Back to Squawk list
  • 8

KOAK - Oakland International Airport - Runway Number Changes

प्रस्तुत
 
A nice newspaper article on why they changed the Runway designations at KOAK. (www.insidebayarea.com) और अधिक...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


joelwiley
joel wiley 4
It's good to see they're not blaming inflation, global warming or the Affordable Care Act.
Unlike the OC Register story on John Wayne, the Oakland Tribune listed the from and to runway numbers.
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 2
I read some where recently that earth's magnetism is changing direction, slowly to turn by 180 degrees.
And all designating numbers may have to be reversed.
This may an advance exercise.
Though that phenomenon will take about a million years to happen .
ha ha
;p
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Just an idle question: Why bother?

Aside from "tradition", "we've always done it this way", or "metric over my dead body", isn't the runway designation basically an agreed-upon name to separate it from other runways? While it does convey some information, accuracy is +/- 5 deg and changing. Northern Canadian airports are numbered from true North (Eg Alert CYLT 05T/23T - of course it is difficult to maintain the numbers on the gravel & ice runway).

Aside from politics, is there a reason to renumber? If so, would there be reasons not to switch to True bearing if you were going to change anyway?
goi5chrs
goi5chrs 1
Runways are numbered for their magnetic heading so pilots can reference there instrumentation in the cockpit to the runway itself. when you're trying to be very accurate as you often need to be in order to miss building, terrain, and other traffic it makes sense to change the runway numbers to match the world itself as closely as possible.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
So, since the actual heading is rounded to the nearest 10 deg, +/- 5 degrees is close enough for government work?

For some reason that reminds me of the adage "the most dangerous weapon in the US Army's arsenal is a green 2nd lt. with a compass".
;-)
Moviela
Ric Wernicke 1
It is not so easy to find Santa's facilities anymore because magnetic north has been cruising south at an ever increasing rate. The regional deviation is also jiggling about more actively than in the memorable past. Geologists tell me the magnetic field has shifted suddenly North to South in the past. I am a firm believer than anyone that uses GPS to navigate should also have mastered chronometer, compass, and sextant prior to touching tiller or stick.

I can't imagine how much white runway paint will be needed if the N on my compass points South during my lifetime.
joelwiley
joel wiley 2
If the pole flips neatly, then just use the "S" end of the needle. However, when it does flip, it probably won't be in quite the same place, and we'll have bigger worries. When it doesn't really count, my Davis Mark III is close enough for marine work.
dee9bee
dee9bee 0
That's a lot of taxiway signs to change. Maybe they are swapping some signs with other airports that have also been changing runway #s. No,that would make too much sense :-)
wasclywabbit
John Berry 0
I'm not a pilot and had no idea that runway numbers were based on magnetic rather than true readings. With the ongoing magnetic field shift, a phenomena that's been known for some time, it makes far more sense to be based on true.
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 1
Add to this .
The shift will be gradual.
so numbers may need be changed periodically !
ha ha
;p
shortimer
Vern Schulze -3
With the almost universal use of GPS in aviation, I wonder why we keep using the magnetic compass. You can by 2 or 3 hand held GPS's for the price of one Aviation Certified Compass. Then change all of the runways to true north and never worry about the magnetic compass again. Shortly after that we could get rid of the barometric pressure and altimiters based on that measurment. These tools are outdated,create needless complexity, and aren't that accurate anyway.
Falconus
Falconus 7
That's called putting all your eggs in one basket. I was trained to be able to fly by dead reckoning (navigating with a map and the seat of my pants), but I really don't want that to be my only backup system.
blake1023
blake1023 2
Vern didnt this part of the AIM during his 30+ years of flying.

