APG, EFB Pro, Ultranav

[PlaneJohn]

Our department is considering performance software for a BE400A, any suggestions(other than get rid of the plane)? Curious about your experiences with APG, EFB Pro, and Ultranav. Pros and Cons. We are leaning towards APG. Thanks for any Info.

 

[CitationCapt]

We have used APG for several years and like their service. The site is user friendly. Check out the demos at www.apg.aero

I am not affiliated with APG.

CC

 

[BEfly]

We have APG for our Beechjets and Excel. We like it

 

[jet2work]

UltraNav works well for WT&Bal computations and for determining what your 2nd segment OEI climb capabilities are (theoretically). It also can be used in the cockpit and can be used for landing data.

What APG offers is a OEI climb capability for a specific procedure that allows you to clear terrain IAW TERPS terrain seperation criteria vs FAA terrain seperation criteria. APG also shows you different scenarios like what an increase or decrease in temperature will allow you to do. I like the fact that APG determines what climb gradient is required and tells me what weight I need to be at given the current range of temps to make that gradient.

(Obama Voice ON) Let me be perfectly clear! (Obama Voice OFF):nuts: The terrain seperation figures that APG gives you are NOT safer than waiting for the weather to get up to takeoff mins (for us 91 guys). You must fly the procedure. That means that when the procedure differs from the SID, you should file NO SIDS in remarks, and file to the last waypoint along the departure path that APG has calculated for you. Most times the APG procedure follows the SID, so this is not an issue. But many people had the thought in their head that they would fly the SID and if they lost an engine they would declare an emergency and fly the APG procedure. That ain't how it works. Take KEGE for instance. The APG procedure used to be the "Cottonwood Departure" If you took off on the Gypsum Departure and lost an engine after making the turn to 215 degrees, you were in no man's land trying to manuever over to the Cottonwood departure's path (there is a huge mountain in between for those not familiar). I think that APG has since made their departure overlay the Gypsum.

On rare occasion, the APG departure will actually bring to your attention a situation that is restrictive, that may have escaped your attention before. KAPF is a good example of this. On the chart, Rwy 5 length is 5290ft long, but the the TORA is only 5000ft. Rwy 14 is 5000ft long, but the TORA is only 4550 because of this:

Naples Muni

RUNWAY DECLARED DISTANCE INFORMATION​

RWY 05:

TORA–5000 TODA–5290 ASDA–5000 LDA–5000

​

​

RWY 14: ​

​

TORA–5000 TODA–5000 ASDA–4550 LDA–4420

​

​

RWY 23: ​

​

TORA–5000 TODA–5000 ASDA–5000 LDA–5000
RWY 32: TORA–5000 TODA–5000 ASDA–4870 LDA–4420


In this case APG would bring to your attention that there are obstacles that limit your RUNWAY LENGTH AVAILABLE for takeoff (ie TORA). This has nothing to do with climb gradient (actually it does- just not in the way we normally think). Jeppesen is starting to list the TORA, TODA, and ASDA on more and more charts, otherwise the only place that I know of to find it is in the AFD

http://aeronav.faa.gov/afd.asp?cycle=afd_08APR2010&eff=04-08-2010&end=06-03-2010#results

If you could not tell by now, I highly recommend APG. And no, I do not work for them.

​

 

[spxdriver]

What APG offers is a OEI climb capability for a specific procedure that allows you to clear terrain IAW TERPS terrain seperation criteria vs FAA terrain seperation criteria.

When you refer to APG, are you referring to runway analysis, or some other product?

When using a runway analysis, the actual clearance over every obstacle is 35' (net path). Note, I am not referring to 35' over a gradient, but 35' over an obstacle.

Before using runway analysis numbers to takeoff, think about whether you really want to be in IMC, on a single engine, clearing obstacles by only 35'.

Also, keep in mind that the lateral boundaries when using a runway analysis "escape procedure" are significantly narrower than the lateral boundaries specified in TERPS/PANS-OPS.

 

[Hawker800]

Currently use Ultranav. Works OK. Saw a runway analysis program offered through Fltplan.com. Is the APG program the same one? Cost money so the CP dosen't want to talk about it right now.

 

[Gulfstream 200]

When you refer to APG, are you referring to runway analysis, or some other product?

When using a runway analysis, the actual clearance over every obstacle is 35' (net path). Note, I am not referring to 35' over a gradient, but 35' over an obstacle.

Before using runway analysis numbers to takeoff, think about whether you really want to be in IMC, on a single engine, clearing obstacles by only 35'.

