"Reverse Sensing" exists on a LOC BC course because of how a LOC course works which vastly different than how a VOR works. LOC, and G/S, sends out two freqs that are 90Hz and 150Hz. One represents the LEFT side, 90, and the other the RIGHT side, 150, of the runway on the LOC. If you're on course, your NAV radio will hear both the 90 and 150Hz frequencies the same. A NAV radio only knows that 90 is LEFT and 150 is RIGHT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_landing_system_localizer
Good. You corrected that part first.
Makes sense. Pretty straight forward. So, why do people have so much trouble with this concept, saying Reverse Sensing does not exist? Clearly, there are two houses on this issues. If you come form one house, you see reverse sensing. If you come from the other house, you don't.
Seems like a contradiction on the surface. Teaching students the wrong way(?). Now, it starts to make sense why so many people may have conflicting views about Reverse Sensing and whether or not it actually exists.
An interesting concept nonetheless:
- Command Instrument (turn here in order to get to X)
- Location Instrument (you are here relative to X)
That seems fairly straight forward. I don't have a problem with the concept, if it turns out to work that way.
I'm Confused. Why So Many Navigation Types?
- Thread starter DR750S
- Start date
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Considering we started with beacons on top of giant concrete arrows and navaids you had to use by listening, we've come a long way. They're fun to read about, though! (It'd be worth looking through some of the references those articles have as well.)
There's a lot of discussion about that. The FAA would like to phase out VORs, which currently act as our backup. They're expensive to maintain because they require so many individual stations to be maintained.
It seems the current front-runner to be the backup would be an updated form of LORAN, but it seems that because GPS is working so well that there isn't enough drive to get it out there, so we may need to see major disruptions from a solar storm or worse, jamming from terrorists before we see a lot of movement there.
So, practice those VOR and ILS approaches!
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
that would be quite the house! to have your own ILS runway with 200' minimums
bflynn
Final Approach
Yes but keep the applications in mind...tracking a localizer vs tracking a cross ocean trip.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
The main issue there is that when you take your multi-engine checkride, you must be the pilot in command, and the examiner has to be in the other seat - So no mentor pilots allowed in that scenario. You may have to have the examiner named on your insurance, if you can find one who is willing to accept responsibility for the flight for insurance purposes, which would be very difficult. In fact, you may find it impossible to find an examiner who can even give an initial multi checkride in a Conquest or King Air.
That's partly why one thing I suggested was a smaller piston twin to start with. If you were to start with a DA40 as your single for learning to fly and move to a DA42 as your first twin, you could probably get insured in that right away due to its commonality with the DA40. Then, you start building multi time and general experience in the DA42 until you're insurable in the turboprop. Once you have the multi and instrument checkrides complete, then the mentor pilot thing would work much better.
Not really. Even with all of the various experiences I've been lucky enough to have in aviation, my main use for it right now is to go places. Physics limits helicopters to a maximum forward speed that is slower than my single-engine piston airplane, and they cost WAY more to operate than "equivalent" (in terms of seats/payload) airplanes. So, for me, they just don't make sense. I do find them interesting because the physics behind them is pretty crazy, but I don't think I'll ever feel the need to learn to fly them. I'd rather just live in a house on a runway someday.
LOL! Thanks.
Yes! One of the things I like about aviation is that the people tend to be the best people around. You need a certain level of success in life to get into aviation, and you generally don't get that sort of success by being a stupid *******. The few that make it through that filter, sadly, are often eliminated by their own overconfidence. But what you end up with is a group of people that are pretty much universally smart, friendly, and successful. So, I absolutely love hanging around with pilots! My favorite week of the year is Oshkosh, and my other favorite things to do are to go to the other various small fly-ins that PoAers and other aviators organize.
Speaking of Oshkosh... Have you heard of it? You should go. http://airventure.org/ Let me know if you can make it, and I'll fly you in if the schedule works out.
Which is just as important as breathing air.
Well, in reality I ended up seeing the airport about 20 miles out, canceled IFR and entered a left base to 18 and skipped all of that instrument approach stuff.
Ah, yes. The old Cancel IFR for the VFR visual approach trick. You must have set me up for that one. Sucker punched me, LOL! Very good.
Why sleigh dragons with IFR in great weather conditions when all you have to do is knock over a little ant hill with a VFR approach.That's the whole point of me being here. Other people can call it what they want. I never came here for flight instruction online. My being here has been part of a much bigger research project. I simply wanted to know whether or not the concepts involved in flight training and eventually flying single pilot were things that I could understand in general terms without formalized training that dives into the deepest of details. That helps me build a larger picture in my mind of what to expect going forward when I am involved in flight training up to my eyeballs.
Getting from zero hours to safely operating a VLJ in IMC, single pilot, RVSM and at Night, is probably not something I can just waltz without plenty of real world experience. Its going to be a long 2-3 year journey, and I expect it to be filled with fun, excitement at times, setbacks, hurdles and eventual breakthroughs. I'm hoping for the best and planning for the absolutely worst. But, I'll be damned if I approach this journey without getting myself prepared to do so. No one has ever attempted to climb Mount Everest without first doing a lot of research and planning, so that they can know what to expect 'next' at important points along their ascent. Going from nothing to single pilot VLJ is like climbing a mountain for me. Something I take very serious and very slowly.
Thanks again for understanding that. Only a few have.
I just noticed the differences in the graphic symbols for Fixes:
and...
So, GPS headings off the Star-like symbols and Headings off the Boxed symbols, it would appear. One being a GPS Fix and the other a VOR Fix(?).
No NexRad and Terrain on the same GTN 750 screen used to be the case. Is that still in effect? Just a curious off-topic thought.
I assume that this happens after you've gone the GTN 750 click-path of: Home > Flight Plan > Approach > Select Approach > Activate Approach. At that point, does LPV show up in green colored text at the bottom left on the annunciator bar? I've seen that happen in videos, but this provides a little more context.
I also assume that is because LPV being GPS takes care of both Vertical and Horizontal Guidance.
So, only if you already know that the actual ceiling above the runway is higher than what is legal for LPV, would you then use L/VNAV? And, I assume you check this with destination ATIS.
I keep reading about "advisory only" or "limited" or "not officially supported" Vertical Guidance from different pilots. Do you know why there are published approaches like this? It almost seems like a waste of ink on a chart, if you have to maintain "at or above" altitude limits published anyway. I'm sure there is a good reason. I just don't see it right now.
