Instrument Approaches and procedure turns....

I don't care one way or the other whether they put DME in the title
of the procedure

Well, I do. I like finding little nuggets of truth like you found in
TERPs, so it irks me to find out sometimes that the nuggets aren't
pure gold. Makes it difficult to give simple answers to simple
questions.

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 17:27:35 -0400, Ray Andraka wrote:

I understand it is legal
to use an IFR GPS for DME intersections if they are in the database,
but what about a VFR GPS?

According to the AIM, you need to have an IFR approved GPS for that
purpose.


Does this charting change now make it
illegal to fly any of the ILS's into Providence without a DME or IFR
GPS on board? Does this mean I need to either install a DME or pony
up for an IFR GPS?

It sure looks that way. And it looks as if one of the ILS's requires DME
and ADF.

Kind of sucks to have to put out $1000's to fly
into an airport I've called home for 10 years.

Progress ng.



Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 01:24:21 GMT, Greg Esres wrote:

Makes it difficult to give simple answers to simple
questions.

Perhaps the question isn't so simple?

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and
wrong." ~ H.L. Mencken



Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 22:02:45 -0400, Ray Andraka wrote:

Worst part is the LOMs are still there (and in fact ARMIN is still charted,
but not as an FAF on ILS23). Can radar substitute? I think it can, but
since that depends on communication, availability of the radar and controller
workload....


I find this in the AIM:

i. Pilots should not rely on radar to identify a fix unless the fix is
indicated as "RADAR" on the IAP. Pilots may request radar identification of
an OM, but the controller may not be able to provide the service due either
to workload or not having the fix on the video map.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

I'll be taking this one up with AOPA today. The change obligates any pilots based

there to spending at least $3-4K if they don't have the equipment installed
already,
and as far as I can see, there is no change in the status of the LOMs that would
make such a change necessary.

They do have the FAF's on the map, as they give you your position relative to the
fix
when giving the clearance for the approach, however I am quite aware that I can't
depend on getting a readout of the fix from ATC. Looks like there is no way out
other
than installing either DME or IFR certified GPS or getting the FAA to reinstate
the old
approaches.

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 22:02:45 -0400, Ray Andraka wrote:

Worst part is the LOMs are still there (and in fact ARMIN is still charted,
but not as an FAF on ILS23). Can radar substitute? I think it can, but
since that depends on communication, availability of the radar and controller
workload....


I find this in the AIM:

i. Pilots should not rely on radar to identify a fix unless the fix is
indicated as "RADAR" on the IAP. Pilots may request radar identification of
an OM, but the controller may not be able to provide the service due either
to workload or not having the fix on the video map.

Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

--
--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

Greg Esres wrote:

This was my point before. NALLS is not a DME fix. It's not
charted as one either.

It's still charted incorrectly. You can identify the fix using the
radial AND DME, but not the localizer and DME off of SNS.


Part of the confusion here is that NALLS is *both* an IAF and FAF.

While on either transition, NALLS is defined as a *IAF* by the RADIAL and DME
(or radar). You can't use the LOC in lieu of DME for this purpose, due to the
possibility of encountering a false lobe.

When established inbound, NALLS is defined as the *FAF* by the LOC and the
RADIAL. You can't use DME in lieu of the radial for this purpose, due to the
geometry (as was pointed out in a previous post.)

Part of the confusion here is that NALLS is *both* an IAF and FAF.

Irrelevant. The fix definition doesn't change by how you're using it.

You can't use the LOC in lieu of DME for this purpose, due to the
possibility of encountering a false lobe.

This was speculation. Nothing on the approach says that this is true.
I spoke with someone with Flight Procedures today about another
approach, and mentioned the possibility of "false lobes" on a
transition. He indicated that a transition is flight checked for
false lobes and if found, would not be approved. I'm sure there are
exceptions. He mentioned some procedures at Grand Junction that
contain lots of warnings about the possibility.

AOPA was useless. Thay basically directed me to the charting office phone number in
the front of the TERPs. The charting office referred me to the two people in OK city
who take care of the RI approach plates, but so far haven't been able to reach them. I
also talked to approach control here, they said that they can in fact call out the FAF
for aircraft not equipped with DME if you let them know you are not equipped (and said
that it is legal). They didn't know why the change was made however. I'll confirm
that policy with the folks at OK city when I get in touch with them.





Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 07:57:37 -0400, Ray Andraka wrote:

I'll be taking this one up with AOPA today. The change obligates any pilots based

there to spending at least $3-4K if they don't have the equipment installed
already,
and as far as I can see, there is no change in the status of the LOMs that would
make such a change necessary.

They do have the FAF's on the map, as they give you your position relative to the
fix
when giving the clearance for the approach, however I am quite aware that I can't
depend on getting a readout of the fix from ATC. Looks like there is no way out
other
than installing either DME or IFR certified GPS or getting the FAA to reinstate
the old
approaches.


Keep us posted of the results.

Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

--
--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

Another follow up. I spoke to the guy in OK city that updated the Providence approach
plates, and the news is downright bad. If you are not DME or GPS equipped, this is going
to affect you no matter where you fly:

The reason for the change is to comply with an initiative to prepare the ILS approaches for
RNAV. Part of that initiative requires the location of the glideslope to be at an a 100'
interval. Most OM's are not, and it is too expensive to move them, so new intersections
are being added. If, as is the case for Providence, there are no local navaids that have a
radial crossing the approach course close to perpendicular (I think he said +/-30 degrees),
then they are forced to use DME fixes. These changes are being done to the busiest
airports first and will trickle down to the smallest in time. Bottom line, is you are
going to need equipment to identify these new intersections. In a clarification, he did
tell me that the DME is only required for a localizer only approach, although I'm not sure
how you could cross check your altimeter without it. IF you find this initiative as costly
as I do, it is past time to bitch about it to your regional Flight Procedures Office. It
also wouldn't hurt to have lots of people bitch to AOPA so that maybe they'd pay attention
to this issue. In my hangar alone, this corresponds to a virtually mandated equipment
upgrade of collectively over $25,000. The local avionics shops are no doubt savoring the
pending business.

So, if you are not GPS or DME equipped, you better get on the horn or line up to shell out
$ on equipment.


--
--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

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 16:07:34 -0400, Ray Andraka wrote:

The reason for the change is to comply with an initiative to prepare the ILS approaches for
RNAV. Part of that initiative requires the location of the glideslope to be at an a 100'
interval. Most OM's are not,

A few comments because I don't understand what you say they told you.

First of all, the GS altitude varies, so what does it mean for it to be at
an a 100' interval?

Second, the OM doesn't have a whole lot to do with an ILS. It's a place
where you can check your altitude, but it's not the FAF.

In any event, for whatever reason, it sounds as if having ADF/DME and/or
GPS will be a good thing to fly these approaches, and expensive if you
don't have them.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)