Let the AS vs DL war continue

Derg said:
What say you, @AUAeropilot?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I was asleep at the wheel here over the last few days. We (PE) didn't find out about the desire to service JNU until middle of last week. I've been in a scramble since trying to develop some OEI procedures that will give us needed performance back to SEA. Finished that up early this week. Apparently the mentality of "well Alaska serves it with a 738, so can we" won in the building next door, engine out procedure development and approach procedure reliability be damned.

The focus now shifts to operational reliability. We can only use the LDA published approach to JNU (and its extremely high minimums) since the RNAV(GPS) is N/A for Cat C and D aircraft. (other options are currently being investigated, but as of right now we only have access to publicly published procedures. We certainly can fly RNP procedures on the 738, but availability of those procedures for JNU is currently limited...$$$) I've got this nice piece of paper hanging in my cube stating I've completed the FAA PBN course and a Letter of Authorization from the FAA in my laptop bag stating I am certified to design PBN approaches but the start to finish timeline for these procedures pushes the completion date well beyond May of 2015. We are tentatively scheduled in late January to flight validate a procedure we built for a ski destination that's been an ongoing project from earlier this year. It's not nearly as challenging as JNU and the procedure we've built was just to get an approach with Cat D minimums when landing a certain direction.

Bottom line is that this one was held very close to the chest, even internally, and now that it's out everyone is weighing in on the challenges we will face. While I think it's doable, the success is reliant on everyone involved bringing their "A" games. The names I've been in contact with are all top notch, but we're all investigating everything under a microscope due to compressed timelines. Saving grace right now from a reliability standpoint is that the service dates should assist in getting some descent weather.
 
We might have seen a copy of the Alaska procedures from an analysis that was done on them by an external performance-based navigation firm when JNU was looking at moving thresholds around. Alaska basically wrote the draft regs surrounding PBN when they were creating these procedures at JNU. Office banter basically boils down to assertions such as when they were designing the procedure, if the procedure failed something in the draft regs they, meaning the regs, were simply modified so it would work. With the modifications that have occurred since the JNU procedures were developed, who knows if they have simply been grandfathered the whole time or if they would pass current day checks. No one really knows how they've been handled since Alaska designed and has maintained (this is assumed at this point) these procedures as part of their PBN in-house process. No doubt that Alaska likely designed these with extremely limiting restrictions as to the what is required to fly them (aircraft specific, engine specific, pilot uniform specific.....only joking on the last one).

If the procedures are maintained by Alaska then we'll have to purchase directly from them (not likely at this point to begin with) if, and only if, we can meet the special requirements they called out for when they initially designed the procedures. If they are being maintained in the public realm (third party provider or an extremely long shot perhaps part of the FAA PBN program), there is hope we stand a chance at being able to purchase them at a reasonable cost.
 
AUAeropilot said:
Sorry, I was asleep at the wheel here over the last few days. We (PE) didn't find out about the desire to service JNU until middle of last week. I've been in a scramble since trying to develop some OEI procedures that will give us needed performance back to SEA. Finished that up early this week. Apparently the mentality of "well Alaska serves it with a 738, so can we" won in the building next door, engine out procedure development and approach procedure reliability be damned.

The focus now shifts to operational reliability. We can only use the LDA published approach to JNU (and its extremely high minimums) since the RNAV(GPS) is N/A for Cat C and D aircraft. (other options are currently being investigated, but as of right now we only have access to publicly published procedures. We certainly can fly RNP procedures on the 738, but availability of those procedures for JNU is currently limited...$$$) I've got this nice piece of paper hanging in my cube stating I've completed the FAA PBN course and a Letter of Authorization from the FAA in my laptop bag stating I am certified to design PBN approaches but the start to finish timeline for these procedures pushes the completion date well beyond May of 2015. We are tentatively scheduled in late January to flight validate a procedure we built for a ski destination that's been an ongoing project from earlier this year. It's not nearly as challenging as JNU and the procedure we've built was just to get an approach with Cat D minimums when landing a certain direction.