Interesting. When I arrived at that "V" symbol, I did not know what it meant. Thanks!
Embraer publishes for example, a Balanced Field Length of 3,036ft for the Phenom 300 and a Landing Distance of 2,837 with caveats of of "Average Air Density" and "Average Payload." 6,000 ft would be twice the distance, but I've heard of slippery jets with laminar flow wing designs needing potentially more runway length on average than published by the OEM. Of course, this touches on precisely why I have included High Density Altitude Airport work in my Time Building phase as I mentioned earlier. I had a gut feeling this would come up as an issue when it came time to shoot approaches that required steeper descent angles for whatever reason (topology, approach type, etc.).
However, I have seen the Mustang II performing seemingly STOL characteristic type approaches into some pretty short runways. Unfortunately, the Mustang II has a cabin that's a bit too small for our needs and significantly less range for my needs. Else, I like the Mustang II. A pretty nifty VLJ.
70-50 nm out for an SEL. Does the same rule of thumb apply to a 280kt twin turboprop, or a 450+kt twin turbofan jet? I'm guessing you would try to finalize things further out. Having said that, I've noticed that on some of these Approach Plates, you see airspeeds published that are in the 200k range or sometimes even lower, I've observed from browsing them. So, I guess you could still finalize things 70nm out in a twin turboprop or twin turbofan jet, if you run into an airspeed restriction while on the approach.
I think conceptually (only), I get the broader gist of IFR flying now. I don't have all the details nor do I know everything. But, I can see now that its basic tenets are conceptually digestible with enough study and actual practice. I'm confident I can learn (over time) to be IFR proficient in a jet someday in the 2-3 year future. You've been helpful in getting me to the bigger picture. Thanks again.
This seem like real training material. I mean being focused and attentive enough not to blow an assignment from ATC. BTW - how many IFR Pilots out there blow these kinds of "tweaks" from ATC? Or, a better question would be: How easy is it to blow one of these tweaks from ATC? I would assume any distracting influences in the cockpit would be one good source of trouble.
Called Load Balancing where I come from. Pretty nice that there are some concepts from my world that have at least some relevance in the world of IFR. In another sense we could call that a Stored Procedure. I'm pretty sure Flying Packer would appreciate that inside spoof! Essentially, ATC 'runs' a "stored procedure" by putting the pilot on an already cooked up SID/STAR to manage repetitive tasks while giving itself more time to do other things.
The more I learn about IFR, the more I like it.
It seems to fits the way my brain works. Can't wait to start applying this stuff now. I've got two more CFI meetings and initial flights. I think after that, I'll know who to pick. They all seem great, but two in particular stand out as "Teachers" and not just Instructors. That feeling of finally "turning the corner" away from pure research to actual training is definitely in the air right now. And, that's the gut feeling I was looking for before pulling the trigger.Hey, thanks again!
Yeah, no kidding. Huge resultant variance upon "arrival" for a small initial deviation at the outset. The question then becomes, "arrival" where, if the system is a bit off. Of course, I went and looked this up and here's what I found as potential culprits to precision:
- Satellite Geometry
- Multipath
- Propagation Delay
- Clock Error
- Selective Availability
- Solar (Sun) Interference
Again, as in my other list above, I highlighted the one that stood out at least in my mind as being propositional for routine causation: Propagation.
The FAA declares that its goal was to target an error factor of 7 meters 95% of the time both vertically and horizontally. On average (ground testing) WAAS is demonstrating accuracy from 2-3 meters about 95% of the time. Now, my understanding of propagation delay comes from engineering and combined circuit logic. So, I had to do some quick checking to see what the GPS experts were using for propagation etymology as it applies to WAAS. Turns out (if my quick read was half way correct) their propagation delay comes from atmospheric interference on the inbound side of the equation from the satellite itself. So, we are back to the highly variable earth's atmosphere as being a potential source or cause for error.
This brings up a question in mind related to GPS based Navigation "precision/accuracy" during low altitude flight phases and particularly during low altitude flight phases in clouds. The most interesting phase for me was the Approach Phase down through thick cloud layers with precipitation and low ceilings above the runway. It would seem to me that if "propagation delays" are going to take place, they would have the highest probability for occurring during this phase, which just happens to be the most critical phase in any flight.
So, I asked myself: What happens when on a long and extended GPS approach, descending down through the muck and precip, the system undergoes propagation delays? Would those delays deliver data to the onboard GPS/WAAS receiver sufficient to cause or produce position errors while on descent? And, what form would those position errors take place within the glideslope: Horizontal Errors, Vertical Errors or Both?
Using your "applications" concern above, on a long and extended approach with propagation delays causing positional errors (if that is possible), in theory one could break out underneath the cloud layer at minimums off course relative to the centerline. The question is, how far off course? I would guess that the Vertical error could be detected by way of referencing The Clock against the Altimeter while on the approach. But, I don't know how the Horizontal error would be detected before breaking out and finding yourself off centerline.
I would guess also that at some point, the pilot would notice that his Heading Indicator and Magnetic Compass is not aligned with Runway Heading on what should be Final Approach, even though GPS is telling him/her to steer a different heading due to error. At least, I hope there would be a way to catch something like this before breaking out underneath.
After digging into this a little it more, I think the long oceanic trip would essentially resolve itself using GNSS, given the number of satellites involved in the positional calculations. At some point, I would expect an aircraft to resume navigation under a set of satellites that were not suffering error of some kind. However, if the whole system went to pot at the same time, or was in the process of going to pot for a longer period of time without the pilot or crew knowing about it, that could be troublesome.
Based on what I've learned about GNSS/WAAS thus far, I do have confidence in the system. However, Propagation Delay issues when flying through muck on approach are things I need to look into for myself a bit further, technically. Satellite Geometry, Multipath, Clock Error and Selective Availability don't bother me nearly as much individually. However, Solar Interference does concern me going into the future, because we noticing an increase in the number of solar flare-ups from the sun in even recent history.
