Instrument Approaches and procedure turns....

Ron Rosenfeld writes:

A few comments because I don't understand what you say they told
you.

First of all, the GS altitude varies, so what does it mean for it to
be at an a 100' interval?

Second, the OM doesn't have a whole lot to do with an ILS. It's a
place where you can check your altitude, but it's not the FAF.

He clarified later in his posting that it applied to the LOC-only
approaches, where the outer marker is (probably) the FAF. The first
part of the posting was confusing, because he did seem to be
discussing ILS approaches.

Personally, I'd be pretty nervous flying an ILS approach below
non-precision minima if I didn't have some identifiable location that
I could check my altimeter on the glidepath, but I don't know if
there's any regulation requiring that either in Canada or the U.S.
Then again, I don't claim to be speaking from extensive experience --
my rating is very new, and I've never done an approach with a ceiling
below 400 ft.


All the best,


David

Looks like I left out a word or two. What they were saying is they want the ILS FAF to overlay
the Loc only and RNAV FAFs instead of being offset the way they had been. In order to do that
they need the (loc or RNAV) FAF altitude to be the same as the charted glideslope intercept.
The glideslope intercept has to be at an integer multiple of 100' (part of the rules for making
the chardts), therefore the intersection marking the FAF (which previously was the OM loacation)
also has to be moved to make that happen.

The OM serves (generally) serves a couple of purposes: 1) it provides a place to check your
altimeter, 2) it is a reporting point, and 3) it serves as the FAF for a localizer only
approach. ADF is only required on one of the approaches, and that is for the missed. DME is
now required on all precision approaches into PVD, which is my beef: previously there were two
ILSs without a requirement for DME. Of the 9 airplanes hangared with mine (at PVD), only 2 have
the required equipment to fly the new approach. Of the two, one just installed a Garmin 530,
the other has a DME.

Tracon said today they would work with us by calling out the fixes as long as we asked for it
before starting the approach. Several of the controllers are pilots, and are well aware of the
equipment issues. An interesting note is that the controllers were in a meeting about this last
week, and AOPA was present. AOPA did us a grave disservice by stating that 80% of GA aircraft
have advanced RNAV capability, and as such these new approaches should not be a significant
problem. I don't know where they pulled that number from, but based on the light aircraft I am
familiar with, I think the truth is closer to 20% have it. Maybe Phil Boyer needs to give up
flying around in the CJ and get back to flying a 182 with only basic IFR gear.

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 16:07:34 -0400, Ray Andraka wrote:

The reason for the change is to comply with an initiative to prepare the ILS approaches for
RNAV. Part of that initiative requires the location of the glideslope to be at an a 100'
interval. Most OM's are not,

A few comments because I don't understand what you say they told you.

First of all, the GS altitude varies, so what does it mean for it to be at
an a 100' interval?

Second, the OM doesn't have a whole lot to do with an ILS. It's a place
where you can check your altitude, but it's not the FAF.

In any event, for whatever reason, it sounds as if having ADF/DME and/or
GPS will be a good thing to fly these approaches, and expensive if you
don't have them.

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

--
--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 article ,
Ray Andraka wrote:
The reason for the change is to comply with an initiative to prepare the
ILS approaches for
RNAV. Part of that initiative requires the location of the glideslope
to be at an a 100'
interval. Most OM's are not, and it is too expensive to move them, so

Ohhhh, this must explain why HIO ILS 12 no longer uses ABATE LOM.
I had assumed that the few hundred feet they tacked onto 12/30 had
made it too close to the threshold (though that was obviously a
stretch!).

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 02:03:57 GMT, David Megginson
wrote:

Personally, I'd be pretty nervous flying an ILS approach below
non-precision minima if I didn't have some identifiable location that
I could check my altimeter on the glidepath, but I don't know if
there's any regulation requiring that either in Canada or the U.S.
Then again, I don't claim to be speaking from extensive experience --
my rating is very new, and I've never done an approach with a ceiling
below 400 ft.

There's no regulation to that effect in the US. I don't know about Canada.


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

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 23:31:24 -0400, Ray Andraka wrote:

Looks like I left out a word or two. What they were saying is they want the ILS FAF to overlay
the Loc only and RNAV FAFs instead of being offset the way they had been. In order to do that
they need the (loc or RNAV) FAF altitude to be the same as the charted glideslope intercept.
The glideslope intercept has to be at an integer multiple of 100' (part of the rules for making
the chardts), therefore the intersection marking the FAF (which previously was the OM loacation)
also has to be moved to make that happen.

OK, that makes sense. TERP's actually says that, *if possible*, the LOC
and ILS FAF's should be at the same point. However, I don't know that I've
seen one with an OM where that is actually the case!


