Roger Roger
Bottom of the list
That may be your opinion however real world application recently has shown your opinion to be for all intents and purposes baloney.
FAA Cautions Pilots Against Unauthorized Procedures
- Thread starter RDoug
- Start date
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
So, you are going to provide a case where a carrier's application for a special procedure was denied because it included a procedure that was nearly identical to that of another carrier?
The fact that a carrier can refuse to "share",
forcing a carrier to start the process from scratch, an expensive process,
isn't really ownership, just a barrier to competition. If you copy a procedure you'd still have to show your work demonstrating how it's going to work with your carrier.
Last edited:
ricecakecm
Well-Known Member
Actually, if Company A pays to have a procedure developed, they effectively do own it. If they choose to share it with Company B, either out of the good of their heart or for a few, so be it. When Company B applies for the approach, they’re going to have to show the FAA that they are authorized to use it by the company who devoped it or paid to have it developed.
There are a few procedure developers out there who spend lots of money to develop and flight check Specials. They then charge companies for those procedures. They get pretty ticked when companies who don’t pay for a given procedure are out there using it.
It’s not much different than Acme Hammer Company coming up with a new design for a hammer and not selling the rights to make it to Fred’s Hammer Company.
D
Deleted member 27505
Guest
C'mon, man! Where's your sense of rugged, isolated, individual effort to pull yourself up by your bootstraps, demonstrate your individual superiority, and invidiously distinguish yourself as an über-mensch?? We don't need all that commy, fluffy stuff like laws, roads, schools, water, weather reporting, healthcare, shipping channels, aeronautical routes, scientific research, an electrical grid, or an internet/telecom network being engendered and regulated by the government. Shared, public infrastructure never engendered network efficiencies; it never benefited or protected the herd. Everybody should duplicate time, money, and effort on their self-sufficient, self-righteous own. That's efficiency, dammit! And effectiveness.
D
Deleted member 27505
Guest
Not really. This is public airspace. As in, NO freaking company owns it ... at least not yet. The way things are going... we'll see. As of now, this is like a road, not a driveway.
You entomb some soil and build a driveway on your own property, then I can't drive on it without your permission.
You turn on the outside edge of the off-ramp curve, I can follow you around the outside edge and be fine, or I can take the inside of the curve, or the middle... my choice. It's my off-ramp as much as it is yours.
Richman
JC’s Resident Curmudgeon
Dunno if it's changed, but back in the day there were lots of AK approach plates that had a note in the comments area, in the same font size you might see "when local altimeter not avaialable, add 50' to MDA" that said "Go-around after MAP improbable"
I always thought that was weird...
I always thought that was weird...
D
Deleted member 27505
Guest
I guess I'm getting old, but back in the old days we were taught that if you don't have the runway in sight at the MAP or there is any question about keeping the runway in site after the MAP on a visual segment, you go missed - AT THE MAP. I'm not hip to the current regs on advanced SynVis. Maybe some of them allow for flying in IMC by reference to SynVis. But I've been hearing multiple stories of folks using Garmins and even iPads as SynVis systems. Knock yourself out if you're doing this; That way you'll reduce your probability of suffering in the crash.
z987k
Well-Known Member
They're not claiming the airspace. It's intellectual property.
Dugie8
Well-Known Member
I don’t think intellectual property applies to an approach procedure since you can’t have a monopoly on that procedure. IE another airline flying the same equipment could independently come up with the same procedure and the original airline would have no standing (I think that’s the right term) to sue.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Cptnchia
Dissatisfied Customer
No one is saying just because airline A created the first approach, any other airline cannot build a duplicate approach. What we are saying is airline A can tell everyone else to go pound sand and create their own approach if said airlines ask to use airline A’s approach. Airline A does not have to share their approach with anybody.
As an example. Both you and I fly out of the same airport with no instrument approaches. I build and get certified an approach to the airport. You ask to use it. I say no. That’s it. You can’t use it. The information I used to build it is proprietary to me, and thus protected as intellectual property. You can go develop your own information, build and certify your own approach if you want though.