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
When I was a freshly minted VFR PPL, then yes.. I would say this would have been stressful.. but you learn quickly in the IFR world how to be the following
-deliberate
-disciplined
-confident
My IFR training began with doing a series of shortish cross country flights. We filed, and the CFII had me copy down the clearance, and then read it back to him, before getting back on the radio. I must say my training was very good, in that these first few flights helped me get down the general cadence of the IFR environment. After that we got into approaches, etc. You have to be disciplined and stay ahead of the curve in the IFR world. Have your approaches briefed before they're assigned to you. Have your frequencies loaded and ready to go. Limit distractions as much as possible. If you have a copilot or pax who won't shut up then kill the copilot button on the comm
(I'm not joking, twice I had to do that)I feel very confident now that I would not bust up an ATC clearance, for these reasons
A.) in the SR22T I make judicious use of the heading and altitude bugs, really any plane with bugs and timers, make good use of them!
B.) I write down on my kneeboard instructions as I receive them.. heading, altitude, and frequencies
C.) you always ready back the critical parts of the instruction to ATC, if I am not corrected then I circle the kneeboard note I just made - note, I don't just read back the whole transmission, but the important things.. if they say "384W need you to fly heading 320 for traffic, expect about 5 minutes we'll get you back on route" I'll just read back "heading 320, 384W"
D.) I cross out old instructions with one line (this way they're still legible but clear to my mind to ignore them. Keep it legible in case I screw up I can go reference back earlier items)
E.) the threat of a midair, pilot deviation warning from ATC, or even just your own desire to not give ATC a headache force you to be confident, and know when to ask a question if you are at all not comfortable "was that 3,600 or 3,800 for 384W?" ... plus, you start to get familiar with your airspace.. so after a while you know that your departure from SEE will be either "on departure heading 320 then radar vectors to JLI VOR" or "fly runway heading radar vectors to OCN VOR" - or some sort. New airports and airspaces I always study the map and visualize the take off and flight plan before just cranking into it
..work in SQL by any chance? This airport is on my bucket list: http://www.airnav.com/airport/KSQL
Yeah. I absolutely love it, and wish I had gotten this rating sooner. I strive in structured, analytical environments (so long as they make senseThe more I learn about IFR, the more I like it.
) and so the IFR world is awesome for me. I always file, even if it is a crystal clear VFR day.. I like to file since it is more structured, and I would say safer. I will however cancel and just go VFR on occasion as I near my destination.. sometimes ATC appreciates that too so can stay out of their hair and just dip under the Bravo shelves and cruise homeWhere do you see LNAV+V published on an approach chart?
Clark1961
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 17,737
- Display Name
Display name:
Display name:
Good lord, even Nate doesn't carry on pointlessly like this. Is trolling internet forums a hobby to occupy your sleepless hours?
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Going from nothing to single pilot VLJ is like climbing a mountain for me. Something I take very serious and very slowly.
Thanks again for understanding that. Only a few have.
I think we all wish we had the time and money (at the same time!) to do what you're doing, but there are many who think the path they took is the only way. There are some unique challenges to your approach, but if I can help, I'm happy to. Maybe you'll even give me a ride in your jet someday.
I do wish I had my CFI and lived in your area, TBH...I just noticed the differences in the graphic symbols for Fixes:
and...
So, GPS headings off the Star-like symbols and Headings off the Boxed symbols, it would appear. One being a GPS Fix and the other a VOR Fix(?).
Well, you can track the VOR radials as well, so transition routes from a VOR will generally also be courses and not headings, though they can be guided by VOR as well as GPS.
With the proliferation of GPS, approaches with headings (instead of courses) on the transition routes are exceedingly rare these days. But, here's an example:
Now, this approach is a dinosaur - One of the few remaining NDB approaches without at least a GPS overlay. And if you were flying in a plane with a GPS and an ADF and got the crazy idea to shoot this approach, you could use the GPS to go direct to the GRN (Gordon) NDB. But, just for the heck of it, let's say it's back in the bad old days and you don't have a GPS. Or there's a solar storm that knocks GPS offline.
In that case, there are two transition routes to get to GRN. The one at the left starting from Toadstool VOR, you would just use the 060 radial of the VOR to guide you toward the NDB. The standard service volume of a low-altitude VOR is 40nm, while for an MH-class NDB it's 25nm. So, in the 52.2nm from Toadstool to Gordon, you could navigate the first 27.2-40 miles using the VOR radial and the last 12.2-25 using the NDB.
However, at the bottom, you see the EVENN fix, with a 40.1nm transition route. For the first 15.1nm, you'll be outside the service volume of the NDB and may not be able to pick it up. EVENN, being a fix and not a navaid, can't give you any guidance. So, for the first part of the transition you would be flying a heading of 002, until you could pick up Gordon and navigate to it.
I believe so. I think it would be difficult to distinguish between the red/yellow used for terrain and the red/yellow used for strong precipitation in some cases, so I'm not expecting them to allow simultaneous terrain and weather ever. But, with the voice commands through my GMA350c, I can at least switch back and forth between them quickly and easily if I need to. In reality, I'd probably put terrain on the 750 and weather on the iPad and be done with it.
No, not right away. It'll switch from ENR to TERM 31nm from the destination. The annunciation for what approach minimums you can use (LPV, L/VNAV, LNAV+V) will appear once the leg that terminates at the FAF is activated. The GTN continues calculating to ensure that it has the required accuracy. Prior to the FAF, it may annunciate "APPROACH DOWNGRADE - Use LNAV minima." After the FAF, if it loses accuracy it'll annunciate "ABORT APPROACH" instead.
Yes. LPV requires WAAS GPS for both horizontal and vertical guidance. For LNAV/VNAV, some airplanes have barometric VNAV systems and sometimes you'll see "Baro-VNAV NA" on the plate, indicating you can't fly the approach with vertical guidance from that equipment. It's pretty rare though, I think.
Other way around. LPV has the lowest (best) minimums, LNAV/VNAV is generally higher. The GPS will always go for LPV if possible, then L/VNAV, then LNAV+V. There isn't a way to manually switch it.
Before WAAS/LPV, all we had were non-precision RNAV(GPS) approaches with no vertical guidance at all. In that case, once you hit the FAF you'd essentially "dive and drive", descending to the MDA, or if there were additional fixes before the MAP, to the altitude associated with the next fix. Then you'd level off until you got to the fix.
