Surface class E ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
roncachamp said:
Sighing does not point out any belittling of others.
Click to expand...
Nothing I say will do you any good, my man. You're acting like a jerk and others are trying to tell you.... but NOoooooooooo! You're "not belittling anyone!"
 
bbchien said:
Nothing I say will do you any good, my man. You're acting like a jerk and others are trying to tell you.... but NOoooooooooo! You're "not belittling anyone!"
Click to expand...
Why do you bother even mentioning it? Steven doesn't care. He obviously is not interested in anyone learning from him and doesn't mind if the attitude he conveys in his posts results in some people look to others - any others - for an answer.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Why do you bother even mentioning it? Steven doesn't care. He obviously is not interested in anyone learning from him and doesn't mind if the attitude he conveys in his posts results in some people look to others - any others - for an answer.
Click to expand...
You're quite correct. Ignore is going "on".
 
Steven,
The day in question it was clear, no clouds at all. The flight vis was greater than 10 miles. The ground vis at LNR was greater than 5 miles, even though the ASOS was reporting 2 miles. By your strict interpertation of the regs at least 10 planes that day would be busted. Seems that common sense should apply.
 
roncachamp said:
You claimed the airport manager can NOTAM the ASOS as being "unreliable" in any or all of its sensory categories. I asked if you could offer any verifiable documentation to support that assertion, clearly you cannot. It appears you simply assumed that airport managers were the source of unreliable ASOS NOTAMs.
Click to expand...

Steven,

How about this order on NOTAMS?

1. When malfunctions or discrepancies are reported to a facility, they shall be verified by any of the following methods:

(a) A certified observer, airport manager, or fixed base operator at the observation site.

(b) Reports regarding a given observation by two (2) pilots within two (2) miles of the airport prior to the observation.

(c) Technical operations personnel.
Click to expand...


This ASOS page was cool, too.
 
Pegasus said:
Steven,
The day in question it was clear, no clouds at all. The flight vis was greater than 10 miles. The ground vis at LNR was greater than 5 miles, even though the ASOS was reporting 2 miles. By your strict interpertation of the regs at least 10 planes that day would be busted. Seems that common sense should apply.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. Those ten pilots should have used common sense and obtained a SVFR or IFR clearance. They shouldn't have put their tickets at risk by operating at LNR without a clearance when the ASOS was reporting conditions below VFR minimums.
 
roncachamp said:
What about it?
Click to expand...

In section 5.5.5 NOTAM (D) WEATHER AND WEATHER REPORTING EQUIPMENT, it would appear that airport managers can have a hand in having an ASOS NOTAMed as unreliable:

1. When malfunctions or discrepancies are reported to a facility, they shall be verified by any of the following methods:

(a) A certified observer, airport manager, or fixed base operator at the observation site.
Click to expand...
 
rpadula said:
In section 5.5.5 NOTAM (D) WEATHER AND WEATHER REPORTING EQUIPMENT, it would appear that airport managers can have a hand in having an ASOS NOTAMed as unreliable:
Click to expand...

Sure, that's not surprising. Initial reports of problems have to come from somewhere. But the assertion was "the airport manager can NOTAM the ASOS as being 'unreliable' in any or all of its sensory categories." Order 7930.2 states that an airport manager can report malfunctions or discrepancies, if such a report is then verified by tech ops personnel a NOTAM is issued.

Just what constitutes a malfunction or discrepancy? As I recall from the OP the LNR ASOS was reporting two miles visibility when an arriving pilot eight miles out had the field in sight. That doesn't necessarily indicate a malfunction or discrepancy in the ASOS.

A human observer determines prevailing visibility by identifying objects at known distances from the observation point. ASOS determines "visibility" by measuring the clarity of the air over a few feet. It converts that measurement to a visibility corresponding to what the human eye would see.

Perhaps there's some scattered mist in the area, some of it happens to be at the ASOS site. The ASOS assumes that condition exists throughout the area and puts out a visibility of two miles. That doesn't indicate a malfunction or discrepancy in the ASOS, it's working just as it's supposed to.

