OK, FAR Lawers we need your help!

Mike Rapoport wrote:

Recently the COE VOR was notamed OTS. Coincedent with this the KSZT LOC/DME
was notamed NA. The explanation given was that the COE VOR was nessasary to
fly the tranition (COE is the IAF) and the missed approach (the missed ends
with a hold at the COE VOR). I contend that GPS can substitute for the VOR
but I can't find it witten down anywhere. The KSZT LOC, DME and ADF are all
working properly. Our question is: Was the KSZT LOC/DME approach
improperly NOTAMed NA? Can you cite a source? Remember we are talking
about substituting GPS for the VOR to fly the transition, we are not talking
about substituting for the LOC.

There is no pro bono work for references, etc, available today. Why don't you
call AVN-100 in OKC on Monday and ask them: 405-954-3027. That's the main
number but they can transfer you to the right person.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
news

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
k.net...
Recently the COE VOR was notamed OTS. Coincedent with this the KSZT
LOC/DME
was notamed NA. The explanation given was that the COE VOR was
nessasary
to
fly the tranition (COE is the IAF) and the missed approach (the missed
ends
with a hold at the COE VOR). I contend that GPS can substitute for the
VOR
but I can't find it witten down anywhere. The KSZT LOC, DME and ADF are
all
working properly. Our question is: Was the KSZT LOC/DME approach
improperly NOTAMed NA? Can you cite a source? Remember we are talking
about substituting GPS for the VOR to fly the transition, we are not
talking
about substituting for the LOC.

AIM 1-1-19 says:
f. Use of GPS in lieu of ADF and DME

1. Subject to the restrictions below, operators in the U.S. NAS are
authorized to use GPS equipment certified for IFR operations in place of
ADF
and/or DME equipment for en route and terminal operations. For some
operations there is no requirement for the aircraft to be equipped with an
ADF or DME receiver, see subparagraphs f6(g) and (h) below. The
ground-based
NDB or DME facility may be temporarily out of service during these
operations. Charting will not change to support these operations.

---------------------------------------------

There is no provision for GPS to be used in lieu of VOR. 1-1-20
addresses
the use of WAAS. WAAS eliminates the requirement for backup navigation
systems and may be used stand-alone. You may, of course, use GPS to
navigate
to a location that happens to be a VOR, just as you may use GPS to
navigate
to any other point, but if you have no VOR you cannot use it for an
approach. If you have WAAS you may use it for any approach authorized for
WAAS (these approaches are annotated as such) and need no ground radios at
all.



So, if I had WAAS and nothing else, I could fly the transition but the VOR
has to be operational even though I don't have a VOR reciever onboard?

Mike
MU-2

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
k.net...


So, if I had WAAS and nothing else, I could fly the transition but the VOR
has to be operational even though I don't have a VOR reciever onboard?


No. You can't fly the VOR unless you have VOR on board and the VOR on the
ground is operational. You may substitute WAAS for the VOR if the approach
has been approved for WAAS.

"Newps" wrote in message
...

We deal with the same thing here at BIL. We have an ILS that requires
radar and DME. Whenever they take the DME out of service they notam the
whole approach OTS. Nobody can give me a good reason why the approach
can't be left in service and just have the notam state that DME is not
available.


DME is needed to determine the MAP for the ILS RWY 28R when flown to
localizer minimums.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

See AIM 1-1-20c.7. WAAS may be used as a stand-alone
system anywhere in the NAS.

GPS cannot substitute for a VOR.


Odd, then, that FAAO 7110.65 allows controllers to issue airways routing to
GPS-equipped aircraft when the navaids defining those airways are not in
service.


FAA Order 7110.65P Air Traffic Control

Chapter 4. IFR

Section 4. Route Assignment

4-4-4. ALTERNATIVE ROUTES

When any part of an airway or route is unusable because of NAVAID status,
clear aircraft other than /E, /F, /G, or /R, via one of the following
alternative routes:

a. A route depicted on current U.S. Government charts/publications. Use
the word "substitute" immediately preceding the alternative route in issuing
the clearance.

b. A route defined by specifying NAVAID radials, courses, or azimuths.

c. A route defined as direct to or between NAVAIDs.

d. Vectors.

NOTE-
Inform area navigation aircraft that will proceed to the NAVAID location
of the NAVAID outage.

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 08:21:21 -0700, "C J Campbell"
wrote:

No. You can't fly the VOR unless you have VOR on board and the VOR on the
ground is operational. You may substitute WAAS for the VOR if the approach
has been approved for WAAS.

That is directly contrary to what is in the AIM with regard to overlay
approaches, whether or not WAAS is mentioned.

" h. GPS Approach Procedures

.... During these GPS approaches [referring to overlay approaches],
underlying ground-based NAVAIDs are not required to be operational and
associated aircraft avionics need not be installed, operational, turned on
or monitored "


--ron

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 22:57:15 -0700, "C J Campbell"
wrote:


There is no provision for GPS to be used in lieu of VOR.

There is for approaches. See 1-1-19 h.

"As the production of stand-alone GPS approaches has progressed, many of
the original overlay approaches have been replaced with stand-alone
procedures specifically designed for use by GPS systems. The title of the
remaining GPS overlay procedures has been revised on the approach chart to
"or GPS" (e.g., VOR or GPS RWY 24). Therefore, all the approaches that can
be used by GPS now contain "GPS" in the title (e.g., "VOR or GPS RWY 24,"
"GPS RWY 24," or "RNAV (GPS) RWY 24"). During these GPS approaches,
underlying ground-based NAVAIDs are not required to be operational and
associated aircraft avionics need not be installed, operational, turned on
or monitored (monitoring of the underlying approach is suggested when
equipment is available and functional). Existing overlay approaches may be
requested using the GPS title, such as "GPS RWY 24" for the VOR or GPS RWY
24".


--ron

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 08:21:21 -0700, "C J Campbell"
wrote:

No. You can't fly the VOR unless you have VOR on board and the VOR on the
ground is operational. You may substitute WAAS for the VOR if the
approach
has been approved for WAAS.

That is directly contrary to what is in the AIM with regard to overlay
approaches, whether or not WAAS is mentioned.

" h. GPS Approach Procedures

... During these GPS approaches [referring to overlay approaches],
underlying ground-based NAVAIDs are not required to be operational and
associated aircraft avionics need not be installed, operational, turned on
or monitored "


That's an overlay approach, a "VOR or GPS RWY 24" approach, for example.
For an approach like that you don't need a VOR, but you would for a "VOR RWY
24" approach.

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 22:57:15 -0700, "C J Campbell"
wrote:


There is no provision for GPS to be used in lieu of VOR.

There is for approaches. See 1-1-19 h.

"As the production of stand-alone GPS approaches has progressed, many of
the original overlay approaches have been replaced with stand-alone
procedures specifically designed for use by GPS systems. The title of the
remaining GPS overlay procedures has been revised on the approach chart to
"or GPS" (e.g., VOR or GPS RWY 24). Therefore, all the approaches that can
be used by GPS now contain "GPS" in the title (e.g., "VOR or GPS RWY 24,"
"GPS RWY 24," or "RNAV (GPS) RWY 24"). During these GPS approaches,
underlying ground-based NAVAIDs are not required to be operational and
associated aircraft avionics need not be installed, operational, turned on
or monitored (monitoring of the underlying approach is suggested when
equipment is available and functional). Existing overlay approaches may be
requested using the GPS title, such as "GPS RWY 24" for the VOR or GPS RWY
24".


If you're using GPS to fly a "VOR or GPS RWY 24" you're not substituting GPS
for the VOR. The approach can be flown with either one.

If it is NOTAMED out of service then I don't think you can legally use
it, regardless of what is actually not working. I don't think ATC is
supposed to clear you for an approach that is NOTAMED OTS. Numerous
reasons. So you will get no clearance for the approach. How can you
fly it without a clearance in IMC?

It does seem that they could NOTAM it that you MUST have IFR approach
terminal and enroute GPS, or even WAAS GPS if the VOR is out. But
thats not what they did.

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message nk.net...
Recently the COE VOR was notamed OTS. Coincedent with this the KSZT LOC/DME
was notamed NA. The explanation given was that the COE VOR was nessasary to
fly the tranition (COE is the IAF) and the missed approach (the missed ends
with a hold at the COE VOR). I contend that GPS can substitute for the VOR
but I can't find it witten down anywhere. The KSZT LOC, DME and ADF are all
working properly. Our question is: Was the KSZT LOC/DME approach
improperly NOTAMed NA? Can you cite a source? Remember we are talking
about substituting GPS for the VOR to fly the transition, we are not talking
about substituting for the LOC.

Thanks

Mike
MU-2
(and a lot of other frustrated NW pilots)