P-56 Busted Airspace

[SpauldingSmails]

For those of you who aren't aware that the windows remain transparent past VR the river is on a lot of terrain mapping displays also.

 

[SpauldingSmails]

...I'm not going to risk my certificates for that" but in VFR conditions it is not even remotely risky in terms of a P56 violation to visually follow the river northwest...but you gotta make that second left turn over Roosevelt Island passing Rosslyn to stay away from the Naval Observatory (P-56B).

Yeah, I think it's right around a mile from Rosslyn to the nearest point of P56.

If they can't fly the plane through a mile wide slot in the sky in VMC, then they probably have trouble parking their car in a garage. "I'm not going to risk hitting the living room, I usually just plow into the left wall of my garage."

 

[ExHeloGuy]

Did anyone loose a job over this? What was their companies reaction?

 

[79%N1]

No. Nobody loosened a job. They are trying to tighten, though.

 

[ExHeloGuy]

So no loose jobs over this. Thats good to know.

 

[Stifler's Mom]

Turns are apparently too loose. Tighten them up.

 

[TheRaven]

A lot of the P56 busts are actually P56B.....located over the Naval Observatory/Vice President's house a couple miles up the river near the reservoir...especially with a stiff wind out of the west. People get past the big P56 area but then just clip the left edge of P-56B.

The 10-4 chart diagram isn't drawn to scale, and if it was it would show P-56B is a quite a bit larger than it's depicted. I don't know why it's not to scale but check the chart.

 

[ASA_Aviator]

A lot of the P56 busts are actually P56B.....located over the Naval Observatory/Vice President's house a couple miles up the river near the reservoir...especially with a stiff wind out of the west. People get past the big P56 area but then just clip the left edge of P-56B.

The 10-4 chart diagram isn't drawn to scale, and if it was it would show P-56B is a quite a bit larger than it's depicted. I don't know why it's not to scale but check the chart.

Incorrect. We have had two actual busts, the others were near busts. Only one involved P-56B alone, and it was due to a pilot turning to 360 degrees after they did initially turn left. The other was a crew that punched both A and B.

The near busts involved either turning to the right, up the Anacostia river, or delaying the turn long enough to get a scolding from tower, but not long enough to get into P-56A.



In any case, P-56B has not been the issue specifically. Just turn to the left, and stay on the 328 radial until given a heading. If you track the radial accurately, and immediately, there won't be any problems. Do not follow the river, even in visual conditions, unless you have an engine failure, AND you plugged the 01V procedure into the FMS. Capture the 328 radial immediately in ALL cases if both engines are operating. (These are our new procedures, which are coming out in the Dec 10 update.)

 

[COOPERVANE]

And coming To EVERY AQP event next year.

 

[Oakum_Boy]

Wonderful. Do I get credit for doing this correctly in the past? Or not having a redneck accent or spikey hair?

 

[dojetdriver]

And coming To EVERY AQP event next year.

My company (soon to be ASA) has been using DCA on conventional training PC's for years after we had similar issues with P56, BOTH parts.

Don't get it all the time, but when you do, the instructor will base a lot of the PC out of DCA. If you can't figure out how to track the radial by the time you come out, well...........

 

[LazyLightnin']

Wonderful. Do I get credit for doing this correctly in the past? Or not having a redneck accent or spikey hair?

Shouldn't you be working out of San Francisco?

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

I never understood not building the DCA to DCA328/10 or whatever waypoint in the FMC and using that as primary nav... it's a much more stable and accurate display. Raw data can be monitored on the RMI and/or full displayed and monitored by the PM.

It's incredibly simple- the guys that 9E had bust it mostly let the autopilot fly it right at 600 feet, which on the CRJ with the lag of the nav engaging and then the autopilot engaging, thinking, and then realizing where it needed to be going it was already too late. NOTHING to do with being in green needles, which for some reason all the regional training departments think is the root of the problem...

Be a pilot and have some fun and do some hand flying... even at 20+ degrees nose up its perfectly easy to look down and sniff your way along the river.

 

[1.3XVso]

ar

I never understood not building the DCA to DCA328/10 or whatever waypoint in the FMC and using that as primary nav... it's a much more stable and accurate display. Raw data can be monitored on the RMI and/or full displayed and monitored by the PM. For some reason the all the regionals do this, but no one else does...

It's incredibly simple- the guys that 9E had bust it mostly let the autopilot fly it right at 600 feet, which on the CRJ with the lag of the nav engaging and then the autopilot engaging, thinking, and then realizing where it needed to be going it was already too late. NOTHING to do with being in green needles.

Be a pilot and have some fun and do some flying...

How did AR busted p56? You know he speaks very highly of himself on how great and powerful he is.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

How did AR busted p56? You know he speaks very highly of himself on how great and powerful he is.

Him specifically, I never heard how it happened nor did I ask... I do know it was on a day where the schoolhouse types were doing the carpet dance in DC in regards to a rash of P-56 busts. Irony!

The reason for the majority of busts I heard was the "gear up, speed mode, nav mode, autopilot on" idiocy. The canadian royal mounted autopilot just doesnt capture quick enough in strong wind conditions.

To this day I have never heard a justification for why white needles is not appropriate per the north mississippi flying club standards department.

 

[dojetdriver]

I never understood not building the DCA to DCA328/10 or whatever waypoint in the FMC and using that as primary nav... it's a much more stable and accurate display. Raw data can be monitored on the RMI and/or full displayed and monitored by the PM.

Because then you're technically "building your own" RNAV departure.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

Because then you're technically "building your own" RNAV departure.

If you could please explain to me where building your own RNAV overlay departure is wrong, I would appreciate it. Editing an RNAV1 departure in the database is another thing...

You're building an overlay to raw data that is more stable than the raw data while still able to be verified. There is nothing in the FARs that prevents building an FMC overlay to a raw procedure. You are incorrect that building your own RNAV departure is somehow wrong, since the user built RNAV departure is verified on raw and/or certified GPS data.

You can track a radial in flight without going to green needles, right? Along with many other examples including other airports where you track radials off the deck... DCA being the only "green needles" example that some yahoo justified their desk with that I can think of. Some guy on the CRJ decided on this and all the other operators just fell in line.

Again, demonstrate to me why this is wrong or somehow at fault in this situation, because you're going to be scratching at bare walls....

 

[dojetdriver]

You're building an overlay to raw data that is more stable than the raw data while still able to be verified to the raw data. There is nothing in the FARs that prevents building an FMC overlay to a raw procedure. You are incorrect that building your own RNAV departure is somehow wrong, since the RNAV departure is based on raw and/or certified GPS data.

Dude, why are you turning this into a you're wrong/I'm right pissing contest? I NEVER said it was wrong, did I? The point I was getting at was that there's no published RNAV procedure to follow a specific track, such the ATL, DFW, LAX, BOS (at least used to)etc. Would it be nice if they built a procedure? Sure. If I'm not mistaken, doesn't hitting the TOGA on the CRJ when taking the runway give the FMS it's runway update, or something along those lines? If I'm wrong, sorry. Thought I remember hearing that and/or reading that when I was studying for transition training on the CRJ. Since you've flown so many planes in your short career, you should know that not ALL set ups have that capability. If no runway is loaded into the Honeywell product on the WSCOD, the ref data is hardly accurate at first. Again, like I said, RNAV departures are runway specific, the FMS may not be tracking if it NEVER got a good ref point to start with.

Again, demonstrate to me why this is wrong or somehow at fault in this situation.

because you're going to be scratching at bare walls....

Since your putting additional text and inserting ****************************** bag like quips...

Get over yourself and off your high horse.

 

[dojetdriver]

it. Editing an RNAV1 departure in the database is another thing...

You're putting to much additional content/edit jobs in to try to justify your point.

So, when you load an RNAV1 with the specific runway, you're getting terminal area sensitivity, right?

Reference my above point, are you SURE that ALL FMS setups ensure terminal area sensitivity when an RNAV departure isn't loaded? The point I'm getting at is the "accuracy" that's being "guaranteed" by the FMS.

Does DAL allow a manual build? As well as the ability to fly it off that using it as primary nav data?

 

[sweptback]

If you have GPS available on the CRJ, then you don't even need to runway update. The GPS automatically keeps the position updated in the FMS.

Personally I'd fly it in green needles, but build the fix on the FMS for situational awareness.

 

[COOPERVANE]

Personally I'd fly it in green needles, but build the fix on the FMS for situational awareness.

That's what the check ride profile will be. If you build a route in the FMS and fly white needles YOU WILL have an FMS failure. If you build it but fly green, they have no "gotcha" to debrief.

This reminds me of the old canarsie departure profile in the sim.

 

[wmuflyguy]

If you could please explain to me where building your own RNAV overlay departure is wrong, I would appreciate it. Editing an RNAV1 departure in the database is another thing...

You're building an overlay to raw data that is more stable than the raw data while still able to be verified. There is nothing in the FARs that prevents building an FMC overlay to a raw procedure. You are incorrect that building your own RNAV departure is somehow wrong, since the user built RNAV departure is verified on raw and/or certified GPS data.

You can track a radial in flight without going to green needles, right? Along with many other examples including other airports where you track radials off the deck... DCA being the only "green needles" example that some yahoo justified their desk with that I can think of. Some guy on the CRJ decided on this and all the other operators just fell in line.

Again, demonstrate to me why this is wrong or somehow at fault in this situation, because you're going to be scratching at bare walls....

I'd say it is only wrong if your company prohibits it. I have no problem if you do that and back it up with the RMI, as long as the company allows it.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

Dude, why are you turning this into a you're wrong/I'm right pissing contest? I NEVER said it was wrong, did I? The point I was getting at was that there's no published RNAV procedure to follow a specific track, such the ATL, DFW, LAX, BOS (at least used to)etc. Would it be nice if they built a procedure? Sure. If I'm not mistaken, doesn't hitting the TOGA on the CRJ when taking the runway give the FMS it's runway update, or something along those lines? If I'm wrong, sorry. Thought I remember hearing that and/or reading that when I was studying for transition training on the CRJ. Since you've flown so many planes in your short career, you should know that not ALL set ups have that capability. If no runway is loaded into the Honeywell product on the WSCOD, the ref data is hardly accurate at first. Again, like I said, RNAV departures are runway specific, the FMS may not be tracking if it NEVER got a good ref point to start with.





Since your putting additional text and inserting ****************************** bag like quips...

Get over yourself and off your high horse.

Why on earth do you have this attitude with me? You responded saying that you are making an RNAV departure out of the procedure, which obviously implies that what I'm saying is wrong. I responded in detail as such, and having worked 9 out of the past 10 days and not being able to sleep last night, it took a few edits.

This discussion is about the CRJ series aircraft, not the WSCOD, which is what I based my points off of.

 

[dojetdriver]

Why on earth do you have this attitude with me?

Oh, I don't know dude. Maybe because you took my point way too far? Even though I agreed with you, you couldn't seem to see what I was getting at and the potential danger it could get you into if the FMS has a reference probelm. THEN, you do a bunch of edit/hack jobs on your posts to insert condescending personal remarks.

That's OK, I don't think reading/comprehension has ever been a pompous southern redneck's strong suit. I didn't have an attitude with you, till YOU had one with me.

Carry on, and have a good night.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

Oh, I don't know dude. Maybe because you took my point way too far? Even though I agreed with you, you couldn't seem to see what I was getting at and the potential danger it could get you into if the FMS has a reference probelm. THEN, you do a bunch of edit/hack jobs on your posts to insert condescending personal remarks.

That's OK, I don't think reading/comprehension has ever been a pompous southern redneck's strong suit.

Carry on, and have a good night.

Knowing your posting history and your attitude towards me (pompous southern redneck? well, I grew up in a suburb of atlanta, so you got the southern part right...), it was a logical assumption that you were disagreeing with me and going to continue down your usual path.


Condescending personal remarks? Other than saying that you were wrong and that continuing down that path would be scratching at bare walls, I don't see anything else in there. If you take that personally, well... you need some thicker skin.

 

[dojetdriver]

Knowing your posting history and your attitude towards me (pompous southern redneck? well, I grew up in a suburb of atlanta, so you got the southern part right...), it was a logical assumption that you were disagreeing with me and going to continue down your usual path.


Condescending personal remarks? Other than saying that you were wrong and that continuing down that path would be scratching at bare walls, I don't see anything else in there. If you take that personally, well... you need some thicker skin.

Goddamn that it ONE tall horse you got.

If you can't handle people challenging your thoughts without flying off the handle, maybe you should take some of your own advice.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

Goddamn that it ONE tall horse you got.

If you can't handle people challenging your thoughts without flying off the handle, maybe you should take some of your own advice.

Please direct me to where I "flew off the handle."

 

[dojetdriver]

Please direct me to where I "flew off the handle."

Because you wanted to turn it into a who's right and who's wrong pissing contest.

Don't know how many times I can say it, I AGREED WITH YOU!!!!!!!!

But doing it that way could open up potential problems.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

Because you wanted to turn it into a who's right and who's wrong pissing contest.

Don't know how many times I can say it, I AGREED WITH YOU!!!!!!!!

But doing it that way could open up potential problems.

Yeah... stating that in the original reponse would have been so incredibly difficult.

 

[Superpilot92]

turn left :beer: