RNAV Arrival

[Jeff Hartmann]

I had to look in my logbook, my Instrument checkride was 5-7-68. I had a VOR and an ADF...AND a 64 code transponder! The examiner told me that with that and radar contact, no more PTATEN! (Edit...Holy Crap that was 50 years ago!)

Good to have a CFII who is also a Barrister to interpret the regs! (is Barrister a bad word?)

[Tom Charlton]

. . . Now all we need is a couple of dual NDB stories . . .

Hi Bill,

Well . . . Reminds me of back in 1966 on my instrument pilot check ride. In an early iteration of an underpowered Beech Musketeer with only one ADF in the panel. Flying out of Reno, NV, examiner had me establish a hold, on an NDB approach. The hold fix was predicated on the use of a second NDB off to the side. Only one ADF so kept me crank’n the knobs on the ADF.

All intersections were to be treated as a compulsory reporting point. How’d that report go? Seems like it was: Time of passage and altitude over the just-crossed fix, estimated time over and name of next fix.

Regards,
Tom Charlton (Think’n I’ll stick to fly’n my Cub now . . . Day / VFR)

[Bill Bridges]

You made me think back, guess that t I grew up/started with whatever those old 3 ring 8-1/2 X 11a in plastic were, then came the Jepps at NOR and the DOD approach chart handbook ones with the MN ANG. All diffferent! As conerns the "barb", I assume that you're talking about that symbol that depicts/prescribes a course reversal (your choice, be it a 45 degree, teardrrop, whatever?) one?

best, randy

That's what we've been talking about. Also the use of the term "Procedural Track" (It maybe a military term) as opposed to "Procedure Track". Scott and I have had a good discussion on this. Now all we need is a couple of dual NDB stories where the Procedure Turn was actually a Procedure Track.

[Randy Sohn]

grew up on DoD plates and Procedural Tracks have a different meaning

You made me think back, guess that t I grew up/started with whatever those old 3 ring 8-1/2 X 11a in plastic were, then came the Jepps at NOR and the DOD approach chart handbook ones with the MN ANG. All diffferent! As conerns the "barb", I assume that you're talking about that symbol that depicts/prescribes a course reversal (your choice, be it a 45 degree, teardrrop, whatever?) one?

best, randy

[Bill Bridges]

Scott,

Thanks for going the extra mile on this subject.

It's greatly appreciated.

[Scott Dyer HPN/NY]

That is a good example. When looking for a "barb" and I get an arrow(that looks like a procedure track) it causes me to pause and think "What does Jepp want me to do?" I always knew that if I flew the Procedure Turn as a Procedure Track I would be OK.

I did lots of NDB approaches in the military and a lot of them were dual NDBs. I bet Randy has lots of good NDB approach stores.

One thing I always felt was if push came to shove and had to go to the ground because of low visibility that I would have no problem doing it with a dual NDB approach with the second NDB located at the runway. As Randy would say "You've got to have an OUT in your back pocket."

Bill -- I think I've discovered where I wasn't connecting with what you are saying about "procedure track". Take a look at the two plates posted here, one FAA and one Jepp, same procedure.

The FAA chart has the PT barb. The Jepp has a sample of a possible ground track depicted. I can see where, coming from a world where the thick black lines mean "ya gotta fly here", that the Jepp chart would suggest that only the PT as depicted on that chart is permissible. And, you're not wrong to do it that way. But you don't have to.

AIM section 5-4-9(a)(1) covers the point about how to make a procedure turn:

1. On U.S. Government charts, a barbed arrow indicates the maneuvering side of the outbound course on which the procedure turn is made. Headings are provided for course reversal using the 45 degree type procedure turn. However, the point at which the turn may be commenced and the type and rate of turn is left to the discretion of the pilot (limited by the charted remain within xx NM distance). Some of the options are the 45 degree procedure turn, the racetrack pattern, the teardrop procedure turn, or the 80 degree 260 degree course reversal. Racetrack entries should be conducted on the maneuvering side where the majority of protected airspace resides. If an entry places the pilot on the non−maneuvering side of the PT, correction to intercept the outbound course ensures remaining within protected airspace. Some procedure turns are specified by procedural track. These turns must be flown exactly as depicted.