If it's an augmented site a human observer would take a look outside when the ASOS began to take an observation and compare. If he can see identifiable objects eight miles away when the ASOS is calling it two miles he'll override the ASOS and the ASOS will report eight miles visibility. If it's not an augmented site you're stuck with the ASOS determined visibility
 
roncachamp said:
Wrong guy, and you missed a page.
Click to expand...
Only four McNicoll's in the FAA database, and only one Steven P McNicoll in DePere WI (listed by you here as your location). If that's not you, you must have had your entry in the FAA database hidden. Or is "Steven P McNicoll" not really your name?
 
Last edited:
Getting popcorn.

Who was it in Rec.Aviation.IFR that came up with the "tuna sandwich" theory of ded reckoning under IFR? I seem to recall it was a Steven there too, but maybe not the same Steven.
 
TMetzinger said:
Getting popcorn.

Who was it in Rec.Aviation.IFR that came up with the "tuna sandwich" theory of ded reckoning under IFR? I seem to recall it was a Steven there too, but maybe not the same Steven.
Click to expand...

I don't remember that one, but that's par for the level of discourse there....

Anyway, this sounds like its heading towards the infamous "picture of my CFI cert" thread on rec.aviation.*
 
Ron Levy said:
Only four McNicoll's in the FAA database, and only one Steven P McNicoll in DePere WI (listed by you here as your location). If that's not you, you must have had your entry in the FAA database hidden. Or is "Steven P McNicoll" not really your name?
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's my real name. You're searching for the wrong guy, search for KennyFlys.
 
WTH are you arguing about? :frown2: Kenny, you're wrong. Steven, you are right, and you need to work on conveying your message ;) Ron, you missed the boat about two pages ago :p

Next!

BTW there was a nice video showing the difference in flight visibility and ground visibility floating around the internet a few weeks ago, you could see the runway from miles out...until you were on short final and looking horizontally though the mist.
 
Last edited:
roncachamp said:
Initial reports of problems have to come from somewhere. But the assertion was "the airport manager can NOTAM the ASOS as being 'unreliable' in any or all of its sensory categories." Order 7930.2 states that an airport manager can report malfunctions or discrepancies, if such a report is then verified by tech ops personnel a NOTAM is issued.
Click to expand...
In three instances (two in CA, one as described below), my experiences agree with this. The aprt mgr may report but it's the tech personnel who decide if and when the equipment is 'repaired'.

In the last instance, an aprt mgr in (a western state, not AZ) quit his job when the FAA came down like a hammer and basically told the mgr, Either quit calling us to report the malfunctioning ASOS or we'll come and rip it out.

What the FAA actually did was rewrite the rules which allow for that particular ASOS to operate differently. That is, they administratedly made the malfunction disappear. In response to increase in perceived risk the mgr quit.

BTW: this thread reads like the Spin Zone.




If it's not an augmented site you're stuck with the ASOS determined visibility
Click to expand...
There are specific criteria which determine what human observer is qualified to augment.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
OK, do tell. What is the "tuna sandwich theory?" :dunno:
Click to expand...
Oh boy, this is dredging up painful memories, but...

It all started with the concept of when a VFR GPS could be used for IFR navigation. Conventional wisdom was that it was a fine aid to situational awareness, but a pilot who wasn't equipped with an IFR RNAV solution could not accept a clearance direct to a fix that he couldn't identify with his VOR or NDB equipment. Thus a pilot couldn't accept a clearance direct to a VOR, NDB, or airport hundreds of miles away. He could accept vectors, of course, but couldn't take responsibility for "own nav" direct.

The initial argument was that deduced reckoning (I know where I am now, give me a heading and some time and I'll know where I am THEN) was fine under IFR. Thus a pilot could navigate with a compass and a stopwatch, and a tuna sandwich if it helped with the ded reckoning.

Gawd, my head hurts thinking about it.
 
TMetzinger said:
Getting popcorn.

Who was it in Rec.Aviation.IFR that came up with the "tuna sandwich" theory of ded reckoning under IFR? I seem to recall it was a Steven there too, but maybe not the same Steven.
Click to expand...
It's the same Steven. But I'm not sure that he came up with the tuna fish. I think it was someone else in the group who, in a discussion about using a handheld for IFR direct 10 or so years ago (does anyone here think that these topics are new?) compared a handheld GPS to a tuna fish sandwich (neither were regulated one way or the other). Steven may have just run with it.

I think the original discussion is preserved here, though I haven't read through it to see: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.ifr/browse_thread/thread/be2d5f1e3b1cf532/f21636eeb1f9d244?hl=en&q=McNicolls+%22tuna+fish%22&lnk=ol&

Ahhh, The old gang.
 
roncachamp said:
How so?
Click to expand...
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/directives/sym/pd01013004curr.pdf

This is a NWS sponsored program through which volunteers can be certified to provide official observations to augment or supplant an automated observation. The human observer may provide information on visibility; surface wind; sky obscuration, including type and sky coverage; Temp and dew point; and barometric pressure.

The volunteer must make themselves available for direct observation by NWS personnel in order to complete the certification. Usually this means one must travel to a NWS facility.

Contact your local NWS office for additional information.

I know two aprt mgrs and one Part 121 station mgr who have completed the certification. The 121 mgr has provided addtional observation to better comply with op specs. One aprt mgr is at a Class E aprt and his observations have proved to be very valuable in a physical and legal sense.
 
Last edited:
Richard said:
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/directives/sym/pd01013004curr.pdf

This is a NWS sponsored program through which volunteers can be certified to provide official observations to augment or supplant an automated observation. The human observer may provide information on visibility; surface wind; sky obscuration, including type and sky coverage; Temp and dew point; and barometric pressure.
Click to expand...

That's every elemrnt of an observation. I took your statement, "There are specific criteria which determine what human observer is qualified to augment.", to mean there were some things a human observer could not augment.

The volunteer must make themselves available for direction observation by NWS personnel in order to complete the certification. Usually this means one must travel to a NWS facility.

Contact your local NWS office for additional information.

I know two aprt mgrs and one Part 121 station mgr who have completed the certification. The 121 mgr has provided addtional observation to better comply with op specs. One aprt mgr is at a Class E aprt and his observations have proved to be very valuable in a physical and legal sense.
Click to expand...
I'm a certified observer.
 
roncachamp said:
That's every elemrnt of an observation. I took your statement, "There are specific criteria which determine what human observer is qualified to augment.", to mean there were some things a human observer could not augment.

I'm a certified observer.
Click to expand...

Then if you knew the answer.... why ask the question?

:frown2:
 
dmccormack said:
Then if you knew the answer.... why ask the question?
Click to expand...

Why did I ask the question about his statement? Because, as I just explained, I took it to mean there were some things a human observer could not augment. Since I know that's not the case I asked the question to clarify.
 
roncachamp said:
Why did I ask the question about his statement? Because, as I just explained, I took it to mean there were some things a human observer could not augment. Since I know that's not the case I asked the question to clarify.
Click to expand...

A more mannerly approach would have been to not conceal your superior knowledge, and instead responded, "As you know, a human observer can augment any automated observation..."

But you chose to be contentious.

Seriously -- isn't there plenty of that in every other aspect of life?

We're pilots or wannabes, in love with flying, airplanes, big watches, and 6 month old vending machine candy.

Lighten up and enjoy the ride, dude.
 
dmccormack said:
A more mannerly approach would have been to not conceal your superior knowledge, and instead responded, "As you know, a human observer can augment any automated observation..."

But you chose to be contentious.

Seriously -- isn't there plenty of that in every other aspect of life?

We're pilots or wannabes, in love with flying, airplanes, big watches, and 6 month old vending machine candy.

Lighten up and enjoy the ride, dude.
Click to expand...

How do you read contentiousness into a simple two word question like "How so?" How is it unmannerly?
 
Dan...Dude! Lighten up yourself! My understanding is that Steven simply asked for clarification. What are you, a hammer?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top