Also, keep in mind that the lateral boundaries when using a runway analysis "escape procedure" are significantly narrower than the lateral boundaries specified in TERPS/PANS-OPS.

Oh stop.

 

[jet2work]

When you refer to APG, are you referring to runway analysis, or some other product?

When using a runway analysis, the actual clearance over every obstacle is 35' (net path). Note, I am not referring to 35' over a gradient, but 35' over an obstacle.

Before using runway analysis numbers to takeoff, think about whether you really want to be in IMC, on a single engine, clearing obstacles by only 35'.

Also, keep in mind that the lateral boundaries when using a runway analysis "escape procedure" are significantly narrower than the lateral boundaries specified in TERPS/PANS-OPS.

I am referring to the runway analysis.

I think I clearly stated that these procedures are NOT safer than waiting for the weather to get better (meaning ceiling and vis improving or temperature decreasing). In fact I even did it in my Obama voice "LET ME BE PERFECTLY CLEAR." I'm not sure how I could have made it any clearer, but once again. This is not safer than waiting. Even safer than waiting is not flying. That is of course unless you decide to drive to your destination. That is statistically deadly and CRAZY :nuts:


But, the fact is that very very few Transport Category Certified airplanes lose an engine on takeoff. That fact not withstanding, it is perfectly legal for a guy in a PC-12, or a C-182 to take off when the weather is below published takeoff mins. That's right. Perfectly legal for the single engine Pilatus to takeoff while the Falcon 2000 waits for the ceiling and vis to increase.

APG allows you to demonstrate to the FAA that on your very worst day, you could lose an engine at V1 while still on the runway, takeoff and not hit any obstacles, albiet, clearing them only by the TERPS terrain seperation criteria. Lose an engine at 100 feet and one would suppose that your terrain clearance would continue to be 100 feet greater than the TERPS 35ft, lose it at 200 ...... on and on (based on TERPS criteria of 200ft per NM). It does not guarantee that you won't have to replace both pilots seat cushions.:blush:

IMHO, the biggest benefit to using APG is awareness. The second benefit is that if you can reduce your aircraft weight to meet a climb gradient that will allow you to safely clear terrain, you don't have to worry about someone from the FAA coming back and saying you were careless and reckless. Kindly refer them to this document.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...ircular.nsf/list/AC 120-91/$FILE/AC120-91.pdf

Us 91 operators are currently operating under a loophole that the FAA never intended to give us. Before long, I believe anyone operating large turbojet airplanes will have to comply with AC 120-91.

Lastly, FAA takeoff minimums assume that you will "see and avoid" any close in obstacles that are published. You heard me right. When the bottom of your airport diagram chart says "Numerous trees located 230 ft right of centerline 103 ft AGL" You can bet that you are responsible for avoiding them, regardless of ceiling and visibility. APG will at least make you aware of them and what kind of performance is required to avoid them.

My apologies to Gulfstream200 for what this discussion has evolved into.

Bottom line: APG is $75 a month per airframe. We throw more than that worth of catering out on every trip.

 

[spxdriver]

APG allows you to demonstrate to the FAA that on your very worst day, you could lose an engine at V1 while still on the runway, takeoff and not hit any obstacles, albiet, clearing them only by the TERPS terrain seperation criteria. Lose an engine at 100 feet and one would suppose that your terrain clearance would continue to be 100 feet greater than the TERPS 35ft, lose it at 200 ...... on and on (based on TERPS criteria of 200ft per NM). It does not guarantee that you won't have to replace both pilots seat cushions.:blush:

Runway Analysis has absolutely nothing to do with TERPS criteria.***** They shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence.
*****
35 ft of terrain separation up to 1500ft.***** It has nothing to do with "per NM". In other words from the ground up, while using a runway analysis procedure at the weights specified, you will clear obstacles by 35 feet.

You're correct, a runway analysis procedure is nowhere near as safe as waiting for the weather to improve. Also interesting is that the escape procedures are never test flown; they're developed via computer software, and then released.

 

[rice]

Runway Analysis has absolutely nothing to do with TERPS criteria.***** They shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence.
*****
35 ft of terrain separation up to 1500ft.***** It has nothing to do with "per NM". In other words from the ground up, while using a runway analysis procedure at the weights specified, you will clear obstacles by 35 feet.

You're correct, a runway analysis procedure is nowhere near as safe as waiting for the weather to improve. Also interesting is that the escape procedures are never test flown; they're developed via computer software, and then released.

