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.