Could this be you ? READ & LISTEN & LEARN

[tkibob]

Good reading:

http://twinandturbine.com/article/confirmation-bias/

"If information or an observation does not match our mindset, we tend to discount, or even completely ignore, the contrary evidence."

Your confirmation bias cup has:  Runneth Over !   

It would take less than a moron to rip your demonstrated expertise.....to shreds

Happy Holidays !   

[InterpreDemon]

What a bunch of silliness... to compare and deem equivalent the consequences of failure to properly determine visual confirmation of the airport and runway environment during a minimum approach, with the importance of being precisely on-course while climbing out on departure via SID goes beyond absurd. It doesn't even allow for poor execution, which yields dramatically different consequences between the two phases of flight. Hell, I have flown a correctly understood SID incorrectly due to a dumb mistake or oversight more than once, and all that ever happened was I got a "November One Two Three Jackass, where do you think you're going?" to set me back where I belonged. That's much different from calling the Main Street strip-mall lights in sight when you break out of the soup.

I am really beginning to wonder if this guy has ever actually flown a real aircraft through real atmosphere and outside the confines an operating system, his only real CAT-3 approach flown having been to plug a telephone cable straight into a wall jack with his eyes shut.

[liSuVeEOPk5Bkv7VKTQu]

Reply for StuSEL:

  "The description provided by the controller is sufficient to execute the SID. There is no requirement for DME, nor for DME to be described, when involving an intersection (ie. an intersection of two different VOR radials)."

Loss of RAIM makes navigating with GPS useless.  I beg your pardon, you already know that.

I'm in the GPS engineering business. What does this statement even mean, and what does it have to do with obtaining a distance measurement?

[tkibob]

Reply for StuSEL:

  "The description provided by the controller is sufficient to execute the SID. There is no requirement for DME, nor for DME to be described, when involving an intersection (ie. an intersection of two different VOR radials)."

Loss of RAIM makes navigating with GPS useless.  I beg your pardon, you already know that.

I'm in the GPS engineering business. What does this statement even mean, and what does it have to do with obtaining a distance measurement?

Keep reading from my reply.....

"SOLDO would have to be identified by:

TTT R-084 36 DME  (36 DME was never mentioned by the controller)

UIM R-261 49 DME  (49 DME was never mentioned by the controller)

Which "two different VOR radials" do you have in mind in this scenario ?

TTT R-084 & UIM R-261 are just 3° apart at the intersection.  Is that acceptable to you ?

BYP R-181 was never mentioned by the controller.  Why do you suppose the BYP R-181 is detailed on the SID ?

The BONHAM VOR Name, 3-letter identifier, Morse Code identifier and Frequency were all never mentioned by this controller.  Does the absence of those details make for a "sufficient" "description provided by this controller" ?  Could this controller's dictation and omissions, unintentionally, create a problem for the next controller ?  If you were flying in the vicinity of that airplane, would a loss of separation between the two of you cause you any concern ?"

http://static.garmin.com/pumac/G1000:KingAirC90_C90A_GTPilotsGuide_0636.02_.pdf

From pages 555 & 556:

"What is RAIM and how does it affect approach operations?
RAIM is an acronym for Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring. RAIM is a GPS receiver function that performs the following functions:
•   Monitors and verifies integrity and geometry of tracked GPS satellites
•   Notifies the pilot when satellite conditions do not provide the necessary coverage to support a certain phase of flight
•   Predicts satellite coverage of a destination area to determine whether the number of available satellites is sufficient to satisfy requirements

NOTE: If RAIM is not predicted to be available for the final approach course, the approach does not become active, as indicated by the “RAIM not available from FAF to MAP” message and the LOI annunciation flagging on the HSI.

For RAIM to work correctly, the GPS receiver must track at least five satellites. A minimum of six satellites is required to allow RAIM to eliminate a single corrupt satellite from the navigation solution.

RAIM ensures that satellite geometry allows for a navigation solution calculation within a specified protection limit (2.0 nm for oceanic and en route, 1.0 nm for terminal, and 0.3 nm for non-precision approaches). The G1000 System monitors RAIM and issues an alert message when RAIM is not available (see Appendix A).  Without RAIM, GPS position accuracy cannot be monitored. If RAIM is not available when crossing the FAF, the pilot must fly the missed approach procedure."

