airtraffic

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
Aviation News (General) / Re: Person in a jet pack sighted... on final at LAX?!
« Last post by Mazso on September 17, 2020, 11:06:14 AM »
This is really crazy, why would smb do it at LAX? This is really dangerous. I know that there is a guy with a jet pack who is flying not far from my Costa Blanca property https://tranio.com/spain/costa_blanca/ every Saturday but I don't know him personally. I never tried flying like this and not sure that I would ever try.
12
ARTCC/FIR/TRACON Maps / Re: Victor airways in USA
« Last post by dfs346 on September 16, 2020, 12:09:05 AM »
Further to a FOIA request to the FAA, I  received the answer, as follows:
 "The final rule was published on July 7, 1964.  Section 71.5 established the width of 4 miles either side of centerline.  Section 71.19 adopts nautical miles as the measurement.  Both sections are on page 8472 of the rule"
13
Pilot/Controller Forum / Re: Non-standard instrument departures
« Last post by tyketto on September 15, 2020, 08:17:21 PM »
Hello everybody,

I'm newly registered to the site and hoping for a bit of guidance from the professionals!

I spend a lot of my time training pilots in the sim. Part of that job involves playing the role of ATC but, like many of my simulator colleagues, I have no formal training in this regard. Nevertheless, we try our best to be as accurate and correct as we can.

One of our problems is giving a technically correct IFR departure clearance. The company doesn't hold an RNAV approval. This rules out every SID available at the airports we train from (the company operates VFR, but all pilots maintain IFR currency in the simulator).

So, we regularly need to give an IFR clearance without using a SID. One example I've found is:

Scandinavian 509, CLEARED to Stockholm Arlanda, CLIMB altitude 4000 feet, SQUAWK 3737, AFTER DEPARTURE maintain runway track, when passing 3000ft turn left direct Nicky VOR.

While this does seem to tick the boxes of what we need to achieve, it doesn't follow the format that many of our pilots are expecting (CRAFT, FAA style). They seem to expect something more along the lines of another example I've found:

Cleared to XXX Airport via fly heading 220, radar vectors SLI, direct, climb and maintain 3000', departure frequency 124.5, squawk 6543

So, with 2 very different formats which one is more common/more correct? It would be in an EASA context, if that makes any difference. And if both are incorrect, what would be a correct generic example?

Many thanks in advance for any pointers! :-)

Hey there.

This would depend on the country or region you are wanting to concentrate on for the training you are giving your pilots. Here in the US, most airports have (or should have) a non-RNAV equivalent departure that non-RNAV equipped aircraft can use. A good example I can think of right off the top of my head is Las Vegas (KLAS) I'll list the RNAV departure in red, and the non-RNAV departure equivalent in green, and links to those charts so you can see the difference:

STAAV8 (RNAV)   LAS5
TRALR9 (RNAV)  LAS5
COWBY8 (RNAV) HOOVR6
PRFUM4 (RNAV) HOOVR6
BOACH8 (RNAV) MCCRN5
SHEAD1 (RNAV) MCCRN5

If you look at those charts there, especially at the lateral segments of the charts, you'll see that they are nearly equivalent, and leading to the same transitions outside of KLAS airspace. So check for those charts at the airport in question (again, I can only reference what I know, which is in the US).

If there are no non-RNAV applicable procedures, then you could use, if available and applicable, is the ODP (Obstacle Departure procedure) for the airport in question. Those should be available in the Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure procedures chart for the airport in question, located here.

Using that, and looking at the formats you have above (the former looks to be close to ICAO standard, while the latter is CRAFT/FAA standard), both look to be correct. In fact, the latter one is given all the time for those who are not RNAV-equipped and departing from Long Beach (KLGB). In fact, here is what the ODP for runways 26L and 26R at KLGB says:

Quote
Rwys 26L, 26R, climb on heading 256° to 800, then climbing left turn on heading 200 and LAX VORTAC R-145 to PADDR INT.

So for your clearance, you could give:

Cleared to the Yuma Airport. On departure turn left heading 200, radar vectors SLI, direct. maintain 5000. departure frequency 124.5, squawk 7311.

The format you've used matches up to clearances given nearly every day that don't use a SID. So you're fairly good to go there. But be sure to have a look at the ODP and minimums if the airport in question doesn't have any non-RNAV charts available.

