Hello,

I'm trying to figure out why the ILS or LOC Rwy 9 KJZI requires DME,
per the notes. Any ideas? I don't see where any of the fixes can't
be determined by dual VORs.

Thanks,
Padraig

On Mar 9, 8:31*pm, Padraig > wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm trying to figure out why the ILS or LOC Rwy 9 KJZI requires DME,
> per the notes. *Any ideas? *I don't see where any of the fixes can't
> be determined by dual VORs.
>
> Thanks,
> Padraig

Sorry, here's the procedure.

http://tiles.skyvector.com/sky/files/tpp/1002/pdf/05354IL9.PDF

On Mar 9, 7:44*pm, Padraig > wrote:
> On Mar 9, 8:31*pm, Padraig > wrote:
>
> > Hello,
>
> > I'm trying to figure out why the ILS or LOC Rwy 9 KJZI requires DME,
> > per the notes. *Any ideas? *I don't see where any