It was, of course, possible to do some mental math and figure out a rough descent rate that you would need to get to the next altitude right as you got to the next fix, but with winds varying, turbulence, etc. it didn't always happen and you'd still have to pay attention to all of the minimum altitudes anyway. But what you didn't want was to end up above the minimums when you got to the VDP (or sufficiently before the MAP to see the runway early enough to land on it).
What the advisory vertical guidance does is eliminate "dive and drive" and continuously do the math for you as well as let you know how you're progressing along that slope. It's still a non-precision approach at that point, but the unit is helping you fly it smoothly with a lower workload.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
If you stay at the 200-foot MDA on that approach all the way to the MAP, you'll be eating up 2805 extra feet of runway to get down. Probably a little more, in fact, since in one scenario you're already descending and in the other you'll have to initiate the descent which will eat up some extra. Now, 2837 to stop the jet in average conditions, plus you ate up the extra 2805, means you have to eat up less than 358 feet of forward distance in the process of initiating the descent, which means you'll have about 2 seconds to get that descent dialed in or you're going to have an overrun. In a jet, you don't want that little of a margin. Heck, I don't want that little of a margin in a single-engine piston! But, I can stop in less distance in the SEP than the jet can, which gives me extra margin.
Locally, there was a guy who did exactly that - Saw the runway threshold below him, tried to drop out of the sky and land. He went off the end of the runway in the Citation he was flying and the nose tire went into the soft mud and the nose gear collapsed.
You have to remember, the turboprop and jet only get those speeds when they're in the thin air up in the flight levels. Speed limit for everyone below 10,000 is 250 knots, and that twin turboprop that goes 280 kt at 25,000 feet is going to have more than twice the drag down low than it does at FL250. Now, with a pressurized airplane and the "3 miles per 1000 feet" rule of thumb for descent, you could still be at 20,000 feet at 60nm out, but you'll be descending and slowing down the whole way in from there. So, it's not as big of a difference as the cruise speeds would indicate. Generally, in my Mooney I'm descending at half that gradient because I'm unpressurized. A passenger-friendly 500fpm descent for me eats up 6 miles per 1000 feet in no wind, so I'd be starting a descent from 10,000 at the same 60nm out as you'd start your descent from 20,000 in the turboprop... And I'm generally doing around 180 KTAS in the early part of the descent, down to about 155 at 5 miles from the airport (VFR) or 5 miles from the FAF (IFR).
Since my turboprop and jet experience is in the single digits, I'll let someone else pipe up for their rule of thumb... But 15+ minutes from the FAF is a good way of looking at it too. However, looking at the King Air C90A performance charts, a 15-minute descent from 24,000 to 1500 feet (generally the FAF AGL altitude) would use... 51nm. So, it still holds pretty true in the turboprop at least.
Doing the same exercise for a Hawker 800XP, it looks like 15 min to the FAF would put you about 75-80nm out.Approvals nightmare - but it can be done. Don't need the hassle right now while running a business. Though, I thought about working with an attorney to run the project for me - but I could never let go of something so strategic without a day-to-day presence and direct involvement. It used to be a strong desire - even to the point of reaching out to architects, general contractors, FAA, city planning and real estate agents asking for input. In that particular town, I was told that I was not the first to ask such a question. One way to get it done is to move the project deep into unincorporated areas of a city/county. The problem is that you end up having to drive cross-country just to do simply things like grocery shopping, dry-cleaning or a simply night out on the town at a nice restaurant - all because you are so far from civilization. So, there are pros and cons to living remotely like that. Very quiet, fresh air and very peaceful. But, little to no human contact and stripped away from the social scene. Again, pros and cons.
I was told by that same city employee that once upon a time plans actually went forward with another private individual from the "software business in Silicon Valley," until local residents banded together, applied pressure and shut it down before it could get started. This sounds very much like something Larry Ellison could have been involved with given the location and his love of the area (not sure). Private residents blocked Bruce Willis over in Idaho, where he was trying to build a private runway. Santa Monica Airport in SoCal, has local residents sniffing blood in the water to get it shut down as well. This is not uncommon and it is one of the primary reasons why we keep losing so many GA Airports in the US. So, to do something private like that on an individual basis (not for general public use) is very often frowned upon by local Residential groups.
I learned enough to know that it won't be something that I'll be doing at this time. But, I am leaving the door open and the light on. You never know how things might change in the future.
Planing ahead seems smart. I'm developing ATC expectations on PilotEdge. It really does help. I had two CFI initial flights this weekend and was able to actually work the radios from ground to landing. I've been practicing a lot in a real-time live online environment and it paid off for the first time this weekend. I did the taxi comms, take-off comms, en route comms (which was mostly around the area of a large Class Bravo) and approach comms with no intervention from the CFIs. I told both of them that I had been practicing on PilotEdge, studying the Say Again audio series for both VFR/IFR and doing active listening to LiveATC for quite a while. It all worked out. This is different than 20 years ago. Back then, on my early flights, I could not understand what ATC was saying and was unable to do anything other than request taxi.
A.) in the SR22T I make judicious use of the heading and altitude bugs, really any plane with bugs and timers, make good use of them!
B.) I write down on my kneeboard instructions as I receive them.. heading, altitude, and frequencies
C.) you always ready back the critical parts of the instruction to ATC, if I am not corrected then I circle the kneeboard note I just made - note, I don't just read back the whole transmission, but the important things.. if they say "384W need you to fly heading 320 for traffic, expect about 5 minutes we'll get you back on route" I'll just read back "heading 320, 384W"
D.) I cross out old instructions with one line (this way they're still legible but clear to my mind to ignore them. Keep it legible in case I screw up I can go reference back earlier items)
E.) the threat of a midair, pilot deviation warning from ATC, or even just your own desire to not give ATC a headache force you to be confident, and know when to ask a question if you are at all not comfortable "was that 3,600 or 3,800 for 384W?" ... plus, you start to get familiar with your airspace.. so after a while you know that your departure from SEE will be either "on departure heading 320 then radar vectors to JLI VOR" or "fly runway heading radar vectors to OCN VOR" - or some sort. New airports and airspaces I always study the map and visualize the take off and flight plan before just cranking into it[/quote]
All good stuff. Thanks! With all the iPad uproar, I'm surprised you used a kneeboard for writing. I remember this from 20 years ago and I liked it. It was easy and convenient.
http://www.airnav.com/airport/KSQL
Many years ago, yes. Those buildings at the end of runway 310 that look like the "Emerald City" is Oracle world wide HQ. I worked there for several years before moving on. That's when I re-started my flight training for the first time until they decided to move us out to the Sacramento Valley. I was just at KSQL this weekend. It has not changed much at all over the years with the exception of the Aviation Museum and SurfAir - they were not there back then. The Sky Kitchen is still there, however. West Valley Flying Club has also relocated, but they are still on the field.
