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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Scott wrote:
Can the approach be flown leagally by requesting alternate missed approach instructions that don't require and ADF? Now that's a great question. I suppose ATC can override anything really. Actually, ATC can only over-ride those things which way "unless approved by ATC" or something similar. For example, ATC can waive the rule which says you need to file a flight plan to get an IFR clearance, because 91.whatever says they can. But they cannot invent new approach procedures. But then, what do you do in case of lost comm? You can't fly the published missed. If you're an AOPA member, call up there help line. Yeah, I can just see that. "Hi, AOPA? I'm up here in the clouds, my radios just crapped out, and I need to go missed. Can you help me?" :-) |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Newps" wrote in message news:OU1%b.57647$4o.76032@attbi_s52... Scott wrote: Can the approach be flown leagally by requesting alternate missed approach instructions that don't require and ADF? Now that's a great question. I suppose ATC can override anything really. There is no situation where the plate says ADF required that GPS cannot substitute. And yes ATC can come up with alternate missed instructions. Um, filing that airport as the alternate (when you are required to have an alternate) (assuming it is the only approach) and you do not have an ADF is one example I can think of. But then, what do you do in case of lost comm? You can't fly the published missed. Why not? Just go to the NDB and hold using the GPS. That's not even difficult. I think he was talking about without the GPS. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Richard Hertz" wrote in message t... "Newps" wrote in message news:OU1%b.57647$4o.76032@attbi_s52... Scott wrote: Can the approach be flown leagally by requesting alternate missed approach instructions that don't require and ADF? Now that's a great question. I suppose ATC can override anything really. There is no situation where the plate says ADF required that GPS cannot substitute. And yes ATC can come up with alternate missed instructions. Um, filing that airport as the alternate (when you are required to have an alternate) (assuming it is the only approach) and you do not have an ADF is one example I can think of. Hmmm, I have a problem with this. Aren't you risking a slap on the wrist if you file an airport as an alternate KNOWING that you didn't have the required equipment to begin with. Not to mention that you are playing with your next birthday. Note, I'm not talking about an enroute failure of the instrument. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Casey Wilson" wrote in message ... "Richard Hertz" wrote in message t... "Newps" wrote in message news:OU1%b.57647$4o.76032@attbi_s52... Scott wrote: Can the approach be flown leagally by requesting alternate missed approach instructions that don't require and ADF? Now that's a great question. I suppose ATC can override anything really. There is no situation where the plate says ADF required that GPS cannot substitute. And yes ATC can come up with alternate missed instructions. Um, filing that airport as the alternate (when you are required to have an alternate) (assuming it is the only approach) and you do not have an ADF is one example I can think of. Hmmm, I have a problem with this. Aren't you risking a slap on the wrist if you file an airport as an alternate KNOWING that you didn't have the required equipment to begin with. Not to mention that you are playing with your next birthday. Note, I'm not talking about an enroute failure of the instrument. I am not sure you understood my point. The poster I replied to says an IFR GPS can replace ADF any time. I suggested that is not the case. Specifically, filing for an alternate that has an approach that says "ADF required" when you do not have an ADF installed (even if you have a gps) and there are no other approaches suitable is not legal. You can't substitute GPS for ADF for an alternat apprch. (filed) I think you have come to the same conclusion, though not in the same way? |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Richard Hertz" wrote in message t... "Casey Wilson" wrote in message ... "Richard Hertz" wrote in message t... "Newps" wrote in message news:OU1%b.57647$4o.76032@attbi_s52... Scott wrote: Can the approach be flown leagally by requesting alternate missed approach instructions that don't require and ADF? Now that's a great question. I suppose ATC can override anything really. There is no situation where the plate says ADF required that GPS cannot substitute. And yes ATC can come up with alternate missed instructions. Um, filing that airport as the alternate (when you are required to have an alternate) (assuming it is the only approach) and you do not have an ADF is one example I can think of. Hmmm, I have a problem with this. Aren't you risking a slap on the wrist if you file an airport as an alternate KNOWING that you didn't have the required equipment to begin with. Not to mention that you are playing with your next birthday. Note, I'm not talking about an enroute failure of the instrument. I am not sure you understood my point. The poster I replied to says an IFR GPS can replace ADF any time. I suggested that is not the case. Specifically, filing for an alternate that has an approach that says "ADF required" when you do not have an ADF installed (even if you have a gps) and there are no other approaches suitable is not legal. You can't substitute GPS for ADF for an alternat apprch. (filed) I think you have come to the same conclusion, though not in the same way? Well, in did misunderstand your point -- but, now that you've clarified it, I disagree. My interpretation is that an IFR approved GPS will stand in for the ADF "at any time." (Quote marks are mine for emphasis.) In other words, if the airplane is IFR GPS equipped, it does not need an ADF for that alternate to be valid when filing the flight plan. I got the impression that the pilot intended to file with a known faulty ADF and no GPS with the intention of requesting a modified missed-approach for the alternate -- if he needed to go there. I'm probably reading into the subject. We need a FSDO to answer this one. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Earlier mention of hanging an 'inop' sticker reminded me of
