Lee Elson wrote:
Hilton wrote:
Paul Tomblin wrote:
In a previous article, Barry said:
When doing an ILS approach, with the glideslope, is it a requirement
to
be
able to identify the outer marker or a substitute? FAR 91.175(k)
lists
the

"or a substitute" is the operative phrase. If the FAF is identified
by an
intersection, LOM, or DME, that's an acceptable substitute for a
locator
beacon.

The FAF on an ILS is glideslope intersect, not the LOM, DME etc which
are
not required.

HIlton


Ahhh, but suppose your glideslope fails (onboard or on the ground)
after this "not required" intersection (with the "X" on Jepp charts)?
Suddenly you are doing a localizer approach and the FAF identification
becomes much more useful as a place from which you start your timing.

Lee,

I agree with you 100%. I was speaking from a legal view, not a safety view.
A few years ago, an approach's minimum changed if the outer marker was bust.
That is no longer the case.

To be picky, the ILS's FAF is the glideslope intersept, not the 'cross'.
The 'cross' belongs to the non-precision approach that just happens to be
printed on the same piece of paper.

Hilton