BL.
14
Pilot/Controller Forum / Re: Cross-coupling options
« Last post by Jonathank on September 15, 2020, 04:22:18 PM »
What I have noticed is certain IFR controllers, never enable the cross-coupling, regardless of traffic or workload. Only a few have enabled it, due to pilot feedback and "stepping over" each other, without knowing a pilot is transmitting on another frequency. I have heard this while listening to various ATC feeds on LIVE ATC. It's difficult when you are trying to follow a certain flight and cannot hear the pilot talkback.
15
Pilot/Controller Forum / Non-standard instrument departures
« Last post by simslave on September 15, 2020, 04:17:33 PM »
Hello everybody,

I'm newly registered to the site and hoping for a bit of guidance from the professionals!

I spend a lot of my time training pilots in the sim. Part of that job involves playing the role of ATC but, like many of my simulator colleagues, I have no formal training in this regard. Nevertheless, we try our best to be as accurate and correct as we can.

One of our problems is giving a technically correct IFR departure clearance. The company doesn't hold an RNAV approval. This rules out every SID available at the airports we train from (the company operates VFR, but all pilots maintain IFR currency in the simulator).

So, we regularly need to give an IFR clearance without using a SID. One example I've found is:

Scandinavian 509, CLEARED to Stockholm Arlanda, CLIMB altitude 4000 feet, SQUAWK 3737, AFTER DEPARTURE maintain runway track, when passing 3000ft turn left direct Nicky VOR.

While this does seem to tick the boxes of what we need to achieve, it doesn't follow the format that many of our pilots are expecting (CRAFT, FAA style). They seem to expect something more along the lines of another example I've found:

Cleared to XXX Airport via fly heading 220, radar vectors SLI, direct, climb and maintain 3000', departure frequency 124.5, squawk 6543

So, with 2 very different formats which one is more common/more correct? It would be in an EASA context, if that makes any difference. And if both are incorrect, what would be a correct generic example?

Many thanks in advance for any pointers! :-)
16
Aviation Audio Clips / Re: audio from KVNY Engine failure on departure on 9/11/2020
« Last post by KB4TEZ on September 15, 2020, 09:50:25 AM »
attached.  RIP
17
Aviation Audio Clips / Re: audio from KVNY Engine failure on departure on 9/11/2020
« Last post by Squawk 7700 on September 14, 2020, 09:06:43 PM »
Here is a link to ONSCENE.TV

18
Aviation Audio Clips / audio from KVNY Engine failure on departure on 9/11/2020
« Last post by Chananya Freedman on September 14, 2020, 09:02:39 PM »
anyone have any audio from the plane crush on departure from KVNY on 9/11/2020 around 3pm PDT? the only info i have is a single engine plane on departure from KVNY had an engine stall and crashed into a parking lot. 2 people aboard the plane perished. the plane caught fire. only damaged 3 vehicles and the damage was only minor. anyone with any audio should send their clips to vasaviation1@gmail.com

RIP to the people on board
19
I didn't recall hearing anything about this

https://realradio921.iheart.com/content/2020-09-08-flames-light-up-pitch-black-cabin-as-plane-makes-emergency-landing/?Sc=editorial&Pname=local_social&Keyid=socialflow&fbclid=IwAR1bHJ4v4KJbCr6qk1V4Ak1uxPy-Y_ydGE0F4I1vtDE2KPQ7t3aMt3d3zBA

A charted military flight out of Hickam Air Force Base in Honolulu, Hawaii, was forced to turn around and make an emergency landing shortly after take-off due to an engine failure. Passengers in the cabin had just settled in for the nearly eight-hour overnight flight to Guam when there was a muffled explosion, and a fireball lit up the pitch-black cabin. One of the passengers started recording the engine as it shot out flames that lit up the night sky.

Residents said they could hear the explosion from the ground.

"It was quite loud. I'm pretty sure I heard my neighbors down below talking about it. You can hear a lot of people, it was pretty intense for a while there," Kevin Tynan told KHON.

Residents were concerned that the plane might explode over the city.

"It was actually scary to watch because you're scared. Is this plane going to explode? Is it going to go down?" Rick Bartalini told the station.

One person on the ground managed to record the Atlas Air Boeing 767 as flames started shooting from the engine.

"Plane on fire over the Daniel K. Inouye Airport in Honolulu. We heard what sounded like an explosion, and it started spitting out flames from what looked like the engine. Couldn't see what airline but definitely a passenger plane," they wrote on Twitter.

