Stearmandriver

I know our tech pilot department has built approaches for Horizon in the past; I'm unsure if Horizon has their own department these days. We have an RNAV-M in both directions at SBA, I would expect Horizon uses the same approaches considering they use the same designation. Unsure who had them first though... Probably Horizon? We've only been taking 73s in there for a few years now.

Indeed, but not the part I was trying to quote. Apparently that part is just nonsense syllables I was hearing as words 😂.

EDIT: disregard, apparently I've had the lyrics slightly wrong my entire life 😁.

I can add that U12.0 has start and end point options for the offset, and I think they go back at least as far as U10.7 (entirely possible it is or previously was an option though). I remember this because we've always used them in oceanic airspace for SLOP, for as long as I've been at my current company, and we were on U10.7 when I started. Basically, if you define start and end waypoints, the offset will occur between them. If you don't define a start waypoint, the offset will begin immediately. If you don't define an end waypoint, it will last to the end of the route. You aren't required to define a start or end waypoint.

I did, yep, I thought I liked them. Thanks for checking. So it's like I figured, someone added them to the main navigraph database, intentionally.

Back for the 2020 Kodiak, Canadian Cpt Mustache had a flight model mod for it that did wonders. I was highly disappointed with the flight model and performance after buying the airplane, but the CCM mod made it... Actually feel something like an airplane. I enjoyed it then, until picking up the Blackbird Porter - no looking back after that. But, if the CCM mod is still out there, might be worth looking up. (I have no idea if the 2024 version needs to be modded, but the 2020 version very definitely did.)

Now, yes. But none of this was accessible back when these procedures were first created. As I said, it's a holdover attitude. That said, even things like minimums wouldn't do another operator any good as they would be flying to a more restrictive TERPS criteria than Alaska's anyway, so they would - at best, if they could do the procedure at all - have to use higher minimums.

There's a 100lb difference in useful load between the Porter and the Kodiak. When you factor in that you can get a full Porter out of many more places than a full Kodiak, I'm not sure that's an issue.

The best sim bush plane out there is still the Milviz PC-6. A taildragger is always going to outperform a nosedragger on sloping or unimproved strips. I'm not sure it can be purchased for 2024 though. I dropped the 2020 version in community folder and it works great and is so much fun in Papua. It's still got one of the best stick and rudder flight models in the sim. But, may not be for you if you want native 2024.

I would guess not, though I haven't looked. I assume these SE Alaska approaches are in the navigraph database for all aircraft? Or is it just for the 73s? I don't actually have any other airliners currently installed to check. It's interesting though that nowhere near all the proprietary approaches are in there. It seems they've very specifically only added KTN, WRG, PSG, SIT, and JNU. Even YAK, CDV, and ADQ are missing and they're certainly part of the Southeast system. Nothing for the arctic system is in there, and Adak and Red Dog are missing too. So it's really just specifically those five airports. I'd like to see SBA, would save me having to build it lol.

Yes, the question is, should it be? I see what he's saying. He's on the ground trying to enter this restriction, which should just become a hold down on the climb. There's room to cross his point at 2000, climb to reach the cruise altitude of 4000, and then create an idle path descent that honors GRITY above 2800. The box is acting as though it's in descent mode before takeoff. That doesn't seem right, but like I say I'm not really certain it isn't. I fly flights shorter than this occasionally in the real airplane, but I'm never modifying altitudes when I do it. I think that if you were already in flight and this close to a computed T/D, I could see the box already being in descent mode. But before takeoff? That seems less likely. But I'm not certain.

Right. My guess is it's a holdover from a time when they were worried about other airlines being able to see the basic construction of the procedures, the techniques used etc. These days of course anyone can track all the flights in real time using any ads-b app, so the lateral and vertical flight paths are no kind of secret.

They do, yep. Iceland Air, Air New Zealand, and Norwegian are known for it too.

Nope, that's the whole point. If you pay to develop the procedure, it's for your use and no one else's.

Yep, there are a few other examples. One of the caravan operators out of JNU has a custom RNAV now (not an RNP AR because caravans can't do that). Delta is probably the best example; after losing their lawsuit, they developed a couple of their own approaches to JNU, before discovering they couldn't really make inroads in the market and pairing their schedule back to one flight a day during the summer only. The funny thing is that winning the lawsuit wouldn't have done them any good as they probably couldn't have used the Alaska procedures anyway. All instrument procedures are built to a set of terrain-separation tolerances called the TERPS, and every procedure built by the FAA or a private operator must comply with the "public TERPS", the only one most folks ever see. But years ago after the Alaska RNP system had become mature, the FAA granted Alaska the authority to self-certify procedures to a unique TERPS criteria, a custom TERPS that accounted for the Alaska fleet specifically as equipped and flown. The public TERPS, being for everyone, has to basically account for the lowest common denominator of aircraft, and so it's a lot more restrictive than what Alaska is using now. The upshot is that the Alaska procedures are allowed closer to terrain than anyone else's procedures, so minimums are a lot lower. The FAA at the time published a paper explaining their decision to allow this, in which they said it was necessary to provide reliable transportation and cargo operations to these communities (which are not reachable by road), but it was a one-time certification action they did not expect they'd ever see a reason to repeat with another airline. It's been about 20 years and so far they haven't. Now I imagine if Delta or another large airline had a reason to pursue custom TERPS authorization, they could throw enough legal weight around to probably get it eventually. But it would be expensive and they just don't have an operational use for it; the couple markets it might matter in aren't enough to justify the expense. Heck, Southeast Alaska today is a small enough fraction of our overall route structure that it probably wouldn't be worth pursuing for Alaska either, but at the time it was achieved this was a different airline. The RNP system and custom TERPS represents decades of dedication to serving the state.