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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
That's correct and defines LADOS (the localizer and ELD 018/2miles) I
had a similar problem (before I got my certified GPS) for KGYI. Newly commissioned ILS and it came out with a ADF REQUIRED on the plate. I contacted the FAA and we discussed. I also submitted that the outer marker (DNI) could be easily defined by the feeder route from BYP and the localizer. I still do not understand the reason; must be something in the TERPS. "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: "Thomas Borchert" wrote in message ... the initial approach fix (IAF) is defined by the NDB. how would you find this point without an ADF? There is a feeder route from ELD to LADOS. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"John Clonts" wrote in message
... DME is not required, so you can't assume you can use it to find LADOS - yes, even though it's clearly marked 5.2NM on the plate. 6.5 DME :-) |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:24:01 -0500, Ross Richardson
wrote: That's correct and defines LADOS (the localizer and ELD 018/2miles) I had a similar problem (before I got my certified GPS) for KGYI. Newly commissioned ILS and it came out with a ADF REQUIRED on the plate. I contacted the FAA and we discussed. I also submitted that the outer marker (DNI) could be easily defined by the feeder route from BYP and the localizer. I still do not understand the reason; must be something in the TERPS. I believe it has something to do with a concept called "positive course guidance". Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
An instrument approach requires an IAF. In the case of an ILS approach, this must be separate to the ILS localiser and glideslope because of the directive nature of the aid. The most common solution is to use an NDB to provide the IAF and base the procedure on that. NDBs installed in conjunction with instrument approach aids are generally lower power than en-route NDBs. You could, in theory, use a VOR as the IAF as well, however. Also marker beacons are notorious for going on the blink, so a co-located NDB with the outer marker (called "LOC") provides an additional check for ranging on the final approach. (in some cases, the ILS system might not even have marker beacons, in which case an NDB will be required at the OM location). Remember that not all ILS systems have DME associated, so some form of range checking is required. The vast majority of ILS approaches in Europe use an NDB as the IAF and many of them use an NDB LOCator (colocated with outer marker). My local airport has several instrument procedures: ILS/NDB, NDB Only, VOR, and VDF. There is no DME on either the ILS or the VOR and since the VOR is on the A/D and not 7.5 nautical miles out like the NDB, it can't reasonably be used as the IAF for the ILS approach without totally throwing totally non-standard timings into the equation. (as it is already the VOR approach [non-precision] already has a non-standard outbound timing to begin base turn). You will find that even on some of the more advanced European airports, there are NDBs associated with the ILS at the outer marker location. (Heathrow, Gatwick, Stanstead, Luton, East Midlands, Birmingham, Paris Orly, Paris Charles de Gaulle, all have NDB LOCs at around 8 nautical miles out.). Also most holding procedures in the Europe use NDBs as the holding fix. (there are currently NO operationally published GPS approaches in the UK, and the CAA and even JAA are tending to be somewhat wary of implementing GPS procedures for instrument approaches.) Regards, Leland On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 08:40:13 -0500, "Gig Giacona" wrote: Let's see if I have this straight and please forgive any ignorance on my part. When I got my PP-SEL in ELD '79-'80 there was no ILS or NDB approach at ELD just VOR. All the pilots bitched including the Lear and Citation pilots and their bosses and ELD gets an ILS. But it gets put in requireing ADF that even then was on the way out. This is the silliest thing I have ever heard of. "Thomas Borchert" wrote in message ... Gig, the initial approach fix (IAF) is defined by the NDB. how would you find this point without an ADF? You'd get around that with radar vectors, but you couldn't fly the full procedure without the NDB. And the missed approach is a hold on the NDB. Same problem. BUT: An approach certified GPS with the NDB in it's database can replace for the ADF. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Leland Vandervort" wrote in message ... Also most holding procedures in the Europe use NDBs as the holding fix. (there are currently NO operationally published GPS approaches in the UK, and the CAA and even JAA are tending to be somewhat wary of implementing GPS procedures for instrument approaches.) Is there a single rationale for this wariness? The obviously compelling reason is that other nations would be reluctant to throw the future of their air navigation into the hands of a system controlled by the US military - we're allies now, but alliances change within the lifespan of an aeronautical system. Or is there something more mundane: the incremental cost causing slow adoption, or the decision to put more INS systems into European planes before GPS came along, or roll out MLS faster than the US, or what? -- David Brooks |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Leland Vandervort writes:
The vast majority of ILS approaches in Europe use an NDB as the IAF and many of them use an NDB LOCator (colocated with outer marker). Ditto for Canada: to my knowledge, we no longer have any marker beacons at all. Every Canadian ILS approach I've seen so far has an NDB as the IAF/FAF, but I'm sure that someone can point out an exception somewhere. I was surprised to see the marker lights on my audio panel light up, one after the other, when I overflew Albany NY a few weeks ago -- I had never seen them light up except with the test button, and even turned on the audio just to hear what they sounded like. All the best, David -- David Megginson, , http://www.megginson.com/ |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 02:06:30 GMT, David Megginson
I was surprised to see the marker lights on my audio panel light up, one after the other, when I overflew Albany NY a few weeks ago -- I had never seen them light up except with the test button, and even turned on the audio just to hear what they sounded like. S'okay.. at my base airfield we have OM and MM, but half the time they don't work anyway... di-dah-di-dah-di-dah-di-dah dah-dah-dah-dah-dah di-di-di-di-di-di-di Leland |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Leland Vandervort writes:
di-dah-di-dah-di-dah-di-dah dah-dah-dah-dah-dah di-di-di-di-di-di-di Thanks -- that would have saved me the whole trip over Albany. I assume that you're using an appropriately high-pitched voice (it's hard to tell by e-mail). All the best, David -- David Megginson, , http://www.megginson.com/ |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
I was looking at this approach plate for my home field
http://www.myairplane.com/databases/...l/ELD_ir22.pdf And the ILS plate is marked ADF required? Why is that? Looks like the NDB is part of the missed approach. You still don't need an ADF, but only IF you have a /G approved GPS. (Though, you would still need an ADF if this was an IFR alternate. For alternates - even if /G - you need to have all the 'steam guage' equipment required for the approach. Scott |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"David Brooks" wrote in message ... "Leland Vandervort" wrote in message ... Also most holding procedures in the Europe use NDBs as the holding fix. (there are currently NO operationally published GPS approaches in the UK, and the CAA and even JAA are tending to be somewhat wary of implementing GPS procedures for instrument approaches.) Is there a single rationale for this wariness? No, as MLS airborne equipments use GPS derived DME. The obviously compelling reason is that other nations would be reluctant to throw the future of their air navigation into the hands of a system controlled by the US military - we're allies now, but alliances change within the lifespan of an aeronautical system. The really compelling reason for building Galileo is to bridge a technology gap, unfortunately TACAN stations interfere with the proposed Euro Nav signal. Or is there something more mundane: the incremental cost causing slow adoption, or the decision to put more INS systems into European planes before GPS came along, or roll out MLS faster than the US, or what? Working MLS uses GPS, so the reasoning has to be somewhat convoluted. Then again, if Galileo provides binary stars, the Europeans will be ahead of the US in space based Navigation. John P. Tarver, MS/PE |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
The perfect approach | Capt.Doug | Home Built | 25 | December 3rd 04 03:37 AM |
Which aircraft certification is required for R&D? | Netgeek | Home Built | 5 | November 23rd 04 05:59 AM |
LSA Approach speeds | Ace Pilot | Home Built | 0 | February 3rd 04 05:38 PM |
Download approach charts | Ron Natalie | Home Built | 0 | July 9th 03 08:29 PM |