A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

KPAE ILS...Now Requires DME...Why?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old April 14th 09, 03:28 AM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 721
Default KPAE ILS...Now Requires DME...Why?

Ross wrote:

When they first commissioned the ILS RWY 17L to KGYI they had a ADF
required for the hold. I never understood why you couldn't use the
localizer, the outer marker, and or the 302 degree radial to define
the holding point. I sent a letter to the designers, and they came
back saying in their haste that they did make it more complicated.
They moved the hold to URH VOR that was some 30 miles away. I
withdrew my request and they went back to the ADF required on the
approach.
My idea was to fly the missed approach, to to fly the local backwards
to intercept the 302 degree radial and hold. But the designers didn't
like that.


If RIBBY OM is good enough to be a FAF on the localizer approach it should
be good enough to be holding fix. I would think a missed approach procedure
could have a heading back to the localizer and fly the localizer to hold at
the OM. But what's the problem with ADF? Who'd be flying this approach
with a marker beacon receiver but without ADF or GPS used in lieu of ADF?



  #22  
Old April 14th 09, 05:41 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Ross
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 463
Default KPAE ILS...Now Requires DME...Why?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Ross wrote:
When they first commissioned the ILS RWY 17L to KGYI they had a ADF
required for the hold. I never understood why you couldn't use the
localizer, the outer marker, and or the 302 degree radial to define
the holding point. I sent a letter to the designers, and they came
back saying in their haste that they did make it more complicated.
They moved the hold to URH VOR that was some 30 miles away. I
withdrew my request and they went back to the ADF required on the
approach.
My idea was to fly the missed approach, to to fly the local backwards
to intercept the 302 degree radial and hold. But the designers didn't
like that.


If RIBBY OM is good enough to be a FAF on the localizer approach it should
be good enough to be holding fix. I would think a missed approach procedure
could have a heading back to the localizer and fly the localizer to hold at
the OM. But what's the problem with ADF? Who'd be flying this approach
with a marker beacon receiver but without ADF or GPS used in lieu of ADF?




When I first started instrument training I didn't have a ADF but did
have a IFR GPS. So, for me it was immaterial. I could still fly it. But
my thinking (engineer), and as you stated, was this could be
accomplished without the need for requiring an ADF, yet it was put on
the IAP and my thinking (again) unnecessary.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
Sold
KSWI
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bendix KT76C transponder requires major repair: Options? Peter R. Owning 20 September 14th 06 07:48 PM
Parachuting or Piloting Requires Instant Decision Making..........tv clip Hans Piloting 6 June 19th 06 02:29 PM
Garmin 430 error message: "com requires service"??? Guy Byars Owning 2 July 26th 05 02:28 AM
S-TEC 60-2 requires re-trim after altitude hold? Peter R. Owning 7 March 2nd 04 04:46 PM
Section 61.89a(8) requires student compliance w/ instructor limitations Shoulbe Soaring 0 August 25th 03 08:30 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.