Just when you thought the FAA couldn't possibly get any worse..

Shepherd

Shepherd

Final Approach
Joined
Nov 24, 2012
Messages
5,423
Location
Hopewell Jct, NY
Display Name
Display name:
Shepherd
The Takeoff and Landing Performance Assessment (TALPA) Initiative
Notice Number: NOTC6821

Because plain English is just not an option.
 
Shepherd said:
The Takeoff and Landing Performance Assessment (TALPA) Initiative
Notice Number: NOTC6821

Because plain English is just not an option.
Click to expand...

Press '1' for English.
 
If they wrote it in plain English they'd Need to have something actually useful to pilots...they're just changing the terms and calling it better.
 
Not a bad thing. It mainly, in my opinion, will apply to operators that pretty much operate in all weather and fly higher performance aircraft. They are trying to bring the USA more in line with ICAO standards. If I use term "fair" for braking action overseas, they will look at each other and go "what " ?

Also for the general aviation operator, it is designed to actually get you to flight plan and know your performance for those actual conditions. Redundant and unneeded in 99.9% of the flights....but in case of a problem you will be asked if you did in fact do your assessment. Welcome to the future.
 
Shepherd said:
The Takeoff and Landing Performance Assessment (TALPA) Initiative
Notice Number: NOTC6821

Because plain English is just not an option.
Click to expand...

Well that's because you probably don't have your "English Proficient" endorsement.
 
Line Up And Wait vs. Position and Hold.....argh
Flight Plan transition to ICAO format.....argh
Distances........meters
Airspeed........ km/h
Visibility ........ kilometers
Weight ...........kilograms

Arghhhhh!
 
over50 said:
Line Up And Wait vs. Position and Hold.....argh
Flight Plan transition to ICAO format.....argh
Distances........meters
Airspeed........ km/h
Visibility ........ kilometers
Weight ...........kilograms

Arghhhhh!
Click to expand...

Wow! Again
ONLY the first two. Do YOU fly internationally? I highly doubt it because the ONLY place that uses meters that I fly to is China. I get fuel in gallons, I get vis in miles and I can takeoff at 630,500 LBS.

There are some things I don't like but they are NOT ICAO but country specific such as transition altitude. It might surprise you but not all facets of ICAO are used here...a country has the right to pick and choose.

You guys remind me of that old saying...
The only things pilots hate are change and the way things are

There is a WHOLE world out there. Open your minds.
 
MD11Pilot said:
Wow! Again
ONLY the first two. Do YOU fly internationally? I highly doubt it because the ONLY place that uses meters that I fly to is China. I get fuel in gallons, I get vis in miles and I can takeoff at 630,500 LBS.

There are some things I don't like but they are NOT ICAO but country specific such as transition altitude. It might surprise you but not all facets of ICAO are used here...a country has the right to pick and choose.

You guys remind me of that old saying...
The only things pilots hate are change and the way things are

There is a WHOLE world out there. Open your minds.
Click to expand...

And borders? :devil:
 
I think there is a distinct split here between pilots who have flown internationally and those that haven't. In my view, standardization, as much as can be done, is a good thing. Even if you haven't flown internationally, remember that pilots from other countries fly here.
 
Norman said:
NOPE! And I ain't one of the sheep either.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that you don't follow the rules?

It's YOUR Sky and you can do what you want. I would bet that you threw a fit when those gol dang people put the third wheel on the nose!
 
Everskyward said:
I think there is a distinct split here between pilots who have flown internationally and those that haven't. In my view, standardization, as much as can be done, is a good thing. Even if you haven't flown internationally, remember that pilots from other countries fly here.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY
The biggest complaint I hear is that we use so much slang...I do too but not overseas. It can be very dangerous.
 
This is being implemented solely because of the overrun at Midway.
 
Norman said:
The U.S. set the aviation standards for eons. Why should we follow ICAO into the basement?
Click to expand...
We're following ROW into the dumper in every other aspect, why should aviation be any different? After all, we are not exceptional.
 
Everskyward said:
I think there is a distinct split here between pilots who have flown internationally and those that haven't. In my view, standardization, as much as can be done, is a good thing. Even if you haven't flown internationally, remember that pilots from other countries fly here.
Click to expand...
So why can't they get into position and hold like us? "Lining up and waiting" sounds like the USSR on shopping day.
 