Personally, I’d just make you pay exorbitant fees to use my approach. That the American way!
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 27505
Guest
I'd argue it's a route through public airspace. If someone else wants to fly the same route, that's entirely their prerogative, similar to how everyone has the right to negotiate an off-ramp however they like.
If AK makes up their own approach, AK owns the piece of paper with the marks and letters on it describing the route. I would argue they don't own the route. If Delta independently creates a similar or same route, that's cool. If Delta steals AK's original piece of paper and simply copies the route, then Delta is guilty of stealing.
The goal is to come out of public airspace onto a public runway while not hitting things and maintaining legal or approved heights and distances. In some cases, to do that, especially in areas confined by granite, there will be only a few ways. This is public safety, efficiency, and public good were talking about, not another queen's charter way for the aristocracy to make an extra few bucks. That said, I do recognize we have entered an age of neo-feudalism in which the public be damned. So I'm writing a plan on a piece of paper describing how I'm going to sell atmospheric oxygen to airlines so they can keep their turbines lit.
D
Deleted member 27505
Guest
Well, it's your vision of the American way, anyway.
Opinions will vary.
But one thing is generally true. Open source is sturdier, more secure, and more efficient that proprietary. If you look at the big picture and connect the dots, no one has ever done anything completely independently.
BobDDuck
Island Bus Driver
Don't forget that the verbiage recently changed to match ICAO. An "RNAV (RNP)", which used to be called RNAV (GPS)" is (generally) able to be flown by any aircrew and aircraft that has a box capable of RNP .3 for the final approach phase. "RNAV (AR)" (which used to be called RNAV (RNP) are use for procedures below RNP .3, now to RNP .1 and require special aircrew authorization.
I was very excited to be switching to a plane that is RNP .1 capable but just found out we didn't pay for the certification of that and I am still limited to RNP .3 approaches.
Consolation prize? RF legs are approved.
Those IAPs were to some of the remote Long Range Radar Stations the USAF operates. Specifically, they say "successful go around improbable if initiated past the MAP". Or otherwise, dont press the MAP when at the MDA.
When i was assigned to South Korea 18 years ago, I was making a fuel/WX divert in the Hog into RKNW/K-38, and RAPCON was calling 600/1.5 in rain/fog. Switching to the ROKAF PAR final controller, I get talked down to DH, only to see nothing and go missed, back around the radar pattern. Re-confirming the WX, it's calling 600/1.5 again (PAR mins 100-1/4). Come back around again, down the chute, and go missed. After two more laps around the pattern (and no where else to go), I finally grab a small break in the WX allowing me to pick up the airfield perimeter road and gun defense pits below and slightly ahead (good enough for govt work regards airfield/runway environment), and land. Stuck there for a while, I head to the ROKAF tower to talk to their SOF, and ask the tower how they have 1.5sm when I can't even see the other side of the runway? Tower says (korean accent, pointing two different directions) "I see 3/4 mile that way, 3/4 mile that way....visibility 1.5 mile". Of course, none of their home-station OA-37s or O-2s were flying either, go figure.
ricecakecm
Well-Known Member
Your point about owning the piece of paper is exactly what we’re talking about. Airline A develops a special, they own the procedure. Not the airspace, but the procedure itself.
Specials are developed in places where a company wants an approach to get them lower minima. So they pay to have it developed. They may have better obstacle surveys done or special performance or training requirements in place to get that approach authorized. But, they are also developed for private airports and heliports. Coral Springs, FL is a great example of this. They have GPS approaches to that airport and there are hundreds of people authorized to use them. But they’re given permission from the airport owner.
The FAA develops Specials as well for those public good cases. But there are likely training and performance requirements.
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
Sheesh, instead of that example you could have just used Delta's example with Alaska at Juneau
Cptnchia
Dissatisfied Customer
Ehh, the alaskaN peeps get butthurt when you mention Delta flying in to Juno :stir:Sheesh, instead of that example you could have just used Delta's example with Alaska at Juneau