If the GPS can't accurately determine its position without RAIM; Any data provided is NOT usable.

The SID is attached in .pdf

[JetScan1]

liSuVeEOPk5Bkv7VKTQu,

I'll give you a run down on this thread. The pilot in this example is navigating by a stand alone GPS system. tkibob thinks that because RAIM "could" drop below the required value he would not be able to use if for navigation, in this case to identify the departure waypoint SOLDO. Therefore he (tkibob) thinks that the pilot would need to have the DME distance measuring equipment avaialble as a backup to identify the waypoint. He (tkibob) thinks the pilot does not have a copy of the SID (unsubstantiated nonsense), and because the controller never gave him the DME information, he would not be able to identify the waypoint SOLDO "when" the GPS failed.

What tkibob does NOT UNDERSTAND is the meaning of CERTIFIED STAND ALONE NAVIGATION SYSTEM and that RAIM prediction is determined BEFORE departure by NOTAM. There is NO REQUIRMENT for the pilot to even have a VOR/DME reciever on this flight, therefore making tkibobs stupid argument to begin with even more ridiculous.

It's a common theme with this guy (tkibob), a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and yet he still has the audacity to call the pilot incompetent.   

[liSuVeEOPk5Bkv7VKTQu]

liSuVeEOPk5Bkv7VKTQu,

I'll give you a run down on this thread. The pilot in this example is navigating by a stand alone GPS system. tkibob thinks that because RAIM "could" drop below the required value he would not be able to use if for navigation, in this case to identify the departure waypoint SOLDO. Therefore he (tkibob) thinks that the pilot would need to have the DME distance measuring equipment avaialble as a backup to identify the waypoint. He (tkibob) thinks the pilot does not have a copy of the SID (unsubstantiated nonsense), and because the controller never gave him the DME information, he would not be able to identify the waypoint SOLDO "when" the GPS failed.

What tkibob does NOT UNDERSTAND is the meaning of CERTIFIED STAND ALONE NAVIGATION SYSTEM and that RAIM prediction is determined BEFORE departure by NOTAM. There is NO REQUIRMENT for the pilot to even have a VOR/DME reciever on this flight, therefore making tkibobs stupid argument to begin with even more ridiculous.

It's a common theme with this guy (tkibob), a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and yet he still has the audacity to call the pilot incompetent.  

Thanks for the summary. I remember learning during flight training that you could write procedure details on a soiled napkin and it is still legal.


Addressed to everyone in general: If the GPS system were WAAS-equipped, for example, it does not rely on traditional receiver-based fault-detection and exclusion (FDE) algorithms at all. Integrity monitoring is performed by the WAAS stations and transmitted in the augmentation signal. There shouldn't be any issue unless there are WAAS availability issues, which generally only occur on the edges of the coverage area, where outages generally aren't too frequent anyway. The airport in question is in Texas, which is well within it. The probability of a complete loss of both standard and augmented GPS usability is very minuscule, so to argue about hypothetical losses seems like sophistry to me. This fact seems to be the reason why such units are approved for standalone navigation.

[InterpreDemon]

... Not to mention that we are talking about a <DEPARTURE> here and not an >>>>approach<<<<, and from most places in Texas you could depart in the blind with nothing more than a wet compass, wristwatch and altimeter and never worry about hitting anything. After all, it's not hitting things that Bob's beloved rules and regulations are all about, the prime directive, not simply following rules to the letter for the sake of some salivating OCD observer or bureaucrat who gets a woodie==> or earns a living (respectively) enforcing them, which is why the PIC emergency authority exemption exists in the first place !!![&^$%#]!!!.

But that's the difference between real pilots and pretend expert flight instructor, ATC controller, aircraft engineer, rocket scientist NASA test pilots like Bob... the former along with their passengers or cargo have already safely arrived at their destinations without hitting anything along the way, whereas Bob remains firmly planted on the ground, trolling the internet telling them all what he imagines they have done wrong or dancing on the graves of those who, unlike him, dared to take to the skies and died doing what they loved to do.

[StuSEL]

^ Thank you.

[KBOITDog]

Wow this got out of hand fast...

[tkibob]

KBOITDog:

It's to be expected.   

[w0x0f]

It's to be expected.   

And your perceptible intent

[InterpreDemon]

It appears Bob does not seem to be posting anymore.

PM me if you want a link to one possible explanation