Legal or not?

Good luck getting a straight answer. According to our club safety director
(CFII) no definitive answer has been given...the prompt for this thread.
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
Well, in the case of the ILS SAC its because the course from the outer
marker is one degree off the localizer.


Why would you need to identify the ADF in this case?

That's a good question. Steven, I actually thought you had said you
were going to call the FAA on this one and question it.

-Robert





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Steve,

You feel this is a legal approach?
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Rick McPherson" wrote in message
...

On Aug 28 I was practicing approaches at KAGC (FEW 008 BKN 012 OVR 025
4SM BR). My preflight brief indicated that the McKeesport NDB is out of
service. Yet, the ATIS identified runway 28 as active and we were given
the ILS 28 approach for practice (upon request). Is this approach legal
without the beacon?
http://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/20...ils_rwy_28.pdf


Yes.



As a side note, is the equipment that you fly still using ADF?


Yes.








----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"JPH" wrote in message
news:McsJg.8259$Tl4.7021@dukeread06...

The feeder route from AGC takes the aircraft to the localizer, but the
intersection of that feeder route and loc does not provide enough
divergence to meet criteria for holding in lieu of PT (minimum 45 degrees
divergence), so you can't do a course reversal without the NDB (or
suitable substitute) being operational. The feeder from NESTO is NA
without the NDB. It does appear that the planview note should read "RADAR
or DME required" since radar vectors from approach control to intercept
the final would work as long as they had coverage at suitable altitudes.



Why do I need ADF for the hold in lieu of PT? AGC has DME, if I'm 12.8 DME
from AGC on the 076 radial and on the localizer I'm there.


It's not a DME fix. The holding pattern was built using the localizer
and NDB for course guidance. When using a LOC for course guidance the
DME source can't exceed 23 degrees left or right of the LOC course. AGC
appears to be 25 degrees left of the final course.
I suspect if it met criteria for a DME fix, the specialist would have
made it so to prevent having to place the "ADF required" note there.
If AGC was within 23 degrees left/right, they could use the DME to
create a DME fix on the LOC centerline. If it was more than 45 degrees,
they could have made it an intersection with the LOC. Unfortunately,
it's in that grey area where it can't be used for either purpose except
as a route to the NDB.

JPH

"JPH" wrote in message
news:FSLJg.8528$Tl4.5360@dukeread06...

It's not a DME fix.

So what? Is there any doubt about your position?

JPH wrote:
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"JPH" wrote in message
news:McsJg.8259$Tl4.7021@dukeread06...

The feeder route from AGC takes the aircraft to the localizer, but
the intersection of that feeder route and loc does not provide enough
divergence to meet criteria for holding in lieu of PT (minimum 45
degrees divergence), so you can't do a course reversal without the
NDB (or suitable substitute) being operational. The feeder from NESTO
is NA without the NDB. It does appear that the planview note should
read "RADAR or DME required" since radar vectors from approach
control to intercept the final would work as long as they had
coverage at suitable altitudes.



Why do I need ADF for the hold in lieu of PT? AGC has DME, if I'm
12.8 DME from AGC on the 076 radial and on the localizer I'm there.

It's not a DME fix. The holding pattern was built using the localizer
and NDB for course guidance. When using a LOC for course guidance the
DME source can't exceed 23 degrees left or right of the LOC course. AGC
appears to be 25 degrees left of the final course.
I suspect if it met criteria for a DME fix, the specialist would have
made it so to prevent having to place the "ADF required" note there.
If AGC was within 23 degrees left/right, they could use the DME to
create a DME fix on the LOC centerline. If it was more than 45 degrees,
they could have made it an intersection with the LOC. Unfortunately,
it's in that grey area where it can't be used for either purpose except
as a route to the NDB.

I see. Thanks for taking the time to explain. Dave

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"JPH" wrote in message
news:FSLJg.8528$Tl4.5360@dukeread06...

It's not a DME fix.


So what? Is there any doubt about your position?


The "so what" is fix displacements have limits that were established by
the authors of TERPS, which did not include you.

If the system operated on your view of limits (as in "so what") then we
wouldn't need any approach procedures at all. Just roll your own.

Jim Macklin wrote:

GPS can substitute for the ADF. Radar can substitute also.
So, if the acft has no ADF or the NDB is OTS, so, it could
be.


You cannot count on ATC identifying a fix on an IAP unless it is marked
"radar."

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:khWKg.5032$c07.4685@fed1read04...

The "so what" is fix displacements have limits that were established by
the authors of TERPS, which did not include you.


So it's the authors of TERPS that are at fault and not the designer of this
particular approach? Is that what you're saying?

Perhaps you have not thoroughly examined this approach. The NDB serves only
to transition from the enroute phase of flight to the approach. That's the
same function as the feeder route. If the ADF is required to fly this
approach then the feeder route is completely superfluous. So why is it
there?

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
newsjWKg.5033$c07.4305@fed1read04...

You cannot count on ATC identifying a fix on an IAP unless it is marked
"radar."


That's not correct. Both ASR and ARSR may be used for identifying initial
and intermediate approach fixes, only ASR may be used for identification of
the final approach fix. There's no requirement that the fixes be marked
"RADAR" on the IAP.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
newsjWKg.5033$c07.4305@fed1read04...

You cannot count on ATC identifying a fix on an IAP unless it is marked
"radar."



That's not correct. Both ASR and ARSR may be used for identifying initial
and intermediate approach fixes, only ASR may be used for identification of
the final approach fix. There's no requirement that the fixes be marked
"RADAR" on the IAP.


Sure, they MAY be used but still need to meet some criteria in order to
be ESTABLISHED as radar fixes. The TERPs specialist can't identify it as
a radar fix on a procedure without the consent of ATC and verification
by flight check.
If the fix is marked "radar", that means flight check aircraft have
verified the radar fix meets accuracy requirements and it's depicted
properly on the scope. (Radar facilities do not have to depict or
display all fixes on their scope.) It also means that the specialist has
annotated the fix specifically as a radar fix on the 8260-2 forms that
were submitted IAW FAR 97 requirements.
So, as Sam says, you can't count on ATC identifying a fix on the IAP
unless it's marked "radar". Reason? It may or may not be depicted on the
scope (clutter) and they may or may not have agreed to be responsible
for calling the fix passage.

JPH