At KSQL yesterday, I noted several filed IFR departures cancel due to clearance delivery taking so long to get back to tower. They canceled the IFR departure and then departed VFR. I assume they would later file IFR once in the air, though I'm not 100% sure. Yep. I heard tower instruct many VFR departures this weekend to "...remain clear of bravo airspace...". It was a recurring theme this weekend out of KSQL.
My question is predicated on the previous thread that lead to the statement. Someone posted a list of Approach Types they had researched and then defined them based on what they were able to find during their study. You'll have to read that segment of the thread and follow in order to understand where my comment comes from.
Your question is so abhorrently disconnected from the reality and purpose of the thread, that there's no real nexus to anything you've said that is cogent to the topic. Its a simple researched fact based on the science that underpins it. If you want to argue the facts of Propagation, then take it up with the FAA. Or, if discussing researched facts is off-topic on this forum, let me know and I won't post such researched science in relation to general aviation and the navigation system is relies upon. A simple reading of the thread tells anyone with a brain that the only trolls here are those who post what you just did.
The topic of the thread is about Navigation Types. That discussion might include things that could adversely impact the components of the navigation system.
If you are using a system (any system) for anything mission critical purpose like preserving your life, without understanding what is known about potential causes of failure, then that's a choice you are free to make. It won't however, be a choice that I'll make. General blindness due to ignorance is one thing - everybody is ignorant about most things - because no one can be an expert in everything. However, being intentionally and purposefully blind because you think you "know it all" and then railing against others who know they don't know it all and who wish to 'see' clearly, is quite another thing entirely.
If you knew about Propagation Error before you got here, then you should have added to the conversation. Instead you trolled here. That's twice as bad.
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
I tried the foreflight scratchpad feature, and using my iPad in general, but it was just easier to write with a pencil and a piece of paper then mess around with the iPad and try to write with my finger
My point is that there is no such thing as an LNAV+V approach. You can have an LNAV approach and you can have LNAV+V guidance but not an LNAV+V approach.
denverpilot
Tied Down
LOL. I figure he’ll eventually look up all the other stuff the ground control stations monitor that can take a satellite out of the cluster via automated or manual methods if he digs hard enough. Let’s talk about orbits going “eccentric”!
Of maybe talk about some terrestrial interference sources and mitigation techniques used in the receivers, or the really esoteric and rare tropospheric ducting problems during particular energetic ionosphere activity, especially at high latitudes.
And then there’s the math used in FMS and other nav systems that limits the usefulness of the data from the GPS cluster. Sometimes you know where you are and the computer can’t use it.
There’s usually an exclusion zone around the North Pole because the fast math functions used really don’t like “everything being south”. Hmmm everything on the globe is 180 true from here... Numerous airliner nav systems have an exclusionary zone when flying polar routes.
Keep this up for another couple of weeks and he could have earned both the Private and Instrument in a twin in the time wasted on this.
And then seen how useless the list of possible sources of error are when you’re actually inside a cloud.
Reminds me of a few PhD Computer Scientists I’ve worked with over the years. “That’s a very nice paper on RF interference caused by the clock rate of the bus etched into the PCB of this machine, but right at the moment, we need a hammer. Or just drop that hard drive on the floor on its left edge to knock the head servo loose so we can recover the data someone forgot to back up.”
Practical application level: Extremely low.
denverpilot
Tied Down
“There’s little red Xs all over my LCD screens! The moving map has failed too. It must be propagation delay causing it!”
“Uhh, yeah. Whatever. The toys are dead. So during the preflight where was the best weather and how far away?”
“East of here 100 miles.”
“Great. See this little compass? Put it on E and we’ll be landing visually in an hour. Start a stopwatch. Keep the wings level with this little backup AI you can barely see above my knee. If the radio still works tell the controller we can’t tune it because the screen is dead and we’re on backup instruments and headed east for better weather.”
“Uhh, yeah. Whatever. The toys are dead. So during the preflight where was the best weather and how far away?”
“East of here 100 miles.”
“Great. See this little compass? Put it on E and we’ll be landing visually in an hour. Start a stopwatch. Keep the wings level with this little backup AI you can barely see above my knee. If the radio still works tell the controller we can’t tune it because the screen is dead and we’re on backup instruments and headed east for better weather.”
Exactly. Or, how dare you live my dream. Unbelievable, such people. And, to think that those attitudes exist in GA, is even more shocking. It was not like this back when I took my first lesson. I remember back then, real Pilots would go out of their way to help somebody new enter the fold. If anybody worked at KOAK North Field back when I did, then they know the name Milo Tichacek and his vintage WWII Stearman.
This man offered me a ride in his aircraft. That's not the interesting part. The interesting part is why he did it. He said that he offered me the ride because I constantly stopped to talk with him and ask a lot of questions about flying and his airplane. Interesting how back then, asking a lot of questions could land you a ride in a vintage Stearman. Yet, today, asking a lot of questions on an aviation forum gets you called a troll. Milo, did not consider someone who asks genuine questions a troll. He could have sent me away because I asked him so many questions. Yet, he was more than eager to talk - sometimes, I got in trouble with my manager for staying at Milo's hanger too long on a nearby fuel run. I would stop to see if he was working on his bird. If he was, I'd stop the fuel truck, shut it down, turn the radio volume up so I could hear any fuel requests and then go see Milo and that beautiful Stearman. Eventually, I got rides in an open cockpit and let me tell you, this guy could fly his butt off.
This is the kind of guy I remember occupying General Aviation. His welcoming attitude, willingness to help, eagerness to share and making himself available to talk nearly anything I stopped by (unless he was preparing for a banner tow). All of those qualities seem to have vanished in the GA attitudes of today. Today, too many people are brash, foolish, quick to assume things they cannot possibly know or understand and hostile. It amazes me that they even qualify to be Pilots with some of the Online Attitudes I've experienced during my research. Thank goodness for old timers like Milo and the many who used to exist in GA just like him.
