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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message ... If you're using GPS to fly a "VOR or GPS RWY 24" you're not substituting GPS for the VOR. The approach can be flown with either one. Exactly the point. ? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message ... On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 22:57:15 -0700, "C J Campbell" wrote: There is no provision for GPS to be used in lieu of VOR. There is for approaches. See 1-1-19 h. With an overlay approach you are not using GPS in lieu of VOR. You are simply flying a GPS approach. If there is no GPS overlay then you may not substitute GPS for VOR. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 18:33:26 -0700, "C J Campbell"
wrote: With an overlay approach you are not using GPS in lieu of VOR. You are simply flying a GPS approach. If there is no GPS overlay then you may not substitute GPS for VOR. Exactly. In the case of an overlay approach, the FAA has sanctioned the use of GPS in place of VOR. I think we are getting into one of these nit-picky discussions which are common in this group. With my CNX80, I can legally fly the Victor airways with no functioning VOR in my aircraft or on the ground. I call that substituting GPS for VOR. If you wish to call it something else, you may, since there is no FAA guidance to that point. --ron |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
In article t,
Mike Rapoport wrote: Recently the COE VOR was notamed OTS. Coincedent with this the KSZT LOC/DME was notamed NA. The explanation given was that the COE VOR was nessasary to fly the tranition (COE is the IAF) and the missed approach (the missed ends with a hold at the COE VOR). It looks like you're out of the woods on the missed when you cross the SZT NDB. I wonder why they don't just NOTAM a hold at the NDB, or on the localizer. -- Ben Jackson http://www.ben.com/ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Rapoport wrote: Recently the COE VOR was notamed OTS. Coincedent with this the KSZT LOC/DME was notamed NA. The explanation given was that the COE VOR was nessasary to fly the tranition (COE is the IAF) and the missed approach (the missed ends with a hold at the COE VOR). I contend that GPS can substitute for the VOR but I can't find it witten down anywhere. The KSZT LOC, DME and ADF are all working properly. Our question is: Was the KSZT LOC/DME approach improperly NOTAMed NA? Can you cite a source? Remember we are talking about substituting GPS for the VOR to fly the transition, we are not talking about substituting for the LOC. There is no pro bono work for references, etc, available today. Why don't you call AVN-100 in OKC on Monday and ask them: 405-954-3027. That's the main number but they can transfer you to the right person. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
If it is NOTAMED out of service then I don't think you can legally use
it, regardless of what is actually not working. I don't think ATC is supposed to clear you for an approach that is NOTAMED OTS. Numerous reasons. So you will get no clearance for the approach. How can you fly it without a clearance in IMC? It does seem that they could NOTAM it that you MUST have IFR approach terminal and enroute GPS, or even WAAS GPS if the VOR is out. But thats not what they did. "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message nk.net... Recently the COE VOR was notamed OTS. Coincedent with this the KSZT LOC/DME was notamed NA. The explanation given was that the COE VOR was nessasary to fly the tranition (COE is the IAF) and the missed approach (the missed ends with a hold at the COE VOR). I contend that GPS can substitute for the VOR but I can't find it witten down anywhere. The KSZT LOC, DME and ADF are all working properly. Our question is: Was the KSZT LOC/DME approach improperly NOTAMed NA? Can you cite a source? Remember we are talking about substituting GPS for the VOR to fly the transition, we are not talking about substituting for the LOC. Thanks Mike MU-2 (and a lot of other frustrated NW pilots) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Doug wrote: If it is NOTAMED out of service then I don't think you can legally use it, regardless of what is actually not working. Yes, of course, but that is also the problem with the FAA. When our DME required ILS goes OTS because just the DME is out there is no reason to notam the approach OTS. Anybody with a terminal or approach approved GPS will shoot the approach without DME anyways. All the fixes and the missed approach point for the LOC only part of the approach can all be determined with GPS. Just like on most VOR approaches nowadays, they list a distance that you can use in lieu of timing. This is a fundamental flaw with the FAA not fully understanding how people are flying. I don't think ATC is supposed to clear you for an approach that is NOTAMED OTS. Right, although if the navaids are working you can shoot it as a VFR practice approach. It does seem that they could NOTAM it that you MUST have IFR approach terminal and enroute GPS, or even WAAS GPS if the VOR is out. But thats not what they did. But they should. Just tell people what is not working and let them figure out how it affects their situation. They do this when a VOR goes OTS and all of a sudden a number of airways cease to exist. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
If it's just the DME OTS, then the NOTAM should be worded as shown in
FAAH 7110.65C para 284 d (5). They have examples there. Unfortunately, I don't think everyone is aware to prepare the NOTAM that way. It doesn't help that this paragraph is located under the NOTAM D section, and procedural NOTAMS are not NOTAM D's. So many specialists don't even keep up with that section, because they don't normally prepare NOTAM D's. http://av-info.faa.gov/terps/Directi...19C%20CHG3.pdf It's on page 19/20 of 201) JPH Newps wrote: Yes, of course, but that is also the problem with the FAA. When our DME required ILS goes OTS because just the DME is out there is no reason to notam the approach OTS. Anybody with a terminal or approach approved GPS will shoot the approach without DME anyways. All the fixes and the missed approach point for the LOC only part of the approach can all be determined with GPS. Just like on most VOR approaches nowadays, they list a distance that you can use in lieu of timing. This is a fundamental flaw with the FAA not fully understanding how people are flying. It does seem that they could NOTAM it that you MUST have IFR approach terminal and enroute GPS, or even WAAS GPS if the VOR is out. But thats not what they did. But they should. Just tell people what is not working and let them figure out how it affects their situation. They do this when a VOR goes OTS and all of a sudden a number of airways cease to exist. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"J Haggerty" wrote in message news:3_cYc.64401$wo.11137@okepread06... If it's just the DME OTS, then the NOTAM should be worded as shown in FAAH 7110.65C para 284 d (5). Wrong book. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Oops,
FAAO 8260.19C para 284 d (5) JPH Steven P. McNicoll wrote: "J Haggerty" wrote in message news:3_cYc.64401$wo.11137@okepread06... If it's just the DME OTS, then the NOTAM should be worded as shown in FAAH 7110.65C para 284 d (5). Wrong book. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|