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
|
|||
|
|||
KPAE ILS...Now Requires DME...Why?
Ross wrote:
When they first commissioned the ILS RWY 17L to KGYI they had a ADF required for the hold. I never understood why you couldn't use the localizer, the outer marker, and or the 302 degree radial to define the holding point. I sent a letter to the designers, and they came back saying in their haste that they did make it more complicated. They moved the hold to URH VOR that was some 30 miles away. I withdrew my request and they went back to the ADF required on the approach. My idea was to fly the missed approach, to to fly the local backwards to intercept the 302 degree radial and hold. But the designers didn't like that. If RIBBY OM is good enough to be a FAF on the localizer approach it should be good enough to be holding fix. I would think a missed approach procedure could have a heading back to the localizer and fly the localizer to hold at the OM. But what's the problem with ADF? Who'd be flying this approach with a marker beacon receiver but without ADF or GPS used in lieu of ADF? |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
KPAE ILS...Now Requires DME...Why?
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Ross wrote: When they first commissioned the ILS RWY 17L to KGYI they had a ADF required for the hold. I never understood why you couldn't use the localizer, the outer marker, and or the 302 degree radial to define the holding point. I sent a letter to the designers, and they came back saying in their haste that they did make it more complicated. They moved the hold to URH VOR that was some 30 miles away. I withdrew my request and they went back to the ADF required on the approach. My idea was to fly the missed approach, to to fly the local backwards to intercept the 302 degree radial and hold. But the designers didn't like that. If RIBBY OM is good enough to be a FAF on the localizer approach it should be good enough to be holding fix. I would think a missed approach procedure could have a heading back to the localizer and fly the localizer to hold at the OM. But what's the problem with ADF? Who'd be flying this approach with a marker beacon receiver but without ADF or GPS used in lieu of ADF? When I first started instrument training I didn't have a ADF but did have a IFR GPS. So, for me it was immaterial. I could still fly it. But my thinking (engineer), and as you stated, was this could be accomplished without the need for requiring an ADF, yet it was put on the IAP and my thinking (again) unnecessary. -- Regards, Ross C-172F 180HP Sold KSWI |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bendix KT76C transponder requires major repair: Options? | Peter R. | Owning | 20 | September 14th 06 07:48 PM |
Parachuting or Piloting Requires Instant Decision Making..........tv clip | Hans | Piloting | 6 | June 19th 06 02:29 PM |
Garmin 430 error message: "com requires service"??? | Guy Byars | Owning | 2 | July 26th 05 02:28 AM |
S-TEC 60-2 requires re-trim after altitude hold? | Peter R. | Owning | 7 | March 2nd 04 03:46 PM |
Section 61.89a(8) requires student compliance w/ instructor limitations | Shoulbe | Soaring | 0 | August 25th 03 08:30 PM |