Legal or not?

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...

Since it was a practice approach (VFR I assume) it would be legal even
if the loc was out of service.
However, even as an acutal IFR approach it can still be given assuming
you can identify the ADF on your GPS.


Why would you need to identify the ADF?


Well, in the case of the ILS SAC its because the course from the outer
marker is one degree off the localizer.


Why would you need to identify the ADF in this case?

Well, in the case of the ILS SAC its because the course from the outer
marker is one degree off the localizer.


Why would you need to identify the ADF in this case?

That's a good question. Steven, I actually thought you had said you
were going to call the FAA on this one and question it.

-Robert

This was an "actual" approach. Much of my actual time comes from practicing
approaches on days like this one, and KAGC provides alot to offer close to
home. The club planes I fly are all equipped with ADF's, but rarely is the
station out of service. Because of radar, garmin 195,co-pilot and a ceiling
well above ILS minimums, I felt comfortable flying this approach.
Legal...no. Useful for quality practice...absolutely.
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...

Rick McPherson wrote:
On Aug 28 I was practicing approaches at KAGC (FEW 008 BKN 012 OVR 025
4SM
BR). My preflight brief indicated that the McKeesport NDB is out of
service.
Yet, the ATIS identified runway 28 as active and we were given the ILS 28
approach for practice (upon request). Is this approach legal without the
beacon?
http://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/20...ils_rwy_28.pdf

As a side note, is the equipment that you fly still using ADF?

Since it was a practice approach (VFR I assume) it would be legal even
if the loc was out of service.
However, even as an acutal IFR approach it can still be given assuming
you can identify the ADF on your GPS.

-Robert, CFII





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

GPS can substitute for the ADF. Radar can substitute also.
So, if the acft has no ADF or the NDB is OTS, so, it could
be.


"Rick McPherson" wrote in
message ...
| On Aug 28 I was practicing approaches at KAGC (FEW 008 BKN
012 OVR 025 4SM
| BR). My preflight brief indicated that the McKeesport NDB
is out of service.
| Yet, the ATIS identified runway 28 as active and we were
given the ILS 28
| approach for practice (upon request). Is this approach
legal without the
| beacon?
|
http://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/20...ils_rwy_28.pdf
|
| As a side note, is the equipment that you fly still using
ADF?
|
| Rick
|
|
|
| ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com -
Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
| http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the
World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
| ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
Encryption =----

Jim Macklin wrote:
GPS can substitute for the ADF. Radar can substitute also.
So, if the acft has no ADF or the NDB is OTS, so, it could
be.

Are you sure radar can be? When an ILS says "ADF Required" I believe
you must either have ADF or GPS. Usually if radar is good enough it
will say "ADF or Radar Required".

-Robert

Jim Macklin wrote:

GPS can substitute for the ADF. Radar can substitute also.
So, if the acft has no ADF or the NDB is OTS, so, it could
be.


You cannot count on ATC identifying a fix on an IAP unless it is marked
"radar."

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
newsjWKg.5033$c07.4305@fed1read04...

You cannot count on ATC identifying a fix on an IAP unless it is marked
"radar."


That's not correct. Both ASR and ARSR may be used for identifying initial
and intermediate approach fixes, only ASR may be used for identification of
the final approach fix. There's no requirement that the fixes be marked
"RADAR" on the IAP.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
newsjWKg.5033$c07.4305@fed1read04...

You cannot count on ATC identifying a fix on an IAP unless it is marked
"radar."



That's not correct. Both ASR and ARSR may be used for identifying initial
and intermediate approach fixes, only ASR may be used for identification of
the final approach fix. There's no requirement that the fixes be marked
"RADAR" on the IAP.


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

JPH

"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.

"Rick McPherson" wrote in message
...

On Aug 28 I was practicing approaches at KAGC (FEW 008 BKN 012 OVR 025 4SM
BR). My preflight brief indicated that the McKeesport NDB is out of
service. Yet, the ATIS identified runway 28 as active and we were given
the ILS 28 approach for practice (upon request). Is this approach legal
without the beacon?
http://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/20...ils_rwy_28.pdf


Yes.



As a side note, is the equipment that you fly still using ADF?


Yes.