OK, FAR Lawers we need your help!

Doug wrote:
If it is NOTAMED out of service then I don't think you can legally use
it, regardless of what is actually not working.


Yes, of course, but that is also the problem with the FAA. When our DME
required ILS goes OTS because just the DME is out there is no reason to
notam the approach OTS. Anybody with a terminal or approach approved
GPS will shoot the approach without DME anyways. All the fixes and the
missed approach point for the LOC only part of the approach can all be
determined with GPS. Just like on most VOR approaches nowadays, they
list a distance that you can use in lieu of timing. This is a
fundamental flaw with the FAA not fully understanding how people are flying.


I don't think ATC is
supposed to clear you for an approach that is NOTAMED OTS.

Right, although if the navaids are working you can shoot it as a VFR
practice approach.



It does seem that they could NOTAM it that you MUST have IFR approach
terminal and enroute GPS, or even WAAS GPS if the VOR is out. But
thats not what they did.

But they should. Just tell people what is not working and let them
figure out how it affects their situation. They do this when a VOR goes
OTS and all of a sudden a number of airways cease to exist.

OK, now it gets interesting! The VOR is still NOTAMed OTS but the KSZT
LOC/DME approach isn't!

Any thoughts?

Mike
MU-2

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 22:57:15 -0700, "C J Campbell"
wrote:


There is no provision for GPS to be used in lieu of VOR.

There is for approaches. See 1-1-19 h.


With an overlay approach you are not using GPS in lieu of VOR. You are
simply flying a GPS approach. If there is no GPS overlay then you may not
substitute GPS for VOR.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

See AIM 1-1-20c.7. WAAS may be used as a stand-alone
system anywhere in the NAS.

GPS cannot substitute for a VOR.


Odd, then, that FAAO 7110.65 allows controllers to issue airways routing
to
GPS-equipped aircraft when the navaids defining those airways are not in
service.

Yeah, I noticed that contradiction, too. I regularly use McCord VOR as a
waypoint for airway routing even though the thing has been OPTS for years.

FAAH 8260.19C Para 224 d (5) only allows using GPS to substitute for an
NDB or DME outage, it doesn't include VOR's.
http://av-info.faa.gov/terps/Directi...19C%20CHG3.pdf
(page 20 of 201)

JPH

Mike Rapoport wrote:

Recently the COE VOR was notamed OTS. Coincedent with this the KSZT LOC/DME
was notamed NA. The explanation given was that the COE VOR was nessasary to
fly the tranition (COE is the IAF) and the missed approach (the missed ends
with a hold at the COE VOR). I contend that GPS can substitute for the VOR
but I can't find it witten down anywhere. The KSZT LOC, DME and ADF are all
working properly. Our question is: Was the KSZT LOC/DME approach
improperly NOTAMed NA? Can you cite a source? Remember we are talking
about substituting GPS for the VOR to fly the transition, we are not talking
about substituting for the LOC.

Thanks

Mike
MU-2
(and a lot of other frustrated NW pilots)

If it's just the DME OTS, then the NOTAM should be worded as shown in
FAAH 7110.65C para 284 d (5). They have examples there. Unfortunately, I
don't think everyone is aware to prepare the NOTAM that way. It doesn't
help that this paragraph is located under the NOTAM D section, and
procedural NOTAMS are not NOTAM D's. So many specialists don't even keep
up with that section, because they don't normally prepare NOTAM D's.
http://av-info.faa.gov/terps/Directi...19C%20CHG3.pdf
It's on page 19/20 of 201)
JPH




Newps wrote:



Yes, of course, but that is also the problem with the FAA. When our DME
required ILS goes OTS because just the DME is out there is no reason to
notam the approach OTS. Anybody with a terminal or approach approved
GPS will shoot the approach without DME anyways. All the fixes and the
missed approach point for the LOC only part of the approach can all be
determined with GPS. Just like on most VOR approaches nowadays, they
list a distance that you can use in lieu of timing. This is a
fundamental flaw with the FAA not fully understanding how people are
flying.


It does seem that they could NOTAM it that you MUST have IFR approach
terminal and enroute GPS, or even WAAS GPS if the VOR is out. But
thats not what they did.


But they should. Just tell people what is not working and let them
figure out how it affects their situation. They do this when a VOR goes
OTS and all of a sudden a number of airways cease to exist.

"J Haggerty" wrote in message
news:3_cYc.64401$wo.11137@okepread06...

If it's just the DME OTS, then the NOTAM should be worded as shown in
FAAH 7110.65C para 284 d (5).


Wrong book.

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 18:33:56 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

If you're using GPS to fly a "VOR or GPS RWY 24" you're not substituting GPS
for the VOR. The approach can be flown with either one.

Exactly the point.
--ron

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...

If you're using GPS to fly a "VOR or GPS RWY 24" you're not
substituting GPS for the VOR. The approach can be flown with
either one.


Exactly the point.


?

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 18:33:26 -0700, "C J Campbell"
wrote:

With an overlay approach you are not using GPS in lieu of VOR. You are
simply flying a GPS approach. If there is no GPS overlay then you may not
substitute GPS for VOR.

Exactly. In the case of an overlay approach, the FAA has sanctioned the
use of GPS in place of VOR.

I think we are getting into one of these nit-picky discussions which are
common in this group.

With my CNX80, I can legally fly the Victor airways with no functioning VOR
in my aircraft or on the ground. I call that substituting GPS for VOR. If
you wish to call it something else, you may, since there is no FAA guidance
to that point.


--ron