ADF and GPS equip %

I withdrew my letter.

What does this mean? Why did you do it?

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Ross Richardson wrote:
I am puzzled also. Even some newly commisioned ILS approaches require
ADFs to locate the outermarker for hold. We had one at a local airport

You can hold over an NDB using GPS -- no ADF required. See AIM 1-1-19
or a prior thread started by me last month relating to legal use of GPS
as a substitute for NDB and DME.

The way GPS has been handled in the UK is completely stupid, and it's
too late to do anything about it. A whole generation of pilots has
come out of the system sincerely believing its use is (various forms
of) illegal.

Would you feel the same in reverse? Suppose Croatia had developed some
nifty technology which provided worldwide navigation coverage by (say)
sending a neutrino beam into the upper atmosphere and measuring the
backscattering with a five pound piece of electronics and a square foot
of tin foil. (real tin, not aluminum). Would the FAA approve that for
IFR flight in the US, relying on Croatia's neutrino beam?

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Later in AIM 1-1-19:
"(8) For TSO-C129/129A users, any required alternate airport must still
have an approved instrument approach procedure other than GPS that is
anticipated to be operational and available at the estimated time of
arrival, and which the aircraft is equipped to fly. If the non-GPS
approaches on which the pilot must rely require DME or ADF, the
aircraft must be equipped with DME or ADF avionics as appropriate."

I interpret the second sentence to refine the first sentence. So:

1) I can file and shoot an ILS that says ADF or DME required (e.g., for
the hold or to identify fixes) even if I don't have an ADF or DME as
long as I have a TSO-C129/129A GPS;
2) if I file an alternate, it must be an airport not requiring GPS; and
3) if that alternate needs ADF or DME, I have to have ADF or DME.

I believe this requirement is imposed in the event you lose GPS or RAIM.

In article ,
Jose wrote:

The way GPS has been handled in the UK is completely stupid, and it's
too late to do anything about it. A whole generation of pilots has
come out of the system sincerely believing its use is (various forms
of) illegal.

Would you feel the same in reverse? Suppose Croatia had developed some
nifty technology which provided worldwide navigation coverage by (say)
sending a neutrino beam into the upper atmosphere and measuring the
backscattering with a five pound piece of electronics and a square foot
of tin foil. (real tin, not aluminum). Would the FAA approve that for
IFR flight in the US, relying on Croatia's neutrino beam?

Jose

That's not a very good analogy. What you need to add to that is that the
neutrino source is carefully designed so that the Croats can turn it off
whenever they want, but only for everybody else; they can still get the
signal with their special tinfoil that nobody else knows how to make.

I disagree. I think Galileo will work fine, and will find good application in
aviation, both commercial and private. Part of me understands the "we don't
want to depend on a system the US can switch off" argument. But the European
solution is no better - The public will have to pay the fees to develop the
system, and the users will have to pay usage fees, and the benefits will be
distributed in the form of massive, windfall profits to companies like
Alcatel, to add the the massive, windfall profits they are already receiving
from other public works type projects.It seems to be written into the
European constitutions that any public project must involve huge profits to
one or several of a small constellation of companies, with strong government
ties and who are always in court for allegations of illegal campaign
contributions. The fact that something so useful could just be free and
available seems to rub them the wrong way. Also the police will want their
hands in the mix, so they can better track peoples' movements.

Worst of all, GA in Europe is already 20 years behind the US in technology,
(I love the mouse-in-the-tailwheel anecdote)and this will add another 10. As
for receiving equipment, I'm hoping they allow Garmin, King etc, who know
what they're doing, to sell boxes that work - because if they start to get
protectionist about that end of it, as they often do, then ther'll be more
years to wait while Alcatel develops their own box, during which period any
airplane with a GPS receiver in it may be seized by customs authorities....

I suppose from a military standpoint it is simply not acceptable to be
dependant on technology controlled by another country, but civil users would
be oh so much better off if they could just benefit from the GPS revolution
as the Americans are doing.

GF





In article ,
says...








It's a poor analogy. There is the non-trivial issue of economic
dependence.

The #1 guarantee (if anything in life - other than death - can be
guaranteed) of GPS availability is US economic dependence on it.

Of course the US can turn it off, in an instant. But they WON'T.
(Short of a 9/11-type situation but much worse, and then none of us
will be flying anyway)

The morally and intellectually superior Europeans (I am a European
too) just don't get it. So they are doing their own GPS which will
ultimately be "guaranteed" (or not) in precisely the same way as the
US one.

Galileo will be irrelevant for a very long time, because

a) existing receivers will not be able to receive the signal, and the
US one is free and works

b) the charging plans (in the aviation context) can be linked only to
GPS approaches (because the US one is fine for en route) and for a
very long time, possibly for ever, the only European airports that
will have GPS approaches will be those with conventional approaches as
well, and they can be and are routinely flown with "GPS assistance"

The indications are that Galileo will find a use in road charging...

On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 14:41:58 +0000 (UTC), (Roy Smith) wrote:

Doug wrote:
I personally have not seen any GPS approaches that use the glideslope
feature of the 480, but I may have been missing something. I agree,
that a glideslpe for a non-precision approach is a great idea and if
the 480 can do it, then that is the one to have (for a price no doubt).

I fly them all the time. I must admit that I don't understand all the
nuances of exactly which approaches have it (i.e. even some that don't
have VNAV minima published on the plate), but the bottom line is a
message pops up on the GNS-480 display saying, "LNAV/VNAV", and the
glide slope needle comes alive. From there on, just keep the needles
in the donut, just like on an ILS.

Installed price is about $10k.

Roy,

The approaches that are not LNAV/VNAV may have what is called "advisory
vertical guidance". They are still LNAV approaches with LNAV minima. On a
Jepp chart you can tell because you will see a GP angle indication as well
as a dotted line extension past the VDP, if there is one.

The CNX80 still labels them LNAV/VNAV in flight unless/until the VPL goes
out of limits.

Also, the GP should be good down to about 50' AGL.

It's a really neat thing. Alas, with the moving of the WAAS satellite,
mine usually reverts to LNAV only at about the FAF. Hopefully with the new
satellite launch this fall, it'll get better.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Peter,

So if their GPS packs up
(and there is a certain inescapable probability of that happening, one
which increases dramatically with outdoor parking, and bad luck) what
do you do?


That kind of reasoning would keep you from flying at all - just one
engine, remember?

In Europe, you cannot fly much IFR without a BRNAV system. That means at
least a Garmin 430 for most people. THAT is the way routes are planned,
not with ADF.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

In article ,
says...



In Europe, you cannot fly much IFR without a BRNAV system. That means at
least a Garmin 430 for most people. THAT is the way routes are planned,
not with ADF.


I think you would be in some trouble trying to tell EUROCONTROL people that
their system requires an American GPS! ;-) The B-RNAV requirement (only
above FL115 and in busy terminal areas) can be met with a KNS-80 type
DME integrator as well, though I agree obviously a Garmin-type GPS is by
far the easiest way to do it, and the most precise. The European rules are
really based on airline traffic requirements - they will be moving from
B-RNAV to P-RNAV requirements possibly this year - once again only for
airline operations in major terminal areas. They are not in the least
concerned with smaller airports, which often do have NDB approaches, with
or without GPS overlay.

There are some differences between European countries. You see some GA
activity at Munich, where they even have a GA terminal - not sure about
Berlin or Frankfurt. In France GA aircraft, even bizjets are not admitted
at the major platforms. You have to get down to airports the size of Nantes
before you start to see a mix.

I was watching traffic at Boston Logan a few days ago, and I have the
impression there were almost as many GA movements as Airliners. Mostly
Gulfstreams and Hawkers, of course, but I even saw a C-182 take off
(possibly an "angel" flight). Never see that at Charles de Gaulle!

GF

Greg,

There are some differences between European countries. You see some GA
activity at Munich, where they even have a GA terminal - not sure about
Berlin or Frankfurt.


Well, look at my sig - I live these differences.

FWIW, you couldn't be more wrong about Munich - it is the place with the
least GA traffic in all of Germany.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)