scott Dyer HPN/NY]

Hi Scott,

Here’s my kind’a skywrite’n!
Back on 4/26/2018 south of Miami with one of the airplanes I use to fly.
Cessna TU206 @4,000' with a LiDAR sensor. 20:07 EDT~23:21 EDT
One way to drive ATC nuts. <grin>

Regards,
Tom Charlton

I will not fly in elongated circles; I will not fly in elongated circles; I will not fly in elongated circles.....

[Jeff Hartmann]

If you (as I) thought this was only a speed trap technology...

https://gisgeography.com/lidar-light-detection-and-ranging/

[Bill Bridges]

I'm not sure what you're getting at about a difference between FAA/DoD plates and Jepp in depicting HILPTs or PTs....today,

One of the differences to me is DoD uses a "barb" to indicate a procedure turn while Jepp uses a heavy arrow similar to a "procedure track" for a procedure turn. Some of the places I flew into in the military the course reversal on an approach was actually a procedural track.

I only started using Jepp charts a couple of years ago when by chart service switched to them and I like them. I'd only been using DoD/FAA charts for 48 years. I know I'm old. ROFL

I really do enjoy these conversations about instrument flying. They remind me of the best job I ever had, an Instrument IP. The flying didn't get any better for me than flying "H" models 20 hours a week with an instrument student.

Thanks for taking time out of your busy schedule to visit with me about this issue.

[Tom Charlton]

If you (as I) thought this was only a speed trap technology...
https://gisgeography.com/lidar-light...n-and-ranging/

Hi Jeff,
Yup. I are intimately familiar with LiDAR. I love the technology. It’s what I done did. Any questions about LiDAR . . . I’m your guy. <g>

Regards,
Tom Charlton

[Ray Tackett]

Any questions about LiDAR . . . I’m your guy.

I have a big one with regard to self-driving car technology. The testing seems to be happening in the sunniest, driest places. Around here, headlights and windshields pick up salt spray, snow, slush, and heavy rainfall. What happens when LIDAR gets a snootful of very salty water splashed up by adjacent traffic or gets packed with a wad of slush?

Many a time, I have driven roads whose outlines had been obiterated by snowfall. I followed the line of utility poles, etc. and my knowledge of where the road had to be relative to the remaining sight picture.

Dunno what sensors Tesla uses, but one of the reasons it has sped up and crashed into stationary things is the poor angular resolution of its sensors. Above 40 MPH on a highway, stationary objects are ignored. Otherwise, the thing would autobrake for overhead signs, overpass support pillars, etc. Is that a LIDAR issue?

[Scott Dyer HPN/NY]

One of the differences to me is DoD uses a "barb" to indicate a procedure turn while Jepp uses a heavy arrow similar to a "procedure track" for a procedure turn. Some of the places I flew into in the military the course reversal on an approach was actually a procedural track.

I only started using Jepp charts a couple of years ago when by chart service switched to them and I like them. I'd only been using DoD/FAA charts for 48 years. I know I'm old. ROFL

I really do enjoy these conversations about instrument flying. They remind me of the best job I ever had, an Instrument IP. The flying didn't get any better for me than flying "H" models 20 hours a week with an instrument student.

Thanks for taking time out of your busy schedule to visit with me about this issue.

I'm enjoying it (and learning) too, Bill. Can you post a picture of a DoD-style procedure track that must be flown exactly as charted for a course reversal?

[Andy Alson]

I'm enjoying it (and learning) too, Bill. Can you post a picture of a DoD-style procedure track that must be flown exactly as charted for a course reversal?

How about the KLNK ILS18 ?

[Tom Charlton]

I have a big one with regard to self-driving car technology.

Hi Ray,
Me too!

The testing seems to be happening in the sunniest, driest places. Around here, headlights and windshields pick up salt spray, snow, slush, and heavy rainfall. What happens when LIDAR gets a snootful of very salty water splashed up by adjacent traffic or gets packed with a wad of slush?

Yup. Real world, everyday conditions! With some recent crashes it’s occurred to me . . . could be a fouled sensor.
A fouled sensor could probably be detected 99.99% of the time and problem averted. But there’s that other 0.01% . . . that’s a lot’a crashes. <ng>

Many a time, I have driven roads whose outlines had been obiterated by snowfall. I followed the line of utility poles, etc. and my knowledge of where the road had to be relative to the remaining sight picture.

Some of these systems may utilize predefined digital maps of basic road alignment. [/speculation]

Dunno what sensors Tesla uses,

Seems like I’ve read that Tesla’s Driver Assist has elected to –not- utilize Lidar. Also not intended for streets and back roads, Interstate only [/speculation]

but one of the reasons it has sped up and crashed into stationary things is the poor angular resolution of its sensors. Above 40 MPH on a highway, stationary objects are ignored. Otherwise, the thing would autobrake for overhead signs, overpass support pillars, etc. Is that a LIDAR issue?

This type of LiDAR, amazingly, generates a near real-time point-cloud depiction of [almost] everything in the area ahead. The point density would necessarily be sparse in order to process the data quickly enough.

Many facets to this evolving technology.
* Driver assist v fully autonomous.
* Many kinds of sensors being experimented with singularly and in unison: ie: Sonic, Radar, LiDAR, GPS, Accelerometers, Gyros, Other feedback from the vehicle, +?
* AI to digest all the data and make continuous, real-time, life dependent decisions with it.

Regards,
Tom Charlton