Legal or not?

The use of an approach certified GPS in lieu of an ADF is addressed in
AIM 1-1-19f. See:

http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/AIM/Chap1/aim0101.html#1-1-19

In a nutshell, yes, you can use your IFR approach certified GPS in lieu
of an ADF for identifying the OM on an ILS approach, and/or for identifying
a missed approach fix.

In answering your second question, no, I don't have an ADF in my aircraft.

-- Dane

In article ,
Rick McPherson wrote:
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

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

Rick



----== 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 =----

Dane and Brad,

Does the 076 degree radial from AGC not accomplish the same thing? Or, is
this just a feeder route to get one from the VOR to the IAP? Either way, it
marks the position of the station while on the localizer at 3000. By the
way, I do agree that this approach is NA without ADF or a reliable signal
from the station.
"Dane Spearing" wrote in message
...

The use of an approach certified GPS in lieu of an ADF is addressed in
AIM 1-1-19f. See:

http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/AIM/Chap1/aim0101.html#1-1-19

In a nutshell, yes, you can use your IFR approach certified GPS in lieu
of an ADF for identifying the OM on an ILS approach, and/or for
identifying
a missed approach fix.

In answering your second question, no, I don't have an ADF in my aircraft.

-- Dane

In article ,
Rick McPherson wrote:
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

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

Rick



----== 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
=----






----== 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 =----

Rick McPherson wrote:
Dane and Brad,

Does the 076 degree radial from AGC not accomplish the same thing? Or, is
this just a feeder route to get one from the VOR to the IAP? Either way, it
marks the position of the station while on the localizer at 3000. By the
way, I do agree that this approach is NA without ADF or a reliable signal
from the station.


Nope, you're correct, its just a feeder route to the IAF. If MKP was
an intersection, you'd see MKP INT on the profile and plan view. The
076 line and arrow would extend all the way to the fix, rather than
just pointing towards the fix as the feeder route does. Distance and
angle did not meet the terps requirement to serve as a radial to
identify it as a intersection fix.

"Brad" wrote in message
ups.com...

Nope, you're correct, its just a feeder route to the IAF. If MKP was
an intersection, you'd see MKP INT on the profile and plan view. The
076 line and arrow would extend all the way to the fix, rather than
just pointing towards the fix as the feeder route does. Distance and
angle did not meet the terps requirement to serve as a radial to
identify it as a intersection fix.


Why would the feeder route need to do any more than that? All the ADF does
on this approach is allow the pilot to navigate to the localizer. The
feeder route does that and so does a radar vector.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Brad" wrote in message
ups.com...

Nope, you're correct, its just a feeder route to the IAF. If MKP was
an intersection, you'd see MKP INT on the profile and plan view. The
076 line and arrow would extend all the way to the fix, rather than
just pointing towards the fix as the feeder route does. Distance and
angle did not meet the terps requirement to serve as a radial to
identify it as a intersection fix.



Why would the feeder route need to do any more than that? All the ADF does
on this approach is allow the pilot to navigate to the localizer. The
feeder route does that and so does a radar vector.


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.

JPH

"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.

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

"Dane Spearing" wrote in message
...

The use of an approach certified GPS in lieu of an ADF is addressed in
AIM 1-1-19f. See:

http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/AIM/Chap1/aim0101.html#1-1-19

In a nutshell, yes, you can use your IFR approach certified GPS in lieu
of an ADF for identifying the OM on an ILS approach, and/or for
identifying
a missed approach fix.


Use of GPS in lieu of ADF and DME is covered in that paragraph, but I see no
mention of use of GPS in lieu of a marker beacon receiver. While an ADF can
certainly identify an LOM, it won't identify an OM.

-----Original Message-----
From: Steven P. McNicoll ]
Posted At: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 6:06 PM
Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
Conversation: Legal or not?
Subject: Legal or not?


....
certainly identify an LOM, it won't identify an OM.

Ok, it's getting late and I haven't asked enough stupid questions today
so here goes: what is the difference between an Outer Marker and a
Locator Outer Marker? Aren't they the same frequency, same audio pattern
and tone?

"Jim Carter" wrote in message news:002f01c6cc9a$0e276310$4001a8c0@omnibook6100.. .

...
certainly identify an LOM, it won't identify an OM.

Ok, it's getting late and I haven't asked enough stupid questions today
so here goes: what is the difference between an Outer Marker and a
Locator Outer Marker? Aren't they the same frequency, same audio pattern
and tone?

Must be late. :-) You'll probably wake up tomorrow and remember...
LOM = LF/MF Compass Locator Beacon at the Outer Marker (used by ADFs).
OM = 75-MHz Fan-shaped or Bone-shaped Beacon, with a pulsing 400-Hz modulation.