Officials said the plane landed safely at Daniel K. Inouye International Airport and that none of the 212 passengers on board were injured. Investigators are trying to determine what caused the engine failure.

"An Atlas Air passenger flight landed safely at Daniel K. Inouye International Airport in Honolulu following a mechanical issue with one engine. At Atlas, safety is always our top priority, and we will be conducting a thorough inspection to determine the cause," Atlas Air said in a statement.
20
https://www.chron.com/business/article/Amazon-s-Drone-Delivery-Fleet-Hits-Milestone-15527110.php

(We've come a long way since Kitty Hawk :) )

Retail behemoth Amazon.com Inc. took a big leap toward delivering goods from the sky by becoming one of only a handful of companies certified by the U.S. government to operate as a drone airline.

The Federal Aviation Administration designated Amazon Prime Air an “air carrier,” the company said Monday. That allows Amazon to begin its first commercial deliveries in the U.S. under a trial program, using the high-tech devices it unveiled for that purpose last yearAmazon and its competitors must still clear some imposing regulatory and technical hurdles before small packages holding the likes of cat food or toothpaste can routinely be dropped at people’s homes. But the action shows that they’ve convinced the government they’re ready to operate in the highly regulated aviation sector.

“This certification is an important step forward for Prime Air and indicates the FAA’s confidence in Amazon’s operating and safety procedures for an autonomous drone delivery service that will one day deliver packages to our customers around the world,” David Carbon, an Amazon vice president who oversees Prime Air, said in a statement.

The FAA confirmed it had granted the approval, saying in a statement that it’s trying to support innovation in the expanding drone arena while ensuring that the devices operate safely.Amazon joins Wing, the Alphabet Inc. subsidiary, and United Parcel Service Inc. as companies that have gotten FAA approval to operate under the federal regulations governing charter operators and small airlines.

Wing, with partners Walgreens and FedEx Corp., has been conducting limited drone deliveries under a similar FAA approval in Virginia since last year. UPS flies medical supplies within a hospital campus in Raleigh, North Carolina. Other smaller companies and startups are also seeking expanded FAA approvals.

Amazon will begin its own delivery tests, it said, declining to say where and when they would occur. It operates several test sites in the U.S. Northwest and in the nearby Vancouver area. It previously performed experimental deliveries in the U.K.

To receive FAA certification, the company had to document everything from pilot-training programs to drug testing. It also demonstrated its operations for FAA inspectors in recent days.

The approvals have at times challenged the FAA because its regulations were designed for aircraft with humans aboard, not unoccupied drones. Applicants have had to seek waivers for requirements such as the rule that a pilot must wear a seatbelt, or that flight attendants must be present on some flights.

The approval comes as Amazon’s business has surged during the Covid-19 pandemic as consumers turn away from traditional stores -- some of which were ordered closed -- in favor of online purchases.

Amazon and other companies hoping to revolutionize the retail world with drones have made significant strides in recent years. They’ve invented new devices and shown, at least on a limited scale, that they’re capable of flying relatively long distances and carrying the payloads necessary for packages.

But routine deliveries are most likely still years off.

The FAA is preparing to finalize a set of regulations by the end of this year that will serve as a framework to expand drone flights over crowds, a building block necessary for deliveries. Among other things, the rules will require all but the smallest such devices to broadcast their identities and location, to minimize the risks of terrorism or striking other aircraft.

That’s just the first step, however. For drones to operate efficiently, they must be able to fly pre-programmed routes without human pilots watching their every move.

Amazon, for example, said last year it plans for its devices -- a family of drones known as the MK27 -- to make deliveries within 7.5 miles (12 kilometers) of a warehouse, reach customers within 30 minutes, and carry packages weighing as much as five pounds.

Current U.S. regulations don’t permit such autonomous flights. FAA hasn’t yet created standards for these operations, and no companies have been approved to conduct them without safety measures such as costly on-ground observers.

Similar standards for the design and manufacturing of drones and acceptable levels of noise also need to be developed. In addition, the FAA has to develop a new air-traffic system to track low-altitude drone flights and maintain order in the skies.

Amazon’s MK27 drone. which it unveiled last year, has a hexagon-shaped frame and takes off and lands like a helicopter. Once airborne, it tilts and flies like a plane for greater efficiency. It carriers multiple sensors and computing systems designed to allow it to touch down at a home without hitting power lines or posing a danger to people or pets.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10