1-1-18. Global Positioning System (GPS)

b. VFR Use of GPS

In all cases, VFR pilots should never rely solely on one system of navigation. GPS navigation must be integrated with other forms of electronic navigation (when possible), as well as pilotage and dead reckoning. Only through the integration of these techniques can the VFR pilot ensure accuracy in navigation.
shortimer
Vern Schulze -4
Apparently you don't agree "should" is a permissive term. If it was not authorized it would have said "must" never rely solely on one system of navigation. In addition, the AIM is not a regulatory document. It is an information source and does not have the power of regulation. The following is an excerpt from the AIM which explains the purpose and limitiations of the document:

d. This publication, while not regulatory, provides
information which reflects examples of operating
techniques and procedures which may be requirements
in other federal publications or
regulations. It is made available solely to assist pilots
in executing their responsibilities required by
other publications.
Consistent with the foregoing, it is the policy of the
Federal Aviation Administration to furnish information
only when, in the opinion of the agency,
a unique situation should be advertised and not to
furnish routine information such as concentrations
of air traffic, either civil or military. The
Aeronautical Information Manual will not contain
informative items concerning everyday circumstances
that pilots should, either by good practices
or regulation, expect to encounter or avoid.

Furthermore, I don't believe I ever suggested that other navigation tools not be used. My main point was that the hand held aviation GPS is many times more accurate regarding location and altitude than the "steam gauges" that most aircraft have in their panels. I think we have beat this horse to death unless you have some further information which negates what I have said about the utility of hand held GPS's.
blake1023
blake1023 1
shortimer
Vern Schulze 0
I'm not sure what point you are making. Yes TSO are regulatory but I was talking about hand held GPS's which are portable devices and are widely used in both LSA and certified aircraft. No TSO's apply to portable devices.
blake1023
blake1023 3
My point is your wrong, when it comes to IFR navigation. My other point is, good luck trying to do any RNAV type approach, SID, or STAR with your hand held GPS. Your point is the AIM is just a waste of paper that applies to everyone else but you! You asked me for a reference in the regulations, I did. You're also wrong when it comes to your "steam gauge” point, but I'm not going to do Instrument Ground School on the Flightaware comment section.
shortimer
Vern Schulze 1
The Dead Horse has been revived!! I never implied or said that hand held GPS, which by the way includes a number of tablets which have both GPS and Charts, were legal for sole source use in the IFR environment. However, anyone who has flown IFR, as I have, knows that they are in some ways more useful than the standard steams gauges and VOR's for approaaches and departures. Again, you apparently will not stop referring to the IFR situation which is not what I discussed. Also, I did not say that the AIM was just a waste of paper, I said it was not a regulatory document and I included a copy of the statement from the AIM that made that point. The AIM has references to the FAR's but the FAR's provide the underlying regulations that are mandatory, not the AIM. If you are truly taking an instrument ground school, I suggest you find someone who is more versed in the current state of technology so you will be exposed to something other than the steam gauges you seem to see as the cutting edge of cockpit technology.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
yr2012
matt jensen 1
One sat goes down and the system is screwed until they can re-position another.
shortimer
Vern Schulze 1
Maatt, what you said about the GPS satellites is wrong. At any one time when using a GPS, you may have up to 12 satellites being received. If one of them goes down, or goes out of sight from you GPS, the other 11 or if only as little as 4 are still in sight your GPS will still be accurate for both vertical and horizontal positioning. The satellites are independent of each other and having one go down does not affect any of the others. By the way, what I described above about what satellites are in view of your GPS happens constantly when flying. You constantly add or lose sight of individual satellites when flying. As a result, you are not "screwed until they can reposition another"
shortimer
Vern Schulze 1
If you are a pilot you know about redundancy. Our engines have redundancy's in several components. There is no reason not to have the same in instrumentation. As a matter of fact, GPS units are cheaper than the single units they replace. As you mentioned, things break. There is no reason not to have at least two GPS's in an aircraft. They are more accurate and are less likely to break than the "steam gage" technology they replace.
joelwiley
joel wiley 3
I almost added chart, compass, pencil to my 'things break' post as redundancy. Granted, if the GPS satellite system goes awry or away one is going to have more issues than 'where am I', but as Falconus pointed out shortly ago- all eggs are in one basket. In computer security, we used to call it 'belt and suspenders'. A concern in the shuttle program about the four redundant onboard systems was that they were all the same system. A flaw would be in them all.