The OM serves (generally) serves a couple of purposes:

1) it provides a place to check your altimeter,

That's not a regulatory requirement, although it is good practice. I
suppose if your altimeter failed enroute and you didn't notice it, that
might be helpful; or if you might be on a false GP.

2) it is a reporting point, and

Yeah but you could report passing the so-and-so radial. Sheesh, they've
got pretty good radar around PVD.

3) it serves as the FAF for a localizer only
approach. ADF is only required on one of the approaches, and that is for the missed. DME is
now required on all precision approaches into PVD, which is my beef: previously there were two
ILSs without a requirement for DME. Of the 9 airplanes hangared with mine (at PVD), only 2 have
the required equipment to fly the new approach. Of the two, one just installed a Garmin 530,
the other has a DME.

Tracon said today they would work with us by calling out the fixes as long as we asked for it
before starting the approach. Several of the controllers are pilots, and are well aware of the
equipment issues.

That enables you to fly the approach, but it ain't legal if the chart calls
for that equipment.

An interesting note is that the controllers were in a meeting about this last
week, and AOPA was present. AOPA did us a grave disservice by stating that 80% of GA aircraft
have advanced RNAV capability, and as such these new approaches should not be a significant
problem. I don't know where they pulled that number from, but based on the light aircraft I am
familiar with, I think the truth is closer to 20% have it. Maybe Phil Boyer needs to give up
flying around in the CJ and get back to flying a 182 with only basic IFR gear.


I would have thought that at a big airport like PVD, the percentage would
have been higher than 20%, too. Have you written him directly?

I must say, that I've never flown IFR without DME and ADF. However, I've
had the same a/c for 25+ years, and it came that way. And right now I'm
based at an airport where the only approaches are ADF and GPS (and I don't
have anything other than a VFR handheld GPS).



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

The new RAPT (I think that was the name, although it could just as well been "RAPED")
initiative calls for all ILSs to get adjusted to line everything up, wiping out that "if possible"
Seems like an extraordinary expenditure of money for the FAA as well as for the people like
me that have file /Unfortunate. The issue at Providence is that there are no crossing radials
that come close to perpendicular to the approach course, which is why they have DME fixes,
not crossing radials. They do have good radar coverage, that is when the tower is open. The
tower is closed between 0000 and 0600 local time however, and at those times Boston Center
handles approaches. I don't think the center radar coverage is very good on the approach.

I do have ADF in my airplane, but it isn't the issue. I don't have DME. The airplane didn't have it
when I bought it 8 years ago, but did have it once, as it still has the antenna. Not much room left
in
the panel any more, at least not on the left side where I could see it. Of the dozen or so airplanes
I've
flown, only one had DME. I have not written Phil Boyer, however I am in contact with AOPA over this
issue. The guy I talked to this morning also seemed surprised that so few had DME.



--
--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

How are the intersections it now uses identified? DME or a crossing radial?

Ben Jackson wrote:

In article ,
Ray Andraka wrote:
The reason for the change is to comply with an initiative to prepare the
ILS approaches for
RNAV. Part of that initiative requires the location of the glideslope
to be at an a 100'
interval. Most OM's are not, and it is too expensive to move them, so

Ohhhh, this must explain why HIO ILS 12 no longer uses ABATE LOM.
I had assumed that the few hundred feet they tacked onto 12/30 had
made it too close to the threshold (though that was obviously a
stretch!).

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

--
--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 article ,
Ray Andraka wrote:
Ben Jackson wrote:
Ohhhh, this must explain why HIO ILS 12 no longer uses ABATE LOM.

How are the intersections it now uses identified? DME or a crossing radial?

If you google it you can see a thread I started about that very thing
a few weeks ago. I think the new intersection is COUVE (coo-vee) and
it's on the localizer and it's identified by radials off of UBG and BTG,
both more than 30 degrees away from perpendicular. There's also a DME
distance from UBG.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

THe guy who designed the new charts for Providence, Bob Llewellyn, told me
that crossing radials are used if they meet the criteria. I thought he said 30
degrees,
but it might have been an angle greater than 30 degrees to the course. The only
navaids
here that might work are Norwich (ORW), and Putnam (PUT). I think there may be a

distance limitation as well, which probably rules out PUT and possibly ORW as
well.

Ben Jackson wrote:

In article ,
Ray Andraka wrote:
Ben Jackson wrote:
Ohhhh, this must explain why HIO ILS 12 no longer uses ABATE LOM.

How are the intersections it now uses identified? DME or a crossing radial?

If you google it you can see a thread I started about that very thing
a few weeks ago. I think the new intersection is COUVE (coo-vee) and
it's on the localizer and it's identified by radials off of UBG and BTG,
both more than 30 degrees away from perpendicular. There's also a DME
distance from UBG.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

--
--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