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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Legal or not?
"JPH" wrote in message news:gE2Og.11816$Tl4.8274@dukeread06... Sure, they MAY be used but still need to meet some criteria in order to be ESTABLISHED as radar fixes. They do not need to be ESATALISHED as radar fixes in order for ATC to identify them. The TERPs specialist can't identify it as a radar fix on a procedure without the consent of ATC and verification by flight check. If the fix is marked "radar", that means flight check aircraft have verified the radar fix meets accuracy requirements and it's depicted properly on the scope. (Radar facilities do not have to depict or display all fixes on their scope.) It also means that the specialist has annotated the fix specifically as a radar fix on the 8260-2 forms that were submitted IAW FAR 97 requirements. So, as Sam says, you can't count on ATC identifying a fix on the IAP unless it's marked "radar". Reason? It may or may not be depicted on the scope (clutter) and they may or may not have agreed to be responsible for calling the fix passage. What Sam says if frequently wrong, as it is in this case. For example, take a look at the VOR or GPS-A approach at Blackhawk Airfield: http://map.aeroplanner.com/mapping/c...tab=approaches REINE is identified as a RADAR fix but this approach isn't depicted on ZAU ARTCC video maps at all. If the fix appears on the video map and it fits the criteria specified in FAAO 7110.65 the controller can call the fix, being identified as a RADAR fix on the IAP has nothing to do with it. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Legal or not?
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"JPH" wrote in message news:gE2Og.11816$Tl4.8274@dukeread06... Sure, they MAY be used but still need to meet some criteria in order to be ESTABLISHED as radar fixes. They do not need to be ESATALISHED as radar fixes in order for ATC to identify them. 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. What Sam says if frequently wrong, as it is in this case. For example, take a look at the VOR or GPS-A approach at Blackhawk Airfield: http://map.aeroplanner.com/mapping/c...tab=approaches REINE is identified as a RADAR fix but this approach isn't depicted on ZAU ARTCC video maps at all. If the fix appears on the video map and it fits the criteria specified in FAAO 7110.65 the controller can call the fix, being identified as a RADAR fix on the IAP has nothing to do with it. That doesn't mean it will approach on the approach chart. Sam isn't wrong, you are. Did I ever say ATC can't call any fix they feel they can? The issue was identify a fix as a radar fix on an approach chart. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Legal or not?
"Sam Spade" wrote in message ... That doesn't mean it will approach on the approach chart. I don't know what that's supposed to mean. Sam isn't wrong, you are. Am I? What did I say that Sam believes is wrong? Did I ever say ATC can't call any fix they feel they can? You said, "You cannot count on ATC identifying a fix on an IAP unless it is marked 'radar'." How does ATC identify a fix that is not depicted on the controller's video map? The issue was identify a fix as a radar fix on an approach chart. No, the issue was the legality of flying the ILS RWY 28 at AGC with McKeesport NDB out of service. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Home Built | 3 | May 14th 04 11:55 AM |
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | May 11th 04 10:43 PM |
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | May 11th 04 10:43 PM |
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Owning | 0 | May 11th 04 10:43 PM |
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Owning | 0 | May 11th 04 10:36 PM |