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

Outer Marker



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 22nd 04, 02:29 PM
Barry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Outer Marker

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
outer marker as one of the "basic ground components" and gives the acceptable
substitutes, but doesn't explicitly say that it's required. The AIM 1-1-9(j)
on "Inoperative Components" mentions the localizer and glideslope, but says
nothing about the outer marker.

If you answer, please give a specific FAA reference that says whether or not
the OM or a substitute is required.

Thanks.

Barry



Ads
  #2  
Old January 22nd 04, 02:31 PM
Paul Tomblin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty will be charged to
dangers, real or imagined, from abroad." - James Madison
  #3  
Old January 22nd 04, 06:44 PM
Ron Rosenfeld
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:29:01 -0500, "Barry" wrote:

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
outer marker as one of the "basic ground components" and gives the acceptable
substitutes, but doesn't explicitly say that it's required. The AIM 1-1-9(j)
on "Inoperative Components" mentions the localizer and glideslope, but says
nothing about the outer marker.

If you answer, please give a specific FAA reference that says whether or not
the OM or a substitute is required.


Identification of the OM is not required but why do you think there will be
a specific reference to say that something is NOT required?

It's a good idea to check the OM, **if there is one**, in order to confirm
your GS altitude at that point, but there is no legal requirement.

You may also note that there is no "penalty" if an OM is not functioning.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
  #4  
Old January 22nd 04, 06:45 PM
Ron Rosenfeld
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 14:31:34 +0000 (UTC), (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.


In my experience, it has been most unusual for an OM to be located at the
FAF for an ILS approach. They try to get them close, but they rarely are
(at least here in the NorthEast).


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
  #5  
Old January 22nd 04, 08:45 PM
David Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 14:31:34 +0000 (UTC), (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.


In my experience, it has been most unusual for an OM to be located at the
FAF for an ILS approach. They try to get them close, but they rarely are
(at least here in the NorthEast).


I wondered about that. It *is* at the marker at my home field (PAE), thanks
to a remarkably well-located spit of land north of the bay, and I made the
appropriate mistake on my oral. After a snack break, I looked it up and came
back to the examiner with the right answer (GS intercept).

-- David Brooks


  #6  
Old January 23rd 04, 07:03 AM
Hilton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


  #7  
Old January 23rd 04, 03:38 PM
Lee Elson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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
  #8  
Old January 24th 04, 09:19 AM
Hilton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Lee Elson wrote:
Hilton wrote:
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,

I agree with you 100%. I was speaking from a legal view, not a safety view.
A few years ago, an approach's minimum changed if the outer marker was bust.
That is no longer the case.

To be picky, the ILS's FAF is the glideslope intersept, not the 'cross'.
The 'cross' belongs to the non-precision approach that just happens to be
printed on the same piece of paper.

Hilton


  #9  
Old January 24th 04, 01:24 PM
Barry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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?


  #10  
Old January 25th 04, 10:57 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Barry wrote:


If you answer, please give a specific FAA reference that says whether or not
the OM or a substitute is required.

You guys that want a specific reference should buy Summit's Aviation Reference
Library and do your own research.


 




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
TKM MB75 Marker Beacon Receiver Darrel Toepfer Home Built 0 August 18th 04 10:31 PM
KR-21 marker beacon pinout? JFLEISC Home Built 0 March 17th 04 10:46 PM
Canard planes swept wing outer VG's? Paul Lee Home Built 8 January 4th 04 08:10 PM
Marker Beacon Antenna - Paging Jim Weir. Bart D. Hull Home Built 1 November 27th 03 10:31 PM
marker beacon Gary Gunn Instrument Flight Rules 5 November 3rd 03 05:20 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.