A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Why is ADF required on ILS approach?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 9th 03, 07:24 PM
Ross Richardson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

That's correct and defines LADOS (the localizer and ELD 018/2miles) I
had a similar problem (before I got my certified GPS) for KGYI. Newly
commissioned ILS and it came out with a ADF REQUIRED on the plate. I
contacted the FAA and we discussed. I also submitted that the outer
marker (DNI) could be easily defined by the feeder route from BYP and
the localizer. I still do not understand the reason; must be something
in the TERPS.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...

the initial approach fix (IAF) is defined by the NDB. how would you
find this point without an ADF?


There is a feeder route from ELD to LADOS.

  #12  
Old July 9th 03, 07:32 PM
Brien K. Meehan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"John Clonts" wrote in message
...
DME is not required, so you can't assume you can use it to find LADOS -

yes,
even though it's clearly marked 5.2NM on the plate.


6.5 DME


:-)


  #13  
Old July 9th 03, 10:12 PM
Ron Rosenfeld
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:24:01 -0500, Ross Richardson
wrote:

That's correct and defines LADOS (the localizer and ELD 018/2miles) I
had a similar problem (before I got my certified GPS) for KGYI. Newly
commissioned ILS and it came out with a ADF REQUIRED on the plate. I
contacted the FAA and we discussed. I also submitted that the outer
marker (DNI) could be easily defined by the feeder route from BYP and
the localizer. I still do not understand the reason; must be something
in the TERPS.


I believe it has something to do with a concept called "positive course
guidance".


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
  #14  
Old July 9th 03, 10:45 PM
Leland Vandervort
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


An instrument approach requires an IAF. In the case of an ILS
approach, this must be separate to the ILS localiser and glideslope
because of the directive nature of the aid. The most common solution
is to use an NDB to provide the IAF and base the procedure on that.
NDBs installed in conjunction with instrument approach aids are
generally lower power than en-route NDBs. You could, in theory, use a
VOR as the IAF as well, however. Also marker beacons are notorious
for going on the blink, so a co-located NDB with the outer marker
(called "LOC") provides an additional check for ranging on the final
approach. (in some cases, the ILS system might not even have marker
beacons, in which case an NDB will be required at the OM location).
Remember that not all ILS systems have DME associated, so some form of
range checking is required.

The vast majority of ILS approaches in Europe use an NDB as the IAF
and many of them use an NDB LOCator (colocated with outer marker).

My local airport has several instrument procedures: ILS/NDB, NDB
Only, VOR, and VDF. There is no DME on either the ILS or the VOR and
since the VOR is on the A/D and not 7.5 nautical miles out like the
NDB, it can't reasonably be used as the IAF for the ILS approach
without totally throwing totally non-standard timings into the
equation. (as it is already the VOR approach [non-precision] already
has a non-standard outbound timing to begin base turn).

You will find that even on some of the more advanced European
airports, there are NDBs associated with the ILS at the outer marker
location. (Heathrow, Gatwick, Stanstead, Luton, East Midlands,
Birmingham, Paris Orly, Paris Charles de Gaulle, all have NDB LOCs at
around 8 nautical miles out.).

Also most holding procedures in the Europe use NDBs as the holding
fix. (there are currently NO operationally published GPS approaches
in the UK, and the CAA and even JAA are tending to be somewhat wary of
implementing GPS procedures for instrument approaches.)

Regards,

Leland



On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 08:40:13 -0500, "Gig Giacona"
wrote:

Let's see if I have this straight and please forgive any ignorance on my
part.

When I got my PP-SEL in ELD '79-'80 there was no ILS or NDB approach at ELD
just VOR. All the pilots bitched including the Lear and Citation pilots and
their bosses and ELD gets an ILS. But it gets put in requireing ADF that
even then was on the way out.

This is the silliest thing I have ever heard of.


"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Gig,

the initial approach fix (IAF) is defined by the NDB. how would you
find this point without an ADF? You'd get around that with radar
vectors, but you couldn't fly the full procedure without the NDB. And
the missed approach is a hold on the NDB. Same problem.

BUT: An approach certified GPS with the NDB in it's database can
replace for the ADF.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)



  #15  
Old July 9th 03, 10:51 PM
David Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Leland Vandervort" wrote
in message ...