And, to make matters more confusing, the Jepp chart guide doesn't contain any language that the procedure turn can only be flown as charted (as would be the case with a teardrop course reversal)...it's just something you have to know, that the Jepp charts are still interpreted in this regard in light of the 5-4-9(a)(1) language quoted above.

Going back to your original question, relating to HILPTs, AIM section 5-4-9(a)(5) provides that while generally the track must be flown as depicted, the course reversal is considered complete after the aircraft executes the appropriate entry and is established on the inbound course (so you really don't have to fly the procedure track depicted). In this regard, there's no material difference between FAA and Jepp depictions of HILPTs:

5. A holding pattern in lieu of procedure turn may be specified for course reversal in some procedures. In such cases, the holding pattern is established over an intermediate fix or a final approach fix. The holding pattern distance or time specified in the profile view must be observed. For a hold−in−lieu−of−PT, the holding pattern direction must be flown as depicted and the specified leg length/timing must not be exceeded. Maximum holding airspeed limitations as set forth for all holding patterns apply. The holding pattern maneuver is completed when the aircraft is established on the inbound course after executing the appropriate entry. If cleared for the approach prior to returning to the holding fix, and the aircraft is at the prescribed altitude, additional circuits of the holding pattern are not necessary nor expected by ATC. If pilots elect to make additional circuits to lose excessive altitude or to become better established on course, it is their responsibility to so advise ATC upon receipt of their approach clearance.

I think I've made progress in understanding your point. ;-)

[Randy Sohn]

As Randy would say "You've got to have an OUT in your back pocket."

I surely always wish that it was me who that quote must be attributed to, "howsumevah" it was the the man that operated that particular USAF T-6 primary flight training school at Moultrie, GA. Beverly ("Bevo") Howard. He would put on an airshow there at Spence for each graduating cadet classs and I can still recall the fistfights we sometimes engaged in to be the honored cadets (2) to hold the upright cane fishpoles for his inverted ribbon cut as a finale of the show with his Buecker Jungmiester. He kept that red/white bi-plane down near the central fire station/water tower, a small hangar. The occasion that I heard him say that was once when I got up my nerve to say something to Mr. Howard about his outstanding aeronautical abiliites when he attended our class (55-N) graduation ceremonies there at Spence AB. He'd said - "Mr. Sohn, my advice is to always keep an out in your hip pocket".

best, randy

[Bill Bridges]

Andy -- Ah, the old tear drop course reversal. Yes, I can see that may be what Bill is thinking about. I don't have Jepps for that far west but I'll bet the Jepp plate show the same thing.

That is a good example. When looking for a "barb" and I get an arrow(that looks like a procedure track) it causes me to pause and think "What does Jepp want me to do?" I always knew that if I flew the Procedure Turn as a Procedure Track I would be OK.

I did lots of NDB approaches in the military and a lot of them were dual NDBs. I bet Randy has lots of good NDB approach stores.

One thing I always felt was if push came to shove and had to go to the ground because of low visibility that I would have no problem doing it with a dual NDB approach with the second NDB located at the runway. As Randy would say "You've got to have an OUT in your back pocket."

[Ray Tackett]

A fouled sensor could probably be detected 99.99% of the time and problem averted.

A sensor can likely report an error status instead of data, or give a very wrong reading. As a 50 year software engineer, I doubt very much that automtive software would detect or respond appropriately to a sensor error. Defensive programming (appropriate response to bad or no input data), edge case testing, and error response testing are nearly nonexistent.

Driving a car in real traffic under real conditions is so complex that I'm not sure adequate software testing is possible. Modules can certainly be tested, but testing the integrated whole is a hard problem.

[Scott Dyer HPN/NY]

How about the KLNK ILS18 ?

Andy -- Ah, the old tear drop course reversal. Yes, I can see that may be what Bill is thinking about. I don't have Jepps for that far west but I'll bet the Jepp plate show the same thing.

[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

[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 ?

[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?

[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?

[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