Outer Marker

"Jay Somerset" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 17:54:52 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller"
wrote:

Don't Time That ILS Approach! -
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182042-1.html

I have no problem with the article as far as not continung the approach as
a
LOC-only one, just vecause you are timing it.

The whole reason to tinme the ILS is in case of GS failure, you can still
locate the MAP. An immediate climb is safe, but any turns on the missed
approach segment assume that you initiated the miss at the MAP. If the GS
flags, the only way you can begin to determine where the MAP is, is by the
time.

So, time all ILS approaches, and use the time ONLY to identify the MAP on
a
missed approach.

I'd agree with this last, but only in using time as a cross-check to other
measurements such as VOR, DME, GPS. Changing winds and other conditions can
throw time checks out the window very quickly.

On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 20:19:10 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" wrote:


"Jay Somerset" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 17:54:52 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller"
wrote:

Don't Time That ILS Approach! -
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182042-1.html

I have no problem with the article as far as not continung the approach as
a
LOC-only one, just vecause you are timing it.

The whole reason to tinme the ILS is in case of GS failure, you can still
locate the MAP. An immediate climb is safe, but any turns on the missed
approach segment assume that you initiated the miss at the MAP. If the GS
flags, the only way you can begin to determine where the MAP is, is by the
time.

So, time all ILS approaches, and use the time ONLY to identify the MAP on
a
missed approach.

I'd agree with this last, but only in using time as a cross-check to other
measurements such as VOR, DME, GPS. Changing winds and other conditions can
throw time checks out the window very quickly.

If the time is accurate enough to identify the MAP on the LOC approach. then
it is adequate for the ILS appraoch as well. If you are on on ILS approach,
and the GS flags, you really don't want to be messing around with setting up
cross-checks that are only used with the LOC approach, and which you don't
have already set up.

I think we are basically in agreement, but I would emphasize that timing the
ILS is prudent, but as a way to do a missed, and not to convert a flagged GS
into a LOC approah.

If you are on on ILS approach,
and the GS flags, you really don't want to be messing around with setting up
cross-checks that are only used with the LOC approach, and which you don't
have already set up.


If you are on the GS when it goes kerflooey, eh?, then you are probably beyond
many of these cross checks. The GS itself is kind of a cross check, though it
doesn't place you relative to any fixes, it does place you reliably beyond
terrain.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Jay Somerset" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 20:19:10 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller"
wrote:


"Jay Somerset" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 17:54:52 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller"
wrote:

Don't Time That ILS Approach! -
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182042-1.html

I have no problem with the article as far as not continung the
approach as
a
LOC-only one, just vecause you are timing it.

The whole reason to tinme the ILS is in case of GS failure, you can
still
locate the MAP. An immediate climb is safe, but any turns on the
missed
approach segment assume that you initiated the miss at the MAP. If
the GS
flags, the only way you can begin to determine where the MAP is, is by
the
time.

So, time all ILS approaches, and use the time ONLY to identify the MAP
on
a
missed approach.

I'd agree with this last, but only in using time as a cross-check to
other
measurements such as VOR, DME, GPS. Changing winds and other conditions
can
throw time checks out the window very quickly.

If the time is accurate enough to identify the MAP on the LOC approach.
then
it is adequate for the ILS appraoch as well.

Sounds like you're describing more of a stablized/precision approach.??

If you are on on ILS approach,
and the GS flags, you really don't want to be messing around with setting
up
cross-checks that are only used with the LOC approach, and which you don't
have already set up.

Which is why I said I'd use time primarily a a cross-check. By the very
meaning of the word (okay...somebody with a PhD in English Lit can chime in)
cross-checking is done from the beginning and monitored.


I think we are basically in agreement, but I would emphasize that timing
the
ILS is prudent, but as a way to do a missed, and not to convert a flagged
GS
into a LOC approah.

I think we're more in agreement than you realize, but in an approach with a
lot of wind (particularly swirling winds as the have around the front range
lf the mountains) and a lot of turns, that'll mean a hell of a lot more time
recalculating and less time actually flying the approach.

So, yes, I'd saying time every approach, but I'd be damn concerned about
relying on it for much of anything.

Ray Andraka wrote in message ...
THat's how I do it, although I've had instructors doing my IPC ding me for not
starting the timer on an ILS. As politely as I can, I remind them that the
times are for a localizer only approach and that if the glideslope screws the
pooch, I'm going missed.

As a flight instructor, I'd ding you on it, too. Now, I don't expect
anyone to convert midstream (I wouldn't do it either), but I've seen
too many pilots get out of the habit of starting the timer at the FAF.
This directly correlates to missing the timer on non-precision
approaches. (I know... I fell into that trap personally, and am still
trying to climb out of it.)

-Rob

You've got a valid point there, and if he'd put it that way I'd have to aggree with him.
The other valid point raised here was timing as a cross check for the missed. The
instructor I had for a good deal of my inst training always did a "what are you setting
that for" when passed the FAF on an ILS. LIke you said, old habits die hard. Based on
the reasons given here, I'm going to make a concerted effort to start timing the ILSs if
for no other reason, just to make all approaches the same. Thanks guys.

Rob Montgomery wrote:

Ray Andraka wrote in message ...
THat's how I do it, although I've had instructors doing my IPC ding me for not
starting the timer on an ILS. As politely as I can, I remind them that the
times are for a localizer only approach and that if the glideslope screws the
pooch, I'm going missed.

As a flight instructor, I'd ding you on it, too. Now, I don't expect
anyone to convert midstream (I wouldn't do it either), but I've seen
too many pilots get out of the habit of starting the timer at the FAF.
This directly correlates to missing the timer on non-precision
approaches. (I know... I fell into that trap personally, and am still
trying to climb out of it.)

-Rob

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759