Also most holding procedures in the Europe use NDBs as the holding
fix. (there are currently NO operationally published GPS approaches
in the UK, and the CAA and even JAA are tending to be somewhat wary of
implementing GPS procedures for instrument approaches.)


Is there a single rationale for this wariness? The obviously compelling
reason is that other nations would be reluctant to throw the future of their
air navigation into the hands of a system controlled by the US military -
we're allies now, but alliances change within the lifespan of an
aeronautical system. Or is there something more mundane: the incremental
cost causing slow adoption, or the decision to put more INS systems into
European planes before GPS came along, or roll out MLS faster than the US,
or what?

-- David Brooks


  #16  
Old July 10th 03, 03:06 AM
David Megginson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Leland Vandervort writes:

The vast majority of ILS approaches in Europe use an NDB as the IAF
and many of them use an NDB LOCator (colocated with outer marker).


Ditto for Canada: to my knowledge, we no longer have any marker
beacons at all. Every Canadian ILS approach I've seen so far has an
NDB as the IAF/FAF, but I'm sure that someone can point out an
exception somewhere.

I was surprised to see the marker lights on my audio panel light up,
one after the other, when I overflew Albany NY a few weeks ago -- I
had never seen them light up except with the test button, and even
turned on the audio just to hear what they sounded like.


All the best,


David

--
David Megginson, , http://www.megginson.com/
  #17  
Old July 10th 03, 07:40 PM
Leland Vandervort
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 02:06:30 GMT, David Megginson
I was surprised to see the marker lights on my audio panel light up,
one after the other, when I overflew Albany NY a few weeks ago -- I
had never seen them light up except with the test button, and even
turned on the audio just to hear what they sounded like.


S'okay.. at my base airfield we have OM and MM, but half the time they
don't work anyway...


di-dah-di-dah-di-dah-di-dah
dah-dah-dah-dah-dah
di-di-di-di-di-di-di



Leland

  #18  
Old July 10th 03, 09:16 PM
David Megginson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Leland Vandervort writes:

di-dah-di-dah-di-dah-di-dah
dah-dah-dah-dah-dah
di-di-di-di-di-di-di


Thanks -- that would have saved me the whole trip over Albany. I
assume that you're using an appropriately high-pitched voice (it's
hard to tell by e-mail).


All the best,


David

--
David Megginson, , http://www.megginson.com/
  #19  
Old July 10th 03, 10:37 PM
Scott
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I was looking at this approach plate for my home field
http://www.myairplane.com/databases/...l/ELD_ir22.pdf
And the ILS plate is marked ADF required? Why is that?


Looks like the NDB is part of the missed approach. You still don't need
an ADF, but only IF you have a /G approved GPS. (Though, you would still
need an ADF if this was an IFR alternate. For alternates - even if /G -
you need to have all the 'steam guage' equipment required for the
approach.

Scott
  #20  
Old July 11th 03, 12:51 AM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"David Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Leland Vandervort"

wrote
in message ...

Also most holding procedures in the Europe use NDBs as the holding
fix. (there are currently NO operationally published GPS approaches
in the UK, and the CAA and even JAA are tending to be somewhat wary of
implementing GPS procedures for instrument approaches.)


Is there a single rationale for this wariness?


No, as MLS airborne equipments use GPS derived DME.

The obviously compelling
reason is that other nations would be reluctant to throw the future of

their
air navigation into the hands of a system controlled by the US military -
we're allies now, but alliances change within the lifespan of an
aeronautical system.


The really compelling reason for building Galileo is to bridge a technology
gap, unfortunately TACAN stations interfere with the proposed Euro Nav
signal.

Or is there something more mundane: the incremental
cost causing slow adoption, or the decision to put more INS systems into
European planes before GPS came along, or roll out MLS faster than the US,
or what?


Working MLS uses GPS, so the reasoning has to be somewhat convoluted. Then
again, if Galileo provides binary stars, the Europeans will be ahead of the
US in space based Navigation.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) Rich Stowell Aerobatics 28 January 2nd 09 03:26 PM
The perfect approach Capt.Doug Home Built 25 December 3rd 04 04:37 AM
Which aircraft certification is required for R&D? Netgeek Home Built 5 November 23rd 04 06:59 AM
LSA Approach speeds Ace Pilot Home Built 0 February 3rd 04 06:38 PM
Download approach charts Ron Natalie Home Built 0 July 9th 03 08:29 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.