On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 23:31:24 -0400, Ray Andraka wrote:

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.

OK, that makes sense. TERP's actually says that, *if possible*, the LOC
and ILS FAF's should be at the same point. However, I don't know that I've
seen one with an OM where that is actually the case!


The OM serves (generally) serves a couple of purposes:

1) it provides a place to check your altimeter,

That's not a regulatory requirement, although it is good practice. I
suppose if your altimeter failed enroute and you didn't notice it, that
might be helpful; or if you might be on a false GP.

2) it is a reporting point, and

Yeah but you could report passing the so-and-so radial. Sheesh, they've
got pretty good radar around PVD.

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.

That enables you to fly the approach, but it ain't legal if the chart calls
for that equipment.

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.


I would have thought that at a big airport like PVD, the percentage would
have been higher than 20%, too. Have you written him directly?

I must say, that I've never flown IFR without DME and ADF. However, I've
had the same a/c for 25+ years, and it came that way. And right now I'm
based at an airport where the only approaches are ADF and GPS (and I don't
have anything other than a VFR handheld GPS).



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