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
|
|||
|
|||
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). |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Which of these approaches is loggable? | Paul Tomblin | Instrument Flight Rules | 26 | August 16th 03 05:22 PM |