cheers.
blake1023
blake1023 3
If you're a pilot, you also know that hand held GPS are not to be used for navigation! I would trust my Aviation Certified Compass more than a hand held GPS from Wal mart ANY day! But that’s just me.
shortimer
Vern Schulze -3
Blake1023, you apparently are not familiar with VFR navigation rules & regulations. There are no limits on the use of hand held GPS's for navigation. I have been flying for +30 years and have used hand held GPS for the past 20 years. I also have a panel mounted GPS and dual VOR's but rely primarily on the Hand Held units because of their ability to display sectional, and terminal charts. If you believe use of a hand held GPS is not authorized by the FAR's, please forward that citation.
blake1023
blake1023 3
I was referring to IFR navigation. Not everyone flies VFR for 20 years! And you didn’t mention VFR in your first comment!

1-1-18. Global Positioning System (GPS)

d. General Requirements

1. Authorization to conduct any GPS operation under IFR requires that:

(a) GPS navigation equipment used must be approved in accordance with the requirements specified in Technical Standard Order (TSO) TSO-C129 (as revised), TSO­C196 (as revised), TSO­C145 (as revised), or TSO­C146 (as revised), and the installation must be done in accordance with Advisory Circular AC 20-138, Airworthiness Approval of Positioning and Navigation Systems. Equipment approved in accordance with TSO-C115a does not meet the requirements of TSO-C129. Visual flight rules (VFR) and hand-held GPS systems are not authorized for IFR navigation, instrument approaches, or as a principal instrument flight reference.

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/aim0101.html#ffAks301atcn
shortimer
Vern Schulze 1
Apparently you are not willing to stop beating a dead horse. If you go back to the first few comments you made, you will notice you brought up the AIM citation on using GPS's as a sole sourece under VFR conditions. I did not mention VFR or IFR, you did. Again, my primary point was to show that GPS are inherently more accurate than "Steam Gauge" technology. I don't understand why you would want to argue that point. The world is moving to GPS satellite navigation and we are not going back to steam gauges. The altimeter will never be as accurate as a GPS and the compass is at best a poor indicator or what direction you are flying. Both of these instruments could be elimenated, if the FAA would change the rules. Of course remarking all of the charts, manauals, and runways would not be easy but once done I can't think of any reason why we all wouldn't be better off not having to go through the mental gymnastics of flying with these two instruments. If we want to grow the pilot population, we need to be thinking about how to train new pilots in the easiest way possible.
blake1023
blake1023 1
I know the world is moving more toward RNAV navigation. But there is this thing called IFR. Your quote, "There are no limits on the use of hand held GPS's for navigation", is flat wrong. Look I didnt write the AIM or the regs, I have to follow them.
shortimer
Vern Schulze 1
Did you not read my last reply? I did not bring up neither VFR or IFR in my comments. You brought up VFR and I responded that there were not limitations in using hand held GPS's for VFR. That is still correct! You then switched your argument to IFR rules. Yes, there are limitations on using hand held GPS's in the IFR environment. But to say they cannot be used in that situation is clearly wrong. Hand Held GPS's can be used in the IFR environment but your aircraft and instrumentation must be IFR certified. There is nothing to prevent you from using a hand held GPS as a supplement to you primary instrumentation. If you think otherwise, means that you really don't know much about flying nor do you read very thoroughly.

लॉगिन

क्या आपका कोई खाता नहीं है? अनुकूलित विशेषताओं, फ्लाइट अलर्टों,और अधिक के लिए अब(नि:शुल्क) रजिस्टर करें!
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from FlightAware.com. We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.
Dismiss