Instrument Approaches and procedure turns....

wrote in message ...


"It" being the NACO chart, I presume. The Jeppesen chart reads "DME" not "VORTAC."

Yep....how does Jepp depict the NALLS intersection? (My Jepps are at home, questions
about plates at work send me to aeroplanner or AOPA to look them up: NACO).

"Cecil E. Chapman" wrote in message
.. .
YIKES! I didn't see that... This leads to another question. I thought
that if an item of equipment was required that it appeared as part of the
approach plate description, such as; LOC DME 29 ????

Here's a similar surprise to watch for: it's common for ILS approaches to
say "ADF required", when the missed-approach hold is at an NDB.

--Gary


--
--
Good Flights!

Cecil E. Chapman, Jr.
PP-ASEL

"We who fly do so for the love of flying.
We are alive in the air with this miracle
that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"

- Cecil Day Lewis-

My personal adventures as a student pilot
and after my PPL: www.bayareapilot.com
"Brad Z" wrote in message
news:baw7b.297942$cF.92189@rwcrnsc53...

"Cecil E. Chapman" wrote in message
...
If you look at the approach plate for KWVI/WVI LOC Rwy 2, there is no
requirement for DME. All that's there is a localizer (without glide
slope -

Actually, there is Cecil, according to the "DME or RADAR required" note
in
the top right of the chart..
The reason they want you on radar or to have DME is to keep you inside
the
10NM ring for the missed approach. Just outside the ring is something
just
over 4000 feet due north of the airport.



making the approach non-precision) and a NDB which isn't even part of
this
approach procedure (there is a separate NDB approach for the same
runway,
though).

Thanks for the clarification on the feeder route. By the way isn't
this
approach an example where the initial approach fix and the FAF are one
and
the same?

--
--
Good Flights!

Cecil E. Chapman, Jr.
PP-ASEL

"We who fly do so for the love of flying.
We are alive in the air with this miracle
that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"

- Cecil Day Lewis-

My personal adventures as a student pilot
and after my PPL: www.bayareapilot.com
"Michael" wrote in message
om...
"Cecil E. Chapman" wrote
Anyway (I'm sorry, in advance, if I'm am asking something that
should
be
obvious)

It should be but you're a student so it's OK

I'm looking at the LOC Rwy 2 approach to Watsonville Municipal
(California). There is a procedure turn that sits just before the
'entrance' into the localizer. How does one identify where it
actually
is
(the beginning of the procedure turn, that is)? Does one simply
fly
up
the
localizer and when the localizer signal is lost THAT is where the
location
of the procedure turn sits?

Well, assuming you arrived at the IAF (NALLS intersection) along one
of the charted feeder routes (from SANTY intersection or SNS VOR)
you
turn outbound (South) on the localizer, fly a minute or so (longer
if
you have a headwind), and then do the procedure turn. The only
requirement is that you complete the course reversal (in whatever
way
seems best to you and keeps you inside the protected area) and get
established inbound before crossing NALLS.

Now for the real question - why in the world is DME required for
this
approach?

Michael

wrote:


Ron Natalie wrote:

wrote:


"It" being the NACO chart, I presume. The Jeppesen chart reads "DME"
not "VORTAC."

Yep....how does Jepp depict the NALLS intersection? (My Jepps are at
home, questions
about plates at work send me to aeroplanner or AOPA to look them up:
NACO).

The LOC course and *either* the SNS R-293 or SND 16.5 DME.

This is definitely not correct. NALLS is identified *only* by the Salinas
(SNS) 293 radial. If you think that while flying inbound on the localizer,
you can identify NALLS by the SNS DME 16.5, you are incorrect. In fact, if
you are inbound on the LOC, you will get a SNS 16.5 DME reading 4.46 nm
*before* NALLS and again at NALLS.

For those without the chart, the SNS VOR is almost 90 degrees to the
localizer.

Hilton

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 15:53:17 GMT, Greg Esres wrote:

I believe it only gets into the approach title if it's required as
the primary navaid (i.e. something you need to fly the final approach
course).

Yes. But the FAA has some tricky definitions of what's required to fly
final. If there's a stepdown fix you need that's determined by DME
prior to the FAF, you'd still get DME in the title. (That's why you
might have ILS DME).


TERPS paragraph 161 seems to contradict that statement. Are there other
paragraphs that would apply?\




Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

TERPS paragraph 161 seems to contradict that statement. Are there
other paragraphs that would apply?

So it would seem. However, the interpretation offered by others is
that since you can't get to final approach without DME, you therefore
need DME to fly final approach.

I don't care for the logic, but there it is. I've seen your name in
threads where it was explained by Wally Roberts, so don't act like
this is news to you. g

This is definitely not correct.

Good catch. I didn't read his statement carefully. Also good catch
to see that there are two locations where the 16.5 DME would occur.
Eyeballing didn't do it for me; I has to use a piece of string. ;-)

However, it would never have occured to me to use DME from a navaid
off to the side like that, anyway.

Ron Natalie wrote:

"Javier Henderson" wrote

(Michael) writes:
Now for the real question - why in the world is DME required for this
approach?

To positively identify NALLS. You get false LOC lobes coming from
the south.


Then isn't NALLS is charted wrong.

Must be a case of PWI (posting while intoxicated

Perhaps you meant: 'Then NALLS is charted wrong.' If this is in fact what you
meant, how *should* NALLS be charted?

if DME was required on an ILS (and that would be, of course, prior
to the final approach fix), that it would be shown as a "DME required"
note, rather than as part of the name of the procedure.

That's the way it's becoming, but, according to Wally, that's only in
order to conform to ICAO standards.

There ARE some ILS DME approaches out there (or were). Can you
explain how DME would ever be needed to fly final approach on an ILS?

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 05:33:02 GMT, Greg Esres wrote:

There ARE some ILS DME approaches out there (or were). Can you
explain how DME would ever be needed to fly final approach on an ILS?

According to TERPS it is not ever required. And I suspect the ILS DME
approaches that may be charted will eventually be renamed to conform to the
para 161.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

In article ,
Greg Esres wrote:

There ARE some ILS DME approaches out there (or were).

Aren't those approaches refering to DME for stepdowns for the GS-out LOC
approach?

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/