PACS / SACS

Just my 2 bits...

I think you are going to have to PAY for some help on this one.

I know a couple of guys who could maybe help you out, but it would COST you!

Loyal

PACS and SACS are a control station established in the vicinity of an airport and tied directly to the National Spatial Reference System. This control consists of permanent marks with precisely determined latitudes, longitudes and elevations. PACS and SACS are designated by the National Geodetic Survey and must meet the specific siting, construction, and accuracy requirements.

go here; http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/AERO/aero.html

> PACS and SACS are a control station established in the vicinity of an airport and tied directly to the National Spatial Reference System. This control consists of permanent marks with precisely determined latitudes, longitudes and elevations. PACS and SACS are designated by the National Geodetic Survey and must meet the specific siting, construction, and accuracy requirements.
>
> go here; http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/AERO/aero.htmlbr >
What Keith said.

PACS are "Primary Airport Control"; SACS are "Secondary Airport Control"

Brad,

I’ve processed about 7 Airport Geodetic Control projects (PACS/SACS). If you are submitting data through the FAA Airport Surveying - GIS Program then I assume you have an NGS approved Geodetic Control Plan. Hopefully the GPS observations meet AC No. 150/5300-16A (AC 16A) standards. If so, you can follow the processing and reporting procedures outlined in 16A.

Here is a link to AC16A:
http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.list

Page NT and Adjust are the preferred programs however you may need to sharpen your DOS skills. It takes me about 40+ hours to get a project submitted and I’ve only had one get approved on the first try.

They can be downloaded at the NGS sites:
ftp://ftp.ngs.noaa.gov/pub/ (You’ll need pnt6)
http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PC_PROD/ADJUST/

One suggestion is to solicit help from your State NGS adviser (if you have one).

Good Luck,
JT

Thanks to the three responses so far!

I have sent you all emails.

B L dot com r o c k s.

Just to add a bit. Read through the AC carefully. If the project is too old, say more than 6 months to a year. They (FAA/NGS) could, at their whim, make you re-submit your control plan.

Thanks to all for responding so far.

I have sent all who have email in their profile a quick note.

Loyal,

I hope that you will be able to get me in touch with a couple folks who are willing / available to offer a proposal to maybe help, of course after we have some further correspondence?

JT,

I do not see your email address, maybe you would send me a quick note so we can communicate further?

ott at mainstreetconsulting dot com

I have done a lot of bluebook projects, more than 50 over the last 26 years. I was recently asked to do a FAA project (processing only) for a small airport for someone who had already done all the field work. At first I declined, as the use of PAGES is required for the processing. While I am slightly familiar with PAGES, I am not familiar enough with it to be comfortable. They obtained a waiver from the NGS office that reviews FAA projects (located in Norfolk). But all other requirements remained. So I processed the data using TGO and submitted.

As an aside, I see no reason WHATSOEVER to require the use of PAGES. Not to take anything away from PAGES, there are several commercial packages out there that give similar results. If it is OK to use manufacturer's software for bluebook projects (as long as "comparable results" are obtained), then it should be OK for PACS/SACS as well. Take it from a pilot, there is no need for ultra-high accuracy for airport points. I am unaware of any aircraft slamming into the ground due to a couple of millimeter or centimeter difference. I suspect this requirement comes from the fact that NGS personnel used to do a lot of FAA surveys, now they are contracted out and they simply review and approve them. I do understand the requirement for ADJUST, since that produces standard statistics. That has been required for bluebook projects for many years now.

The company I was working with had already had their field plan approved, and had done the obs. Everything was radial off of the PACS. Radial from the PACS to a CORS, two BM's, two HARN, and the two SACS. I adjusted the network as a whole, and they made me do a separate SACS adjustment. Why? it was radial off the PACS!

Anyway, I found, and based on my conversations with others, that the NGS/FAA review process is overly restrictive (i.e. asinine). I will not undertake any FAA projects for processing, although I am always willing to help out with standard bluebook projects.

I would like to hear from someone at NGS or the FAA what the reason is for the differences in requirements. In my opinion, it needlessly wastes money for no gain in accuracy or reliability. The FAA is well known for wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on projects that don't work. This is just another example of a bureaucracy requirement that cost more money with no real benefit.

Someone below mentioned 40+ hours. I don't disagree with that. I do know I could do a bluebook project of a PACS and 2 SACS for 1/4 of that time.

You will very rarely ever see me criticize the NGS, but in this case I do not hesitate to point out what I think is a stupid policy. In fairness, it may be FAA driving it, but they are not a survey organization, they should do whatever NGS recommends.