Commercial Written

On 2008-01-07, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Jay Maynard wrote in
:
Looking at the approach plate, I think the reason the approach is
listed as ADF REQUIRED is because the miss calls for holding at an NDB
at the outer marker, MONTZ. That would say that, for example, all I'd
have to do would be to tell, say, a GNS-430 to point me at MONTZ and
then I'd be in good shape?
The usual reason an ADF is required is to confirm your altitude at that
point before you continue to DH. You can't just do an ILS with no way to
check your range against your altimeter. There is no way we would use INS
for that in my company either. DME, VOR or ADF has to be in place to do it
by our book.
It is possible that the go around is the reason, but you'd have to show me
the plate.

The plate is at http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0713/05353I31.PDF .

If it weren't the missed approach point, wouldn't you check your altitude at
that point by using the marker receiver, since it's at the outer marker?
It's also 6.3 DME from the FRM VOR/DME, but that's kinda hard to use as the
missed approach point (though you can use that as the marker as well, if
your marker receiver's out). Or am I missing something, like, say, you don't
use the marker for that point in the first place?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

Jay Maynard wrote in
:

On 2008-01-07, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Jay Maynard wrote in
:
Looking at the approach plate, I think the reason the approach is
listed as ADF REQUIRED is because the miss calls for holding at an
NDB at the outer marker, MONTZ. That would say that, for example,
all I'd have to do would be to tell, say, a GNS-430 to point me at
MONTZ and then I'd be in good shape?
The usual reason an ADF is required is to confirm your altitude at
that point before you continue to DH. You can't just do an ILS with
no way to check your range against your altimeter. There is no way
we would use INS for that in my company either. DME, VOR or ADF has
to be in place to do it by our book.
It is possible that the go around is the reason, but you'd have to
show me the plate.

The plate is at http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0713/05353I31.PDF .

If it weren't the missed approach point, wouldn't you check your
altitude at that point by using the marker receiver, since it's at the
outer marker? It's also 6.3 DME from the FRM VOR/DME, but that's kinda
hard to use as the missed approach point (though you can use that as
the marker as well, if your marker receiver's out). Or am I missing
something, like, say, you don't use the marker for that point in the
first place?

Yeah, sorry, you're right. Most places we go no longer have them.
I see your point. Plenty of aids there to do the ILS without the ADF.
You have a dme and the markers. there's no major high ground around the
place so absolute precision in tracking on the go around isn't really an
issue either, but I think you're probably right. It has to be the go
around. Presumably there's no gaurunteed radar coverage either. That can
often be substituted for many components of an approach, and if there is
radar, they can probably waive the ADF requirement with vectors if you
go around, but it'd have to be published like that just in case.
I'm not accustomed to looking at NOS charts. In fact I haven't seen one
in years, but still I can't see any other possible reason for it. Might
be worth looking at the competition's plate to help flesh it out.


Bertie

If radar is an allowed substitute, then it would read "RADAR or ADF
Required", right? The lack of "RADAR" on this one means we need some
equipment in the plane?

One of our ILS's here have ADF required, but I've shot it with no ADF or GPS
in the plane. Granted it's been during hours when our Class C approach radar
was running.

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
[snip]

The plate is at http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0713/05353I31.PDF .

If it weren't the missed approach point, wouldn't you check your
altitude at that point by using the marker receiver, since it's at the
outer marker? It's also 6.3 DME from the FRM VOR/DME, but that's kinda
hard to use as the missed approach point (though you can use that as
the marker as well, if your marker receiver's out). Or am I missing
something, like, say, you don't use the marker for that point in the
first place?

Yeah, sorry, you're right. Most places we go no longer have them.
I see your point. Plenty of aids there to do the ILS without the ADF.
You have a dme and the markers. there's no major high ground around the
place so absolute precision in tracking on the go around isn't really an
issue either, but I think you're probably right. It has to be the go
around. Presumably there's no gaurunteed radar coverage either. That can
often be substituted for many components of an approach, and if there is
radar, they can probably waive the ADF requirement with vectors if you
go around, but it'd have to be published like that just in case.
I'm not accustomed to looking at NOS charts. In fact I haven't seen one
in years, but still I can't see any other possible reason for it. Might
be worth looking at the competition's plate to help flesh it out.