an occasion back around '70 when we had to inop the ADF on either a DC8 or 727. Somebody asked if they really needed an ADF? One of the old timers wisecracked, "How else can they learn the scores of the ball games." Oddly enough, about a month later the company started a project where we installed some wires and installed a switch on the S/O's panel through out our fairly large fleet. With a flip of this switch all of the passengers back in the cabin could listen to anything dialed into the S/O's audio panel. Just in time for the World Series. JK ( Return to serious mode ) |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... Not anything. They cannot construct a non-radar missed approach procedure, nor can they waive notes on an approach chart (those are regulatory). They're regulatory? Please cite the regulation. The need for equipment requirement notes is determined by evaluating all SIAP segments, including the missed approach procedure. A few years ago many of these notes began appearing on procedures where the entire approach could be flown without use of the specified equipment. Apparently some approach designers did not have a good understanding of how approaches are flown. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Richard Hertz" wrote in message t... Um, filing that airport as the alternate (when you are required to have an alternate) (assuming it is the only approach) and you do not have an ADF is one example I can think of. But that requirement affects only the filing of an alternate, not flying an approach. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
wrote in message ... Not anything. They cannot construct a non-radar missed approach procedure, nor can they waive notes on an approach chart (those are regulatory). They're regulatory? Please cite the regulation. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14, Part 97, Standard Instrument Approach Procedures. The procedures, including notes, are promulgated in the National Flight Data Digest to complete the requirements of Part 97. The need for equipment requirement notes is determined by evaluating all SIAP segments, including the missed approach procedure. A few years ago many of these notes began appearing on procedures where the entire approach could be flown without use of the specified equipment. Apparently some approach designers did not have a good understanding of how approaches are flown. Equipment requirement notes are addressed in FAAO 8260.19 para 855 h, "Equipment requirement notes". Although the need for specific equipment to fly the final approach will be identified in the procedure title (VOR/DME, etc), the requirement for additional equipment in other segments such as feeders or missed approach will be listed in the notes section. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"J Haggerty" wrote in message news:PNy1c.8878$Pc.4349@okepread02... Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14, Part 97, Standard Instrument Approach Procedures. The procedures, including notes, are promulgated in the National Flight Data Digest to complete the requirements of Part 97. Please cite the regulation that makes notes on an approach chart regulatory. Equipment requirement notes are addressed in FAAO 8260.19 para 855 h, "Equipment requirement notes". Although the need for specific equipment to fly the final approach will be identified in the procedure title (VOR/DME, etc), the requirement for additional equipment in other segments such as feeders or missed approach will be listed in the notes section. I'm using the online version of FAAO 8260.19C, I don't know if it's the latest. It has no paragraph 855, notes are covered in paragraph 814. FAA Order 8260.19C CHAPTER 8. INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES DATA TRANSMITTAL SYSTEM SECTION 3. COMPLETION OF FAA FORMS 8260-3/5 814. NOTES. h. Equipment Requirement Notes. Determine the need for equipment notes after evaluating all SIAP segments, including missed approach. To avoid proliferation of equipment requirement notes, all IFR aircraft are assumed to have at least one VOR receiver. Therefore, the note "VOR required" is not appropriate. VOR, ILS, or other non-ADF approaches may require ADF for procedure entry or missed approach. Use standard Note: "ADF required." If radar vectoring is available, use standard Note: "ADF or radar required." Regardless which is more recent, the paragraph you quoted does not disagree with the material I provided. In each case the notes are clearly derived from the need for the specified equipment, the notes do not create the need for the equipment. When properly placed, the notes are not an issue, they simply state a fact. The problem arises when the notes appear on a chart where the specified equipment is not needed at all, that is, when they appear in error. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Which aircraft certification is required for R&D? | Netgeek | Home Built | 5 | November 23rd 04 05:59 AM |
required eqipment for ifr | Mark | Instrument Flight Rules | 23 | December 19th 03 02:22 PM |
required readback on clearance | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 15 | September 17th 03 04:33 PM |
Why is ADF required on ILS approach? | Rich Raine | Instrument Flight Rules | 27 | August 1st 03 05:14 PM |
Radio license required? | Marty Ross | Instrument Flight Rules | 10 | July 17th 03 09:58 PM |