![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Brien K. Meehan" wrote in message ... It's an IAF, so there's no previous fix from which you can start timing to find LADOS. DME is not required, so you can't assume you can use it to find LADOS - yes, even though it's clearly marked 5.2NM on the plate. If you want to get into ELD without an ADF, you'll have to use one of the other 3 approaches. Those aren't terrible options. You're ignoring the feeder route from ELD to LADOS. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Thomas Borchert" wrote in message ... or an approach certified GPS with LADOS as a waypoint, right? The GPS does not need approach certification. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Brien K. Meehan wrote in message ... "Gig Giacona" wrote in message ... And the ILS plate is marked ADF required? Why is that? ... because you need to know where the LOM/IAF called LADOS is. It's an IAF, so there's no previous fix from which you can start timing to find LADOS. DME is not required, so you can't assume you can use it to find LADOS - yes, even though it's clearly marked 5.2NM on the plate. 6.5 DME |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"John Clonts" wrote in message
... DME is not required, so you can't assume you can use it to find LADOS - yes, even though it's clearly marked 5.2NM on the plate. 6.5 DME :-) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dave Butler" wrote in message ... Oh, right, sorry. I lost sight of the original premise, an ILS with ADF REQUIRED. So what I should have said was: "I think the alternate missed approach instructions still don't relieve the pilot of the requirement for carrying an ADF as explicitly stated on the approach chart." You're viewing the note "ADF REQUIRED" as having legal authority. I view it as just a reminder that ADF is needed to fly the full approach, the missed approach segment in this case. This isn't the first time this matter has been discussed in this forum. As I recall from previous discussions, nobody was able to present any definitive documentation in support of either view. But logic tends to support the view that these notes are just reminders to the pilot. Take a look at most LOC BC approaches and you'll find a similar note that says "BACK COURSE". Is that a legal requirement that a back course receiver must be aboard to fly the approach, or is it just a reminder of reverse sensing? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message thlink.net... You're viewing the note "ADF REQUIRED" as having legal authority. I view it as just a reminder that ADF is needed to fly the full approach, the missed approach segment in this case. This isn't the first time this matter has been discussed in this forum. As I recall from previous discussions, nobody was able to present any definitive documentation in support of either view. But logic tends to support the view that these notes are just reminders to the pilot. Take a look at most LOC BC approaches and you'll find a similar note that says "BACK COURSE". Is that a legal requirement that a back course receiver must be aboard to fly the approach, or is it just a reminder of reverse sensing? Of course its a requirement, that's why the word "required" is used. You can use a GPS in substitute, but one or the other is required. "Radar required" is also a frequently found note. Do you think that if the radar is inop that day you can still shoot the approach because it was "just a reminder"? Paul Steichen CFI, CFII, MEI, CRJ FO |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "unknown" wrote in message news ![]() Of course its a requirement, that's why the word "required" is used. Can you present any definitive documentation in support of that view? What requirement does the note "BACK COURSE" on a LOC BC approach present? "Radar required" is also a frequently found note. Do you think that if the radar is inop that day you can still shoot the approach because it was "just a reminder"? I think if the radar is inop that day I won't be cleared for any approach that requires radar. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
a) FAA 8260.19 is a source document for what I think you are looking for
(Including changes 1 & 2) http://av-info.faa.gov/terps/Directi...s/8260.19C.pdf b) Policy 01022, Documentation of Radar Requirements on Instrument Approach Procedures http://av-info.faa.gov/terps/Policies1/TIL01022.pdf 1) "ADF Required" - Par 814-h -- on an ILS, most likely a NDB is used for the missed approach 2) "RADAR Required" - Par 814-g, and TILS 01022 -- What I have seen is that the IAF is defined off of the localizer beam at some specific DME/crossing radial, or again, required for the missed Cheers On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 12:34:13 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote: "unknown" wrote in message news ![]() Of course its a requirement, that's why the word "required" is used. Can you present any definitive documentation in support of that view? What requirement does the note "BACK COURSE" on a LOC BC approach present? "Radar required" is also a frequently found note. Do you think that if the radar is inop that day you can still shoot the approach because it was "just a reminder"? I think if the radar is inop that day I won't be cleared for any approach that requires radar. -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "AJNOKC" wrote in message news ![]() a) FAA 8260.19 is a source document for what I think you are looking for (Including changes 1 & 2) http://av-info.faa.gov/terps/Directi...s/8260.19C.pdf b) Policy 01022, Documentation of Radar Requirements on Instrument Approach Procedures http://av-info.faa.gov/terps/Policies1/TIL01022.pdf 1) "ADF Required" - Par 814-h -- on an ILS, most likely a NDB is used for the missed approach 2) "RADAR Required" - Par 814-g, and TILS 01022 -- What I have seen is that the IAF is defined off of the localizer beam at some specific DME/crossing radial, or again, required for the missed Thank you. That explains how these notes appear on the plates, and suggests why "ADF REQUIRED" appears on plates that can be flown completely without ADF. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: "Dave Butler" wrote in message ... Oh, right, sorry. I lost sight of the original premise, an ILS with ADF REQUIRED. So what I should have said was: "I think the alternate missed approach instructions still don't relieve the pilot of the requirement for carrying an ADF as explicitly stated on the approach chart." You're viewing the note "ADF REQUIRED" as having legal authority. I view it as just a reminder that ADF is needed to fly the full approach, the missed approach segment in this case. This isn't the first time this matter has been discussed in this forum. As I recall from previous discussions, nobody was able to present any definitive documentation in support of either view. But logic tends to support the view that these notes are just reminders to the pilot. Take a look at most LOC BC approaches and you'll find a similar note that says "BACK COURSE". Is that a legal requirement that a back course receiver must be aboard to fly the approach, or is it just a reminder of reverse sensing? You're entitled to your view, of course. But, the "ADF REQUIRED" note is a procedural data equipment note issued as part of an amendment to 14 CFR 97. If in doubt, all the manager of AVN-100 and ask him whether the note is advisory in nature. Also, AFS-400 many have a view somewhat different than your's. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
The perfect approach | Capt.Doug | Home Built | 25 | December 3rd 04 03:37 AM |
Which aircraft certification is required for R&D? | Netgeek | Home Built | 5 | November 23rd 04 05:59 AM |
LSA Approach speeds | Ace Pilot | Home Built | 0 | February 3rd 04 05:38 PM |
Download approach charts | Ron Natalie | Home Built | 0 | July 9th 03 08:29 PM |