I loved it when he used to come in to land on 27L then pop up high in the air before diving down to land on 33. It was like a little airshow whenever Milo was coming back to home base in those days. And, it was really fun watching him dive down to pick up his banner line from off the runway. He was an amazing pilot and he brought variety to the Oakland Airport North Field, which used to be a very busy and hopping airport. Today, it is a shadow of its former self. Its like the GA life has been suck out of North Field. I remember when it was alive, vibrant and filled with GA character. There were no naysaying haters back then in GA, that I can recall. The GA atmosphere was completely different back then.
I flew with this man in this exact airplane. Not one similar to it, but this exact same one airplane:
There are some unique challenges to your approach, but if I can help, I'm happy to. Maybe you'll even give me a ride in your jet someday.
I'd be more than happy to hookup with someone I knew was genuinely interested in flying. That's what its supposed to be all about. I wonder if GA suffered all those years not merely because of higher fuel prices, but also because of the type of attitudes that came into the fold after circa 2000. There seems to be a real difference between the GA I knew circa 1986 - 2001. Some of the attitudes I see today are really disturbing - to think that they are flying is disturbing. I would expect overall better attitudes and demeanor from Pilots. In the aggregate, it used to be that way.
A straight forward concept. One is a Radial and the other is a Heading. You clearly understood the problem I was having trying to figure out WHEN to use them. Thanks! Like I said, you should have been a Flight Instructor. If you care capable of making things this easy online, then you have to be a natural at "Teaching" which not all "Instructors" are naturally prone to being or becoming. Teaching is just different than "Instructing." That's a gift - a talent. You just know when you've been Taught something as opposed to having been Instructed about something. It is an intangible quality.
Ok, that makes sense. I guess that approaches with no vertical guidance are either now "legacy" or will become "legacy" type approaches in the future, as LPV takes over. My use of the term legacy here just means supplanted by or the equivalent thereof.
Which brings up a really interesting question in my mind: How were instrument approaches flown before GPS to anywhere near the same degree of accuracy coming down the chute to the MAP? Commercial airlines have been flying down the chute on approach with no GPS and certainly no WAAS or LPV for longer than I've been alive. And, they did it with some pretty intense weather handing over the end of the runway threshold. Was it all just VOR and Stop Watches back then? I'm also guessing that so-called "Minimums" were probably a lot higher to boot! Makes me wonder if I should be learning how those guys did it first, then make the transition to the newer stuff. But, given the arrangement of the system as it is now with older ground based Nav gear being phased out, I wonder if its even possible to do it the way they did so many years ago. Very interesting, if even from just a nostalgic point of view.
That's a very utilitarian explanation. I keep saying it because its true - you should have been a CFI. Make it easy to understand.
Last edited:
I'm sure your point will be well taken by the member who wrote LNAV+V on the forum. Thanks.
denverpilot
Tied Down
You’re posting on the Internet lamenting that there aren’t any “real pilots” around to give you a ride in an airplane?
Try going to an airport. It’ll work better and you’ll be able to stop whining about it.
You can even find these things called instructors there who’ll actually teach you how to fly the airplanes. Shocker, I know.
PoA for a long time has marketed itself as “the front porch of aviation”. You’re not going to learn to fly sitting on the porch.
Kent can cajole you with stories of the history of every single approach type out there and what frequency they operate on and all sorts of crap, sitting here on the porch.
And a million pilots who don’t know how the thing works will be out shooting approaches and flying just fine without needing to know 1/16th of it.
You want to go flying, go flying. We can discuss how much “propagation delay” affected your last GPS LPV approach when you get back.
I’m going to bet... you won’t have a clue how much it did, nor care. Because in the end, Kent has an encyclopedic knowledge about a lot of aviation things, but he also went to the airport and actually learned to fly airplanes and knows something you don’t...
He won’t care in the slightest how much “propagation delay” his last GPS approach experienced. The engineers of the system already accounted for that and his airplane arrived at minimums in a position to see the runway and he landed.
He’ll also be happy to give you a ride in his airplane. As would most of us. Or even start your training in the case of any of the CFIs here. Your assertion that we wouldn’t is frankly, insulting.
There’s “nice to know” stuff in aviation, and “need to know” stuff in aviation. Most of your concerns and posts are about the “nice to know” stuff. To get to “need to know” you’re going to have to go to an airport and strap into an airplane with an instructor and go up.
If your “dream” is to have a head full of “nice to know” knowledge, hang out here. If your dream is to fly, turn off the computer and earn the first rating. Then another. Then another.
We instructors can talk for hours on the ground about all this nice to know stuff. We also know that the second the engine is running your brain is loaded up to about 90%. That two hours of discussion of holding patterns and how to fly them? Gone. And we have 10% of your attention now, or less, as an instrument student who’s overloaded and tying to keep the aircraft upright and pointed in a particular direction.
So we give you a rule of thumb. “Hit the holding fix and turn outbound”. That’s it. You do that, you’re in the protected airspace in 99% of aircraft and wind conditions. Done. You only have that many brain cells firing anyway. And then we repeat it on the next one on the next flight. “Hit the fix and turn outbound.” And after about the fifth time you’re telling yourself, “Hit the fix and turn outbound.” And we can then cover up your DG and your AI and tell you to do it.
You’re fascinated and enamored with the building blocks that are normally stacked on top of simpler ones that you can only experience and learn by flight time. That’s fine, if that’s your goal and you can even call it “your dream” but it’s not going to get you there.
Only a handful of PoA posts about instrument procedures or other minutiae discussed here, have ever helped me pass a checkride. You want to pass checkrides or whine that the Internet isn’t nice to your “dream”?
Checkrides and certificates are earned at airports. Not online. Go.
Or stay here babbling about “propagation delay” and wonder why you’re no closer to your dream of flight. Your call. You’re the guy with the million dollar budget who’s hanging out on a free website complaining that everyone is disinterested with your detailed analysis of something you haven’t bothered to commit to learning in an airplane.
Yep. It must be that we’re all just horrible dream killers. That’s a good attitude.
Come on out to the airport and you can take a ride and play with the stupid Garmin all you like. Can shoot practice approaches and you can look and see if you can see the “propagation delay” on the screen. LOL.