Bertie

"Steven Barnes" wrote in
t:

If radar is an allowed substitute, then it would read "RADAR or ADF
Required", right? The lack of "RADAR" on this one means we need some
equipment in the plane?

I would imagine so. The nearest equivelant I've seen to this woudl be if
ILS ADF were the title of the aproach. In this case there would usually
be an ADF required, but it can be waived on request with Radar. If the
NDB is US then it would usually be noted on the plate that such and such
alternative fix may be used.

One of our ILS's here have ADF required, but I've shot it with no ADF
or GPS in the plane. Granted it's been during hours when our Class C
approach radar was running.


Well, it sounds entirely reasonable to me to do so. But if it's for an
exam the OP wants to get it right. On the day, if ATC were to clear me
for it and I was to query the ADF requirement, then the woudl almost
certainly give me an alternative like "In the event of a missed approach
maintain runway heading and expect vectors"

I can't answer definitively why it's required in this case, though.
Might be worth calling the tower!

Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
[snip]

The plate is at http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0713/05353I31.PDF .

If it weren't the missed approach point, wouldn't you check your
altitude at that point by using the marker receiver, since it's at
the outer marker? It's also 6.3 DME from the FRM VOR/DME, but
that's kinda hard to use as the missed approach point (though you
can use that as the marker as well, if your marker receiver's out).
Or am I missing something, like, say, you don't use the marker for
that point in the first place?

Yeah, sorry, you're right. Most places we go no longer have them.
I see your point. Plenty of aids there to do the ILS without the ADF.
You have a dme and the markers. there's no major high ground around
the place so absolute precision in tracking on the go around isn't
really an issue either, but I think you're probably right. It has to
be the go around. Presumably there's no gaurunteed radar coverage
either. That can often be substituted for many components of an
approach, and if there is radar, they can probably waive the ADF
requirement with vectors if you go around, but it'd have to be
published like that just in case. I'm not accustomed to looking at
NOS charts. In fact I haven't seen one in years, but still I can't
see any other possible reason for it. Might be worth looking at the
competition's plate to help flesh it out.


Bertie

On 2008-01-08, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
I can't answer definitively why it's required in this case, though.
Might be worth calling the tower!

What tower? FRM (Fairmont (Minnesota) Muni) doesn't have one of those.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

Jay Maynard wrote in
:

On 2008-01-08, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
I can't answer definitively why it's required in this case, though.
Might be worth calling the tower!

What tower? FRM (Fairmont (Minnesota) Muni) doesn't have one of those.

Ah, OK. That would go some way towards explaining why they want to keep you
in your box while you're shooting this.
the approach facility then.


Bertie

Yesterday.

Bertie-

Today: two hours ago.

I took it a bit over 2 years ago. I didn't like all the questions that
asked how many minutes to station it was when you some degrees or miles
off course. Who navigates like that?

I had forgotten the formula for that, so I tried using the sine formula
for figuring out triangle sides and angles. I only had my Jeppeson
TechStar calculator with me that doesn't have trig functions. No problem
though. The testing program has a built-in calculator that did. That
stupid calculator gave the results in radians though.

wrote:
Any of y'all taken the FAA commercial written recently?

Paul Dow (Remove Caps in mail address) wrote:
I took it a bit over 2 years ago. I didn't like all the questions that
asked how many minutes to station it was when you some degrees or miles
off course. Who navigates like that?


I can't say that I ever did but I remember the formula.


I had forgotten the formula for that, so I tried using the sine formula
for figuring out triangle sides and angles. I only had my Jeppeson
TechStar calculator with me that doesn't have trig functions. No problem
though. The testing program has a built-in calculator that did. That
stupid calculator gave the results in radians though.


Time to station = (minutes between bearing change X 60) / degrees of bearing
change. A shortcut is to note the time required for a 10 degree bearing change
in seconds, then divide that number by 10. That will also give you the time to
station in minutes.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

Paul Dow (Remove Caps in mail address) wrote:
I took it a bit over 2 years ago. I didn't like all the questions that
asked how many minutes to station it was when you some degrees or miles
off course. Who navigates like that?

Yeah!

There's no answer that states "The time shown in the DISTANCE TO NEXT box!"