Which is why we validate each and every "alternate procedure" we use from APG, either in the Sim or aircraft. It's not that I/we don't trust their data but it sure helps to see it "for real".
As an FYI, when using APG landing data, you might want to look very close at the weights. It is my understanding (after a loooong conversation with Mark at APG) that the landing weights are predicated upon OEI MAP climb data (in addition to the other landing considerations). So if you have a situation where the MAP climb gradient is other than standard, such as the MAP on the KASE SAAAR approaches, (325'/nm while in a 30deg AOB turn) the landing weight data is invalid.
Just something else to think about.

 

[fokkerjet]

Also interesting is that the escape procedures are never test flown; they're developed via computer software, and then released.

Please tell me that you didn't really believe that APG test flew every excape procedure, off every runway that offers such a procedure, in every airplane, that they have performance data on?

 

[jet2work]

Runway Analysis has absolutely nothing to do with TERPS criteria.***** They shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence.
*****
35 ft of terrain separation up to 1500ft.***** It has nothing to do with "per NM". In other words from the ground up, while using a runway analysis procedure at the weights specified, you will clear obstacles by 35 feet.

Once again, I think you may have misunderstood me. I am simply suggesting that if you climb out on two engines, and then lose one at 200 AGL that you could reasonable assume that now you have a 200 ft addition to your terrain clearance (ie your 35ft). So that at every point along your takeoff path your terrain clearance will continue to be 235ft. Is this something to be thrilled about? I don't think so. Is it careless and reckless? Given the reliability of modern jet engines, I don't think so either.

You're correct, a runway analysis procedure is nowhere near as safe as waiting for the weather to improve. Also interesting is that the escape procedures are never test flown; they're developed via computer software, and then released.

Well I seems to me that it would be cost prohibitive to fly every aircraft type at every airport in the US, but you do have a valid point that everyone should consider before trusting their lives to this data. But, it must be valid enough that soon the FAA will require even Part 91 operators to do it. The airlines have been doing it for years. This analysis is based on satellite imagery, to determine the height of obstacles along a more narrowly defined corridor, using TERPS terrain seperation vs FAA terrain separation (yes, I said TERPs). Please see AC 120-91 para 10-12.
Once again, I will state unequivocally that using these procedures is NOT safer than waiting for conditions to improve.

I'm guessing that you don't like to take off from mountainous airports in weather below takeoff mins. I get that. If I had my way we would wait too. But once again, I will try to put it into context. The weather required to depart KEGE IFR is well above what is required to depart VFR, and Non Transport Category Certified airplanes and those with only one engine, do not have to adhere to these takeoff criteria at all. Flying during the day is safer than flying at night, should we not fly at night? Flying over land is safer than flying over the ocean, should we not fly overwater? Flying in VMC is safer than flying in IMC should we not fly in weather?

In aviation we have already made adaptations to mitigate the hazards of night flying (airport lighting, MOCA, NVG), overwater flying (ETOPS, rafts, etc) and instrument flying (precision approaches, GPS, FD). Using performance data is one more adaptation that in the opinion of the authorities (FAA) allows you to operate at what they consider an acceptable level of risk (even if you don't). The solution to worrying about climb gradients out of KEGE or KASE is to get a BAE146 of Falcon 900, or be prepared to wait.

I don't really have a dog in the fight of whether or not we should be doing this. My employer says we do it. The FAA says it's legal and safe. I am capable of doing it. I do it. Whether or not I like it is irrelevent. If I had my way, we wouldn't do any overnights except when I wanted to, and all my destinations would be sunny and warm and flat (except PHNL).

 

[fokkerjet]

Seeing the obstacle, doesn't mean that you will be able to avoid it with an engine loss. Neither does operating an aircraft having 3 or more engines, mean that you will clear those same obstacles with an engine loss either.

 

[jet2work]

Seeing the obstacle, doesn't mean that you will be able to avoid it with an engine loss.

That's right! And therein lies the misconception that some people have about a higher ceiling and vis requirement allowing them to return VMC to the field. Try turning back at Eagle, Aspen Sun Valley etc..

Neither does operating an aircraft having 3 or more engines, mean that you will clear those same obstacles with an engine loss either.

Well you will if you meet the required climb gradient in a FAR25 certified jet, even if it only has two engines, and you lose one.

 

[fokkerjet]

That's right! And therein lies the misconception that some people have about a higher ceiling and vis requirement allowing them to return VMC to the field. Try turning back at Eagle, Aspen Sun Valley etc..



Well you will if you meet the required climb gradient in a FAR25 certified jet, even if it only has two engines, and you lose one.

Didn't realize that only jets were certified to Part 25?

 

[jet2work]

Didn't realize that only jets were certified to Part 25?

Hmmmm. I'm trying to figure out where you got that out of my post above. I never said that only jets were certified to FAR25.

What I said was

Well you will if you meet the required climb gradient in a FAR25 certified jet, even if it only has two engines, and you lose one.

As I recall, there are some FAR23 certified jets, and there are some military jets that are not certified at all. However, if you read my previous post, I don't think that one would logically conclude that I stated that all FAR25 certified airplanes are jets, nor did I state that all jets are FAR25 certified. So what was your point?

Ohh I get it...flamebait. Good job. I guess that flying the Fokker, makes you a little sensitive to those kinda statements. Please accept my apologies.

Technically I believe that all Part 25 certified airplanes actually have turbo fan engines or turbo props. So thanks for giving me the opportunity to clear that up. I know the distiction between Jet and Turbo Jet has caused confusion here before. So when you said "jet" you actually meant "turbo fan."

 

[fokkerjet]

Ohh I get it...flamebait. Good job. I guess that flying the Fokker, makes you a little sensitive to those kinda statements. Please accept my apologies.

Technically I believe that all Part 25 certified airplanes actually have turbo fan engines or turbo props. So thanks for giving me the opportunity to clear that up. I know the distiction between Jet and Turbo Jet has caused confusion here before. So when you said "jet" you actually meant "turbo fan."

Why would flying a Fokker make me sensitive?

So, couldn't a piston aircraft also be certified under Part 25 too? Nothing restricts Part 25 to turbine powered aircraft, now does it?

DC8, DC9, B707 and B727 are non Part 25 aircraft. But they are certified under the same regulations as the DC3 and Convair 240.

 

[jet2work]

Why would flying a Fokker make me sensitive?

So, couldn't a piston aircraft also be certified under Part 25 too? Nothing restricts Part 25 to turbine powered aircraft, now does it?

DC8, DC9, B707 and B727 are non Part 25 aircraft. But they are certified under the same regulations as the DC3 and Convair 240.

Yes, piston engine aircraft can be certified under part 25. Here is the reference for you. http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_25-101.html I have never stated otherwise. I have posted my quote twice. In fact my post did not include or exclude turboprops or piston engine aircraft, it simply mentioned that in a PART25 certified jet that you will clear the terrain if you adhere to the published climb gradient. I still don't understand why you are having difficulty with the statement. Perhaps I should have used the word aircraft instead of jet. Nonetheless, my original statement is perfectly correct if not "politically correct."

Here is the quote ONE MORE TIME:

Well you will if you meet the required climb gradient in a FAR25 certified jet, even if it only has two engines, and you lose one.

This is getting tiresome. I hate to make any assumptions, but is English your second language? (you know - who flys a Fokker). If so, I forgive you for misunderstanding. The quote above is correct. Perhaps I should have also added if you fly the aircraft IAW the PTS, and Navigate IAW ...Under standard conditions, in an aircraft performing IAW the manufacturers minimum performance standards...yada yada yada, so as not to leave any base uncovered. Really??? Or are are you just yanking my chain??? Man you are good.:erm:


Now, are there any piston engine twins certified under Part 25????

I just checked my US ATP certificate and under limitations it says "English Proficient." I'm not sure if that is a limitation or a qualification.

 

[fokkerjet]

This is getting tiresome. I hate to make any assumptions, but is English your second language? (you know - who flys a Fokker).

Please, you're doing such a great job with explaining Part 25, just who does fly a Fokker?

Oh, and to answer your question: I don't really care what piston aircraft are certified under Part 25, but I do know that not all turbine aircraft, over 12,500 lbs, were Part 25 certified.

 

[jet2work]

Please, you're doing such a great job with explaining Part 25, just who does fly a Fokker?

Oh, and to answer your question: I don't really care what piston aircraft are certified under Part 25, but I do know that not all turbine aircraft, over 12,500 lbs, were Part 25 certified.

Hey, if you are lonely, why don't you get a Facebook account?:blush:

Really???? This discussion started as an attempt to help someone decide whether or not to get Ultra Nav or APG. I use both, and find them valuable. Some people are not comfortable using APG data to depart a mountainous airport. That's OK. Me personally, I think it is better to have the information available. What you choose to do with it is up to you.

Your contribution to this discussion has been to attempt to correct a statement made by me that you did not read correctly. Thanks for the help.