I was going to create a thread just to see how people leaned one way or another (Paper or Pad? | Do You Have A Preference) was going to be the title. But, after thinking about it and seeing the reply from people on this forum, I've decided not to post anymore here. Its filled with to many haters. There have been some honest appraisals and people posting in reply to my topics, but too many haters. Someone like myself does not have time for that kind of negativity. I got where I am today by being positive minded and keeping positive minded company.
My lats two visits to two different airports while doing my homework were completely different, however. I am glad to say that I met not one hater or naysayer and there were all informed about my goals. Met CFI, King Air Pilots, Bonanza and Mirage owners, PC-12 Pilots, a PC-7 owner and Pilot and a Cozy owner/Pilot. They were all genuinely nice people. I think that's because they are happy with themselves. Each CFI gave me their thoughts about my goal and the plan I had put together thus far. They each offered their own set of tweaks. They BOTH commented that what I'm trying to do is not routine and not something they see everyday in their students. Both CFIs I met this weekend confirmed by gut intuition that I, as soon as possible, transition into a "fast single" at some point before my initial primary training (Private) was over. They both felt that given my destination, the level of focus I brought and the planning put in so far, that I would most likely be the kind of student who did well with a faster and more complex single at an earlier stage. This advice was given to me after our flight and after they experienced my handling of the aircraft.
I flew with one CFI in a Bonanza A36 and a 1982 Mirage with the second CFI. I honestly have to admit that they both felt very comfortable to me. I initially thought the Mirage would feel a bit more sluggish given that its HP was on par with the Bonanza, but its size (geometry) was so significantly bigger. I was wrong. The Mirage is really smooth, feels more powerful than its specification states, climbs like crazy and handles like a charm. The Bonanza felt like a small tank in the air, just rock solid and stable, powerful (love the way the engine sounds on the Bonanza inside the cockpit on climb out!), climbs well and flew as smooth as glass. I really liked both aircraft. Of course, I talked with the owner of the Mirage, asking questions (there he goes again - asking so many questions) and the owner simply soaked it all up. He really enjoyed talking about his Mirage and he loves his birds. He does regular and routine preventative maintenance and he claims that's what's kept him out of trouble with annual costs. He said, if he had to do it all over again that he'd still buy the Mirage given its size (this thing is huge for a single), performance, handling and of course, the pressurization.
Both CFIs were Gold, as far as I am concerned. They are both great communicators and have good Teaching ability. Since I dialogued about something I never understood here on this forum (DME Arcs) that was the question I used for both CFI. I simply asked each CFI (before our flight) if they would explain how they would fly a DME Arc. And, I asked each one if they would not mind writing a conceptual graphic for how they would fly the DME Arc on an 8 1/2 by 11 sheet of paper based on what they were verbally telling me. Each one agreed and actually thought it was a good idea that I asked such a question (there he goes - asking questions again). I was given a verbal explanation coupled to a conceptual drawing by both CFIs. It was interesting to see how they each approached the question - differently - yet coming to the same result. They could be because they each picked a different DME Arc example to use. I felt comfortable with both explanations.
The flights were great. The both went over start-up procedures of the respective aircraft. Each CFI got a different controller in the tower (I'm assuming a controller break or shift change). The second CFI in the Mirage, got hit with a controller who did not seem to be having a great day. His speech seemed slurred. His words seemed to run together. He was not nearly as articulate and clear speaking as the first controller. So, it was a little embarrassing for the CFI, as he constantly had to repeat himself and ask for clarification from tower. I did not hold this against the CFI, because I knew there had been a change in Controller.
I was able to hold heading, altitude and speed in both aircraft very well. One of the CFIs (flying the Mirage) said that an advantage to initial training in a higher performing single that was also heavier, was the level of inherent stability over a smaller trainer like a 152 or 172. He said, given the winds today, departing the same runway in a 172 would have been a bit bumpier and required a little more rudder correction. The Mirage was equipped with dual G600 and GTN750. The Bonanza had G500 and GTN750 with more conventional back-ups than the Mirage had. So, I got to see the 'G ' and 'GTN' series from Garmin for the very first time in the flesh. I was impressed and pleasantly surprised that the Garmin units were so well integrated into the Panel. I mean, it did not have an "after OEM" pieced together clunky look & feel. They were both well thought out and well executed retrofits - very clean, well fitted and very 'OEM' looking.
Later that day, a King Air 90 and King Air 200 taxi to the ramp and parked. So, I got a good feel for the jump in size that I'll experience going from a fairly large SEL to a twin turboprop. And, that difference is substantial indeed. The King Air 200 was simply gorgeous from every angle. There is no visual angle where it looks ugly. Its a beautiful, timeless design and probably always will be. King Air driver finally comes in while I'm having a conversation with the last CFI and before you know it, all three of us are headed out to the King Air by invite. I got into the cockpit on the left. The CFI gets into the cockpit on the right. To make a long story short, the King Air 200 engine start routine is loaded. It is very involved and rather cumbersome, I thought. I asked the King Air driver whether he thinks about just how involved the procedure is and he basically said that the first few times he did it, yes (I felt relieved to hear that). However, he said that he really does not think about anymore as it has become so second nature to him.
I asked the Kind Air driver what his thoughts were on whether the F90, 200 or 350 would make for a better time building platform for a VLJ such as the CJ4 and the like. He immediately said, it depends. He's also 525 type rated and he's getting ready to head down to Florida's FlightSafety for the Phenom 300 type in preparation for a new job. He said, it would depend on what kind of IFR experience I brought into the King Air and in what type of aircraft. He said, if I brought limited IFR experience just in general, than getting up to speed on any King Air would be a challenge. I asked him to estimate based on coming from a Bonanza or Mirage type of experience with 600+ hours and 300+ IFR/IMC. He said, if the goal is a CJ4, then spending a lot of quality cross-country time doing real IFR in a 90 or 200 would be ideal. He added that coming into the King Air that way would probably mean spending a significant amount of time at that level first, before transition to a CJ4. I asked if he thought 2,000 to 3,000 hours would be right. He said, "at least that much if you were coming into the King Air without any prior twin engine experience flying IFR."
