Legal or not?

"JPH" wrote in message
news:gE2Og.11816$Tl4.8274@dukeread06...

Sure, they MAY be used but still need to meet some criteria in order to be
ESTABLISHED as radar fixes.


They do not need to be ESATALISHED as radar fixes in order for ATC to
identify them.



The TERPs specialist can't identify it as a
radar fix on a procedure without the consent of ATC and verification by
flight check.
If the fix is marked "radar", that means flight check aircraft have
verified the radar fix meets accuracy requirements and it's depicted
properly on the scope. (Radar facilities do not have to depict or display
all fixes on their scope.) It also means that the specialist has annotated
the fix specifically as a radar fix on the 8260-2 forms that were
submitted IAW FAR 97 requirements.
So, as Sam says, you can't count on ATC identifying a fix on the IAP
unless it's marked "radar". Reason? It may or may not be depicted on the
scope (clutter) and they may or may not have agreed to be responsible for
calling the fix passage.


What Sam says if frequently wrong, as it is in this case. For example, take
a look at the VOR or GPS-A approach at Blackhawk Airfield:

http://map.aeroplanner.com/mapping/c...tab=approaches

REINE is identified as a RADAR fix but this approach isn't depicted on ZAU
ARTCC video maps at all. If the fix appears on the video map and it fits
the criteria specified in FAAO 7110.65 the controller can call the fix,
being identified as a RADAR fix on the IAP has nothing to do with it.