Outer Marker

Barry wrote:

A few years ago, an approach's minimum changed if the outer marker was bust.
That is no longer the case.

I remember there used to be a penalty for a middle marker out of service, but
was the outer marker included on the table, too?

Nope.

You tell the controller that you are executing the miss, go around, and get
set up for the LOC-only, if one exists. Changing from an ILS to a LOC in
midstream is not good practice...the assumption is that you briefed the ILS
(even if you are alone), not the LOC.

Bob Gardner

"Lee Elson" wrote in message
om...
"Hilton" wrote in message
thlink.net...
Paul Tomblin wrote:
In a previous article, Barry said:
When doing an ILS approach, with the glideslope, is it a requirement
to
be
able to identify the outer marker or a substitute? FAR 91.175(k)
lists
the

"or a substitute" is the operative phrase. If the FAF is identified
by an
intersection, LOM, or DME, that's an acceptable substitute for a
locator
beacon.

The FAF on an ILS is glideslope intersect, not the LOM, DME etc which
are
not required.

HIlton


Ahhh, but suppose your glideslope fails (onboard or on the ground)
after this "not required" intersection (with the "X" on Jepp charts)?
Suddenly you are doing a localizer approach and the FAF identification
becomes much more useful as a place from which you start your timing.


Lee

THat's how I do it, although I've had instructors doing my IPC ding me for not
starting the timer on an ILS. As politely as I can, I remind them that the
times are for a localizer only approach and that if the glideslope screws the
pooch, I'm going missed.

Bob Gardner wrote:

You tell the controller that you are executing the miss, go around, and get
set up for the LOC-only, if one exists. Changing from an ILS to a LOC in
midstream is not good practice...the assumption is that you briefed the ILS
(even if you are alone), not the LOC.

Bob Gardner--

--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

In a previous article, Ray Andraka said:
THat's how I do it, although I've had instructors doing my IPC ding me for not
starting the timer on an ILS. As politely as I can, I remind them that the
times are for a localizer only approach and that if the glideslope screws the
pooch, I'm going missed.

The instructors I've had come back to that with "What if you didn't have
enough fuel to go around again", to which I say "I would never be that
stupid about fuel planning". After all, the glide slope isn't the only
thing that could flag on the approach - what if you lost the localizer?
Switch to a VOR or GPS approach on the fly?


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"I'm fairly sure Linux exists principally because writing an operating system
probably seems like a good way to pass the bignum months of darkness in
Finland" - Rodger Donaldson

to which I say "I would never be that stupid about fuel planning".


You don't have to be "that stupid", you just have to be caught in weather that
screws your plans. The one who says "I'd never be that stupid...." is the one
that buys the farm.

Start the timer on an ILS, it gives you more options when (not if) things go
awry.

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Ray Andraka wrote
THat's how I do it, although I've had instructors doing my IPC ding me for not
starting the timer on an ILS. As politely as I can, I remind them that the
times are for a localizer only approach and that if the glideslope screws the
pooch, I'm going missed.

Are you sure they dinged you?

If I'm doing an IPC and the student doesn't start the timer, I will
question it. If he does, I will still question it. Perhaps this is
what happened?

There are good arguments on both sides.

Some pilots believe that the time makes for a good crosscheck in case
the GS is lost. This can be true if the pilot elects to go to
LOC-only mins if he lacks another method of identifying the MAP, and
it is especially true if the missed approach calls for an immediate
climbing turn - recall that no consideration is given for an
abnormally early turn with regard to obstacle protection. On the
other hand, for missed approach turn purposes the point where the LOC
becomes impossible to center will do as the point where the turn
should be started.

Some pilots believe that you should fly the approach you briefed, and
if the GS goes out you should go missed. It could sure such to get
confused and go to ILS mins on the LOC. Of course there are times
when a missed approach is highly undesirable (single engine in a twin,
adverse weather, low fuel) and there is the nagging question - if the
GS just went out, what are you going to lose next - and how soon?

My point is that either position is defensible, and which is best can
depend on pilot style and proficiency, the equipment available, and
the situation. In my opinion, the headwork part of flying IFR is at
least as important as wiggling the stick and pushing buttons. I want
to see if the student actually made a conscious decision to time or
not to time, rather than acting out of habit and/or forgetting, and I
want to see if he has considered the implications of his decision.

Michael

No, I got criticized heavily, even after the explanation. For a split approach, it
isn't jsut the timer, you've also got a different set of altitudes to commit to
short term memory. I can only remember a few things at once in short term memory.
Put too much in, and it is all gone.

Michael wrote:


--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

Seems to me that there was an article in either IFR or Aviation Safety on
the subject of timing ILS approaches, and the consensus of the instructors
quoted seemed to be "don't bother." Rationale was that the miss is based on
an altitude, not a time, and if the glideslope goes kaflooey the pilot
should wave off, brief the localizer approach or whatever, and start over
again. I don't have a problem with that.

Bob Gardner

"Ray Andraka" wrote in message
...
No, I got criticized heavily, even after the explanation. For a split
approach, it
isn't jsut the timer, you've also got a different set of altitudes to
commit to
short term memory. I can only remember a few things at once in short term
memory.
Put too much in, and it is all gone.

Michael wrote:


--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

For a split approach, it
isn't jsut the timer, you've also got a different set of altitudes to commit to
short term memory. I can only remember a few things at once in short term
memory.
Put too much in, and it is all gone.


It's on the plate, in big numbers. Kerflooey, take a peek.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Kerflooey?

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

It's on the plate, in big numbers. Kerflooey, take a peek.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)