So, this King Air driver who is on his way to a Phenom 300 in a new corporate job, pretty much independently backed-up what two CFIs confirmed earlier that day and what I intuitively thought might be the case just based on my research. So, I'm satisfied that the work I've done in understanding and researching my goals (asking questions - there he goes again) has put me on track for developing a Training and Time Building program that makes sense for the road ahead. I'm so glad that I did not just go out and wing it, like some suggested. Doing good homework does have perks. Eventually, you will meet the right people, in the right place and at the right time who will confirm that for you. I'm just glad I remained patient enough to figure out what the heck I will be getting myself into - before I got into it knee deep.
Now, I'll pick a CFI! I actually know who I'm going to pick at this time. It will be the former retired airline pilot who still loves to teach and who I met a couple weeks ago. His ability to convey technical ideas and concepts has been unmatched thus far by any of the CFIs I've met and flown with. Having said that, I think the other three CFIs were outstanding in their own right and very helpful to me in the process of making this first (big) step happen.
I'm done here! A big thanks to all the Positive Minded Pilots on this forum who offered genuine help, advice and opinion. I learned some things from you guys and I want you to know that I appreciate your sincere replies. All the best to those of you who helped in this small segment of an otherwise very long journey. You've been a positive force on this board.
Keep the sunny side up!
FastEddieB
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2013
- Messages
- 11,542
- Location
- Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Fast Eddie B
Can you remind me what screen that’s on?
Sinistar
En-Route
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2016
- Messages
- 3,734
- Display Name
Display name:
Brad
@DR750S - I challenged you in another thread to start a "My Pilot Training Journey" thread where you write about actual accomplishments, frustrations, real training questions, etc vs these other theory/research threads.
Once you transition to actually learning you will be amazed at the help and encouragement you will receive here.
Your case is rather uncommon and infrequent in that you have written so much prior to starting training. I'm guessing 90% of POAer's are "Action, not words" folk.
Take a risk. Start a Action thread. You seem to have an instructor in mind. You'll probably want a decent headset. I'm curious what plane you'll do your PPL in? What will end up being your biggest challenges.
Look at all the encouragement and anticipation in the very recent thread tonight where someone just did their first flight.
My wife (pilot) always says: "People think a pilot license is like getting a drivers license". At home, with friends and family they just think we're getting a drivers license.
But the gang here realizes it's much more and definitely throw mega respect when they hear "Had my first lesson..." or "Instructor kicked me to solo...". Be that guy
Once you transition to actually learning you will be amazed at the help and encouragement you will receive here.
Your case is rather uncommon and infrequent in that you have written so much prior to starting training. I'm guessing 90% of POAer's are "Action, not words" folk.
Take a risk. Start a Action thread. You seem to have an instructor in mind. You'll probably want a decent headset. I'm curious what plane you'll do your PPL in? What will end up being your biggest challenges.
Look at all the encouragement and anticipation in the very recent thread tonight where someone just did their first flight.
My wife (pilot) always says: "People think a pilot license is like getting a drivers license". At home, with friends and family they just think we're getting a drivers license.
But the gang here realizes it's much more and definitely throw mega respect when they hear "Had my first lesson..." or "Instructor kicked me to solo...". Be that guy
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
OK, show me an "LNAV approach" then, smartypants!
It's an RNAV approach. It has LNAV minimums. LNAV+V is the type of guidance your GPS is giving you. All of it is semantics, and thus pretty much irrelevant.
Nothing has changed - It's just that you're on the Internet and not actually at the airport. And, the Internet being what it is, the way a person comes across must be factored into the equation. There is no vocal inflection, no facial expression, no way to judge the sincerity of any person.
PoA is only different in that we're pilots, so our world is a bit smaller, and it's thus easier for us to get together in person. I've really enjoyed meeting a lot of the people here at places like Gaston's, the Wings FlyBQ, and many other gatherings. I was just down at @Ted DuPuis and @Laurie's place this past weekend, eating amazing BBQ smoked by @Matthew with @Everskyward and @jesse, driving old tractors around and burning stuff and generally having a great time.
Those PoAers who have not met the others in person are missing this key component... And most of the people on this thread are among that group. I've only met a couple: @Clark1961 is just the curmudgeonly sort all the time (but can be pretty funny with a dry sense of humor as well, the sort that doesn't always come across well on the interwebs), and @denverpilot is just as wordy in person as he is here, not that I don't give him a run for his money at 3 AM in Oshkosh, right Nate?
So, for the folks who accuse @DR750S of being a troll and @DR750S himself, I would encourage all of you to not judge people you haven't actually met. GA is still full of good people, but the Internet makes even good people into faceless jerks sometimes.
ILS has been around since the WWII era. Before that, flights would have been weather-delayed much more often. Prior to GPS approaches, if you didn't have an ILS you might have a Localizer, SDF, VOR, or NDB and you'd probably prefer them in that order but you needed to understand all of the above. En route navigation before GPS would be via LORAN if you had it, or VOR/DME RNAV if you had that, or VOR if you didn't. No moving map displays or any of that stuff. Trans-oceanic capable airliners would use INS for those long legs over water, but that equipment was way too big and heavy for small airplanes.
Yes, though if there weren't terrain or obstacles nearby the difference wasn't too great. An ILS will get you down to 200 AGL, while a VOR approach might get you down to 400-500 AGL. Maybe @aterpster can enlighten us as to how far down some of the "old" approach types could get. However, as the navaid gets less precise, terrain and obstacles affect the minimums more.
Well... There are no A-N ranges still operating. There are NDBs, but they're rare and the number of airplanes with an ADF to receive them is dwindling as well. The FAA has worked hard to standardize on GPS and has all but eliminated VOR/DME RNAV and SDF approaches.
VOR (and VOR/DME) approaches are still pretty common, and you'll still have to learn to fly them anyway for your instrument checkride. There is no "transition to the newer stuff", you have to learn everything your airplane is capable of and I highly doubt you'd find an airplane that wasn't equipped to receive VORs.
Maybe you should open up the Museum of Navigational Aids. Put up an A/N range, a LORAN chain, a TLS, and an NDB on the field. Develop the procedures for them using old versions of the TERPS, and rent airplanes with a KNS 80 VOR/DME RNAV, an Apollo M1 LORAN, a KR 87 ADF, and a standard nav receiver. (and a glass panel. LOL) Charge people to come fly the approaches to your airport/museum. I'd do it.
Last edited: