View Single Post
  #52  
Old September 18th 03, 04:31 AM
Ray Andraka
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Looks like I left out a word or two. What they were saying is they want the ILS FAF to overlay
the Loc only and RNAV FAFs instead of being offset the way they had been. In order to do that
they need the (loc or RNAV) FAF altitude to be the same as the charted glideslope intercept.
The glideslope intercept has to be at an integer multiple of 100' (part of the rules for making
the chardts), therefore the intersection marking the FAF (which previously was the OM loacation)
also has to be moved to make that happen.

The OM serves (generally) serves a couple of purposes: 1) it provides a place to check your
altimeter, 2) it is a reporting point, and 3) it serves as the FAF for a localizer only
approach. ADF is only required on one of the approaches, and that is for the missed. DME is
now required on all precision approaches into PVD, which is my beef: previously there were two
ILSs without a requirement for DME. Of the 9 airplanes hangared with mine (at PVD), only 2 have
the required equipment to fly the new approach. Of the two, one just installed a Garmin 530,
the other has a DME.

Tracon said today they would work with us by calling out the fixes as long as we asked for it
before starting the approach. Several of the controllers are pilots, and are well aware of the
equipment issues. An interesting note is that the controllers were in a meeting about this last
week, and AOPA was present. AOPA did us a grave disservice by stating that 80% of GA aircraft
have advanced RNAV capability, and as such these new approaches should not be a significant
problem. I don't know where they pulled that number from, but based on the light aircraft I am
familiar with, I think the truth is closer to 20% have it. Maybe Phil Boyer needs to give up
flying around in the CJ and get back to flying a 182 with only basic IFR gear.

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 16:07:34 -0400, Ray Andraka wrote:

The reason for the change is to comply with an initiative to prepare the ILS approaches for
RNAV. Part of that initiative requires the location of the glideslope to be at an a 100'
interval. Most OM's are not,


A few comments because I don't understand what you say they told you.

First of all, the GS altitude varies, so what does it mean for it to be at
an a 100' interval?

Second, the OM doesn't have a whole lot to do with an ILS. It's a place
where you can check your altitude, but it's not the FAF.

In any event, for whatever reason, it sounds as if having ADF/DME and/or
GPS will be a good thing to fly these approaches, and expensive if you
don't have them.

Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)


--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759