Line up and wait doesn't use the same word as H___ short. So there is less confusion around the H word. Gotta say it makes some sense.
 
paflyer said:
So why can't they get into position and hold like us? "Lining up and waiting" sounds like the USSR on shopping day.
Click to expand...
Most of the rest of the world was doing it the other way already.
 
MD11Pilot said:
Also for the general aviation operator, it is designed to actually get you to flight plan and know your performance for those actual conditions. Redundant and unneeded in 99.9% of the flights....but in case of a problem you will be asked if you did in fact do your assessment. Welcome to the future.
Click to expand...
What part of this do I take into my AFM to come up with a takeoff or landing distance number?
 
MD11Pilot said:
Wow! Again
ONLY the first two. Do YOU fly internationally? I highly doubt it because the ONLY place that uses meters that I fly to is China. I get fuel in gallons, I get vis in miles and I can takeoff at 630,500 LBS.

There are some things I don't like but they are NOT ICAO but country specific such as transition altitude. It might surprise you but not all facets of ICAO are used here...a country has the right to pick and choose.

You guys remind me of that old saying...
The only things pilots hate are change and the way things are

There is a WHOLE world out there. Open your minds.
Click to expand...

Russia, and gliders in Europe also use meters. Pressures are in hPa not inHg, and points are not points, but decimals. Apart from that, things are already pretty well aligned. I prefer the European radiophraseology to be honest, it's more clear and precise...
 
It's not the standardization that sucks it's the ridiculous format.
Why are we using "codes", that have to be looked up on a matrix to determine what it means?
 
Your AFM has performance charts...that is all they are saying...just do a performance calculation....insert my opinion...for the "unusual" loads or runways.

My flights through Russia are at Flight Levels and only China use meters for flight levels. Hectopascals are used internationally. Former Russians states and Russia use HP QFE...field elevation BUT. We can ask for HP QNE and we have charts as a backup.
 
MD11Pilot said:
Your AFM has performance charts...that is all they are saying...just do a performance calculation....insert my opinion...for the "unusual" loads or runways.
Click to expand...
Nothing in this stuff meshes with any performance charts I've used...at least with a mu reading I could check my two laminated 5 1/2 x 8 1/2 pages and come up with a reasonable landing distance number.
 
You should see it from the airports perspective. First issue, the runway condition code is generated entirely from the contaminate type with little emphasis on actual braking conditions.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Nothing in this stuff meshes with any performance charts I've used...at least with a mu reading I could check my two laminated 5 1/2 x 8 1/2 pages and come up with a reasonable landing distance number.
Click to expand...

Like I said originally...mainly useful to those operations that operate in almost all conditions and the performance charts and computers are set up for it. Will it help in a 182? Probably not and not intended to. Very simply, I don't know what you fly and I don't know what weather you fly in BUT your comment about checking is exactly the whole purpose of the paper. I would venture a guess that the manufacturer will come up with new charts for you.

mu readings are just transposed to a new nomenclature use but take away the "fair" statement and you are essentially the same. Contact the manufacturer or ops.
 
MD11Pilot said:
Like I said originally...mainly useful to those operations that operate in almost all conditions and the performance charts and computers are set up for it. Will it help in a 182? Probably not and not intended to. Very simply, I don't know what you fly and I don't know what weather you fly in BUT your comment about checking is exactly the whole purpose of the paper. I would venture a guess that the manufacturer will come up with new charts for you.

mu readings are just transposed to a new nomenclature use but take away the "fair" statement and you are essentially the same. Contact the manufacturer or ops.
Click to expand...
I have all the same charts you do, I'm sure...Part 25 airplane. None of this meshes with them.

They didn't "transpose" mu readings, they eliminated them. A Tapley 46 mu I can work with directly. A 3 in this system is useless to me.
 
MauleSkinner
First. I did not do this...just responding to the usual woe is me we have to learn something new crowd.
Second. We have charts and training that give us the mu reading and converts it to the numerical system. It is fairly simple to look at the mu range from before and it should correspond on the list to the numerical system. I will try to copy our chart and send it to you but give me a few days as I am off and my EFK is not here.

Part 25....then either your ops or your manufacturer should have done this already.
 
I'm not international, and not an all conditions operator. The codes are silly, and the verbiage just poor writing.

For GA purposes, what the rest of the world does isn't too relevant, since beyond a couple places, there isn't any real GA left, outside Canada, UK, Australia, maybe New Zealand. Smattering in Europe? France, Italy, a bit? Even those places are choked pretty goid by bureacracy. . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top