Bottom line is that this one was held very close to the chest, even internally, and now that it's out everyone is weighing in on the challenges we will face. While I think it's doable, the success is reliant on everyone involved bringing their "A" games. The names I've been in contact with are all top notch, but we're all investigating everything under a microscope due to compressed timelines. Saving grace right now from a reliability standpoint is that the service dates should assist in getting some descent weather.
Click to expand...
Thank you for this.
@Capt. Chaos
 
AUAeropilot said:
We might have seen a copy of the Alaska procedures from an analysis that was done on them by an external performance-based navigation firm when JNU was looking at moving thresholds around. Alaska basically wrote the draft regs surrounding PBN when they were creating these procedures at JNU. Office banter basically boils down to assertions such as when they were designing the procedure, if the procedure failed something in the draft regs they, meaning the regs, were simply modified so it would work. With the modifications that have occurred since the JNU procedures were developed, who knows if they have simply been grandfathered the whole time or if they would pass current day checks. No one really knows how they've been handled since Alaska designed and has maintained (this is assumed at this point) these procedures as part of their PBN in-house process. No doubt that Alaska likely designed these with extremely limiting restrictions as to the what is required to fly them (aircraft specific, engine specific, pilot uniform specific.....only joking on the last one).

If the procedures are maintained by Alaska then we'll have to purchase directly from them (not likely at this point to begin with) if, and only if, we can meet the special requirements they called out for when they initially designed the procedures. If they are being maintained in the public realm (third party provider or an extremely long shot perhaps part of the FAA PBN program), there is hope we stand a chance at being able to purchase them at a reasonable cost.
Click to expand...

Thanks for some factual information! And yes the procedures and the R-route structure that feeds their procedures are all maintained and flight checked by Alaska. They have also developed a wind profiler system around the airport that is a controlling factor on approaches and departures. The big magic in their 26 approach is that Alaska had to get their own D-GPS signal correction ground equipment tested validated and installed for it all to work in the terrain confines.
 
@AUAeropilot -

Two things. Thanks a million for tolerating me coming by your office and enduring my training "BitchFest" on a number of occasions and also for letting me drag you into a thread where people would really benefit from a "Well, actually…" knowledgable perspective.

Thanks from all of us!
 
Derg said:
and also for letting me drag you into a thread where people would really benefit from a "Well, actually…" knowledgable perspective.
Click to expand...

The "well actually" I (a neutral party other than the fear of a hostile takeover from either DL or AS) am hearing is that the "pro Alaska" peeps in this thread were actually correct. There is no way Delta can get a high quality PBN approach setup in time for the start of service outside of purchasing access to the one Alaska currently uses (and I don't see Alaska allowing that), which may not actually even be a legal design per the current rules of PBN.
 
Last edited:
AUAeropilot said:
The focus now shifts to operational reliability. We can only use the LDA published approach to JNU (and its extremely high minimums) since the RNAV(GPS) is N/A for Cat C and D aircraft. (other options are currently being investigated, but as of right now we only have access to publicly published procedures. We certainly can fly RNP procedures on the 738, but availability of those procedures for JNU is currently limited...$$$) I've got this nice piece of paper hanging in my cube stating I've completed the FAA PBN course and a Letter of Authorization from the FAA in my laptop bag stating I am certified to design PBN approaches but the start to finish timeline for these procedures pushes the completion date well beyond May of 2015. We are tentatively scheduled in late January to flight validate a procedure we built for a ski destination that's been an ongoing project from earlier this year. It's not nearly as challenging as JNU and the procedure we've built was just to get an approach with Cat D minimums when landing a certain direction.
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting this--it sounds like you have my dream job.
 
The "well actually" I (a neutral party other than the fear of a hostile takeover from either DL or AS) am hearing is that the "pro Alaska" peeps in this thread were actually correct. There is no way Delta can get a high quality PBN approach setup in time for the start of service outside of purchasing access to the one Alaska currently uses (and I don't see Alaska allowing that), which may not actually even be a legal design per the current rules of PBN.
Click to expand...

I won't concede that yet.

Delta is putting in an awful lot of resources to go up against Alaska Airlines.
 
BobDDuck said:
The "well actually" I (a neutral party other than the fear of a hostile takeover from either DL or AS) am hearing is that the "pro Alaska" peeps in this thread were actually correct. There is no way Delta can get a high quality PBN approach setup in time for the start of service outside of purchasing access to the one Alaska currently uses (and I don't see Alaska allowing that), which may not actually even be a legal design per the current rules of PBN.
Click to expand...

Nah, he's good. And he's got a lot of resources.

Considering the amount of loot they've been making over the last few years, it's going to happen.
 
Seggy said:
I won't concede that yet.

Delta is putting in an awful lot of resources to go up against Alaska Airlines.
Click to expand...
You seem to know a lot about what Delta management is thinking and doing for someone who went through training at Spirit.
 
Last edited:
BobDDuck said:
The "well actually" I (a neutral party other than the fear of a hostile takeover from either DL or AS) am hearing is that the "pro Alaska" peeps in this thread were actually correct. There is no way Delta can get a high quality PBN approach setup in time for the start of service outside of purchasing access to the one Alaska currently uses (and I don't see Alaska allowing that), which may not actually even be a legal design per the current rules of PBN.
Click to expand...

I asked a friend involved in that kind of thing with the FAA. From his side he said Alaska cannot simply block the purchase of this stuff, nor can they charge $10m or something for it. That would be up to the FAA. There's no such thing as a "proprietary approach" in their eyes. They would determine some sort of fair price for their share of the use based upon their involvement in the design (obviously lack thereof), and their usage of it (1 arrival per day, seasonally.) I don't know how accurate that stuff is.
 
Dan208B said:
I asked a friend involved in that kind of thing with the FAA. From his side he said Alaska cannot simply block the purchase of this stuff, nor can they charge $10m or something for it. That would be up to the FAA. There's no such thing as a "proprietary approach" in their eyes. They would determine some sort of fair price for their share of the use based upon their involvement in the design (obviously lack thereof), and their usage of it (1 arrival per day, seasonally.) I don't know how accurate that stuff is.
Click to expand...

This is kind of what we're hearing from Flight Ops upstairs, but again everything is happening so quickly that many things are being asked just for the sake of asking at this point and will be really analyzed in the coming weeks.


Derg said:
Nah, he's good. And he's got a lot of resources.

Considering the amount of loot they've been making over the last few years, it's going to happen.
Click to expand...

One of the pilots I do the PBN stuff just left my cube and we had quite a discussion about our procedure that we are finally going to flight val in January and how the FAA put it through their precipitous terrain model to make sure we were good to go. No doubt anything we try and design would be sent through that modeling program ten times just to make sure. Not to mention the fact that Alaska was likely using AC 120-29A when they first built these procedures in the 90's which was cancelled August 12, 2002. Order 8260.58 reigns supreme now and any changes to the procedures (or a Delta attempt at creating our own) would likely not pass the regs set forth in 8260.58. Some of the paperwork we have from a study done about moving thresholds mentions that Alaska would have to resubmit their procedures for approval and that they might not pass current specs from the 8260.58.


Derg said:
@AUAeropilot -

Two things. Thanks a million for tolerating me coming by your office and enduring my training "BitchFest" on a number of occasions and also for letting me drag you into a thread where people would really benefit from a "Well, actually…" knowledgable perspective.

Thanks from all of us!
Click to expand...

It's always fun to sit down and chat to let others vent. It makes me appreciate how easy I have it sometimes and allows me to make snide comments to an audience that isn't caught in the weeds of every comment I make like some engineers tend to do when over-analyzing things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top