Updated VOR-A for KASH

aterpster said:
Not to mention it is the post office of the sky.
Click to expand...

There's a village in the brooks range, Ak.. Roughly 240nm northwest of Fairbanks called Anaktuvuk Pass (PAKP).. They heavily rely on supplies being flown in as well as medical flights if needed... Because of and thanks too, the FAA's cut backs and reduced flight checks.. They refused to flight check this airport's RNAV and NDB approach, so they increased minimums to 5,000ft above apt elv... Now the friendly people of Anaktuvuk pass are guaranteed a quiet and visit less winter this year... Note the MDA and APT's elevation

http://skyvector.com/files/tpp/1309/pdf/09380RA.PDF
 
akpilot907 said:
There's a village in the brooks range, Ak.. Roughly 240nm northwest of Fairbanks called Anaktuvuk Pass (PAKP).. They heavily rely on supplies being flown in as well as medical flights if needed... Because of and thanks too, the FAA's cut backs and reduced flight checks.. They refused to flight check this airport's RNAV and NDB approach, so they increased minimums to 5,000ft above apt elv... Now the friendly people of Anaktuvuk pass are guaranteed a quiet and visit less winter this year... Note the MDA and APT's elevation

http://skyvector.com/files/tpp/1309/pdf/09380RA.PDF
Click to expand...

What were the RNAV minimums previously? Did they have straight-in or only circling minimums previously? Do you know as a fact that the FAA refused to do a periodic flight inspection?
 
aterpster said:
What were the RNAV minimums previously? Did they have straight-in or only circling minimums previously? Do you know as a fact that the FAA refused to do a periodic flight inspection?
Click to expand...

Not sure what the old RNAV mins were previously.. Its always been circling minimums from what i know. I first learned about this from one of my good 135 bush operator friends who flys to the village regularly.

Now... The FAA didn't "REFUSE" to flight check it, they cut it from their budget.. But the mins were much much lower.
 
akpilot907 said:
Not sure what the old RNAV mins were previously.. Its always been circling minimums from what i know. I first learned about this from one of my good 135 bush operator friends who flys to the village regularly.

Now... The FAA didn't "REFUSE" to flight check it, they cut it from their budget.. But the mins were much much lower.
Click to expand...

The State of Alaska has more clout with the FAA than most states. I'm surprised they didn't go after them.
 
I think we don't have all the information here. I'd be interested in learning more about this, including what the minimums were previously, and if the procedure had to change at all due to new criteria anyway.
 
Not sure what theres not to believe, I don't work at the FAA level and they dont have press conferenences... this is all just WOM (Word of Mouth), but the FAA has cut several airports from their budgets for flight checks..

I'm sure the FAA has ways to save money, and yet still maintain a certain level of, "Safety" by means of raising minimums in lue of a flight check perhaps??
 
There used to be a VOR-A at Chatham. Now it is only an NDB and a GPS RNAV. Is the FAA trying to eliminate them?
 
akpilot907 said:
Not sure what theres not to believe, I don't work at the FAA level and they dont have press conferenences... this is all just WOM (Word of Mouth), but the FAA has cut several airports from their budgets for flight checks..

I'm sure the FAA has ways to save money, and yet still maintain a certain level of, "Safety" by means of raising minimums in lue of a flight check perhaps??
Click to expand...

Never heard of that process.
 
akpilot907 said:
Not sure what theres not to believe, I don't work at the FAA level and they dont have press conferenences... this is all just WOM (Word of Mouth), but the FAA has cut several airports from their budgets for flight checks..
Click to expand...

Didn't say I didn't believe you, just that there's a lot of information missing. Basically, all you've told us is that you heard the minimums went up a lot at an airport because the FAA didn't fund the flight check.

Well, I don't doubt that's what you heard, but you have to admit it's pretty lacking in details:
- What were the minimums before? (That's rather important - to be able to say they went up, you have to know what they were previously.)
- Where did your source get the information that the reason for the increase was that the FAA had chosen not to fund the flight checks?
- Does your source have any knowledge of the specific reason that the minimums went up? Was it due to an airport survey not being conducted, flight check (since they allegedly didn't go in there) couldn't verify the height of a new obstacle, or something like that?

There are lots of reasons minimums go up, that aren't related to budget issues. Having some more details would help.
 
RussR said:
Didn't say I didn't believe you, just that there's a lot of information missing. Basically, all you've told us is that you heard the minimums went up a lot at an airport because the FAA didn't fund the flight check.

Well, I don't doubt that's what you heard, but you have to admit it's pretty lacking in details:
- What were the minimums before? (That's rather important - to be able to say they went up, you have to know what they were previously.)
- Where did your source get the information that the reason for the increase was that the FAA had chosen not to fund the flight checks?
- Does your source have any knowledge of the specific reason that the minimums went up? Was it due to an airport survey not being conducted, flight check (since they allegedly didn't go in there) couldn't verify the height of a new obstacle, or something like that?

There are lots of reasons minimums go up, that aren't related to budget issues. Having some more details would help.
Click to expand...

Didn't mean to get deffensive there with ya, sorry. I'll look for what I can dig up and get back to ya.. You are right, there is detail that is lacking, just couldn't see it from my perspective..
 
akpilot907 said:
I'm sure the FAA has ways to save money, and yet still maintain a certain level of, "Safety" by means of raising minimums in lue of a flight check perhaps??
Click to expand...
I can't see how that would work unless there's something in the FAA's internal rules stating that a flight check isn't required at all if the minimums meet some specific criteria (e.g. 500 ft above the highest reported obstruction within 5 nm) but I've never heard of such a rule nor do I think it would be very practical to come up with one. So it seems to me that if there's an approach, it needs to be flight checked periodically regardless of the minimums.

Alternatively perhaps there's something that says the minimums get raised by a specific amount if the time since the least flight check exceeds some amount of time? This also sounds like something that would be difficult to apply universally.

What I could see is a policy that extends the period from when mins are raised due to issues found on a flight check or ground survey until the issue is resolved thereby postponing the expenses involved in addressing the problem that caused the mins to go up.
 
gismo said:
I can't see how that would work unless there's something in the FAA's internal rules stating that a flight check isn't required at all if the minimums meet some specific criteria (e.g. 500 ft above the highest reported obstruction within 5 nm) but I've never heard of such a rule nor do I think it would be very practical to come up with one. So it seems to me that if there's an approach, it needs to be flight checked periodically regardless of the minimums.

Alternatively perhaps there's something that says the minimums get raised by a specific amount if the time since the least flight check exceeds some amount of time? This also sounds like something that would be difficult to apply universally.

What I could see is a policy that extends the period from when mins are raised due to issues found on a flight check or ground survey until the issue is resolved thereby postponing the expenses involved in addressing the problem that caused the mins to go up.
Click to expand...

Here's the flight inspection manual:

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli....cfm/go/document.information/documentid/14505
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top