Legal or not?

In article et,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Dane Spearing" wrote in message
...

The use of an approach certified GPS in lieu of an ADF is addressed in
AIM 1-1-19f. See:

http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/AIM/Chap1/aim0101.html#1-1-19

In a nutshell, yes, you can use your IFR approach certified GPS in lieu
of an ADF for identifying the OM on an ILS approach, and/or for
identifying
a missed approach fix.


Use of GPS in lieu of ADF and DME is covered in that paragraph, but I see no
mention of use of GPS in lieu of a marker beacon receiver. While an ADF can
certainly identify an LOM, it won't identify an OM.

You are, of course, correct. I meant to type "LOM" not "OM". Must be old
age getting to me....

-- Dane

"Jim Carter" wrote in message news:002f01c6cc9a$0e276310$4001a8c0@omnibook6100.. .

...
certainly identify an LOM, it won't identify an OM.

Ok, it's getting late and I haven't asked enough stupid questions today
so here goes: what is the difference between an Outer Marker and a
Locator Outer Marker? Aren't they the same frequency, same audio pattern
and tone?

Must be late. :-) You'll probably wake up tomorrow and remember...
LOM = LF/MF Compass Locator Beacon at the Outer Marker (used by ADFs).
OM = 75-MHz Fan-shaped or Bone-shaped Beacon, with a pulsing 400-Hz modulation.

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

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Brad" wrote in message
ups.com...

Nope, you're correct, its just a feeder route to the IAF. If MKP was
an intersection, you'd see MKP INT on the profile and plan view. The
076 line and arrow would extend all the way to the fix, rather than
just pointing towards the fix as the feeder route does. Distance and
angle did not meet the terps requirement to serve as a radial to
identify it as a intersection fix.



Why would the feeder route need to do any more than that? All the ADF does
on this approach is allow the pilot to navigate to the localizer. The
feeder route does that and so does a radar vector.


The feeder route from AGC takes the aircraft to the localizer, but the
intersection of that feeder route and loc does not provide enough
divergence to meet criteria for holding in lieu of PT (minimum 45
degrees divergence), so you can't do a course reversal without the NDB
(or suitable substitute) being operational. The feeder from NESTO is NA
without the NDB. It does appear that the planview note should read
"RADAR or DME required" since radar vectors from approach control to
intercept the final would work as long as they had coverage at suitable
altitudes.

JPH

Dave Butler wrote:
Brad wrote:

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?



No, unless you have a IFR certified GPS receiver(TSO C129 or TSO
C145/146a). "ADF Required" is written on chart, so you must have a
means of navigating to the NDB. If you were practicing the procedure
under VFR, then yes you were legal.


http://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/20...ils_rwy_28.pdf

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



No XM on board, so it does serve minimal enroute entertainment value.
Not many NDB's or procedures left where I fly.


Does anyone besides me think the note should read "ADF OR RADAR REQUIRED"?

It appears that would be an appropriate note since there is an approach
control identified on the plate. Presumably they could provide vectors,
but may not have good enough radar coverage in that area, not have the
necessary depictions on the video map, or the minimum vectoring altitude
is too high.

JPH

"Jim Carter" wrote in message
news:002f01c6cc9a$0e276310$4001a8c0@omnibook6100.. .

Ok, it's getting late and I haven't asked enough stupid questions today
so here goes: what is the difference between an Outer Marker and a
Locator Outer Marker? Aren't they the same frequency, same audio pattern
and tone?


An LOM is a collocated Compass Locator, an NDB, and an Outer Marker. You
receive the Compass Locator with an ADF and the Outer Marker with a marker
beacon receiver.

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

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.


I said I was going to query the FAA about the SAC case, not this case.

"JPH" wrote in message
news:McsJg.8259$Tl4.7021@dukeread06...

The feeder route from AGC takes the aircraft to the localizer, but the
intersection of that feeder route and loc does not provide enough
divergence to meet criteria for holding in lieu of PT (minimum 45 degrees
divergence), so you can't do a course reversal without the NDB (or
suitable substitute) being operational. The feeder from NESTO is NA
without the NDB. It does appear that the planview note should read "RADAR
or DME required" since radar vectors from approach control to intercept
the final would work as long as they had coverage at suitable altitudes.


Why do I need ADF for the hold in lieu of PT? AGC has DME, if I'm 12.8 DME
from AGC on the 076 radial and on the localizer I'm there.

"Rick McPherson" wrote in message
...

Steve,

You feel this is a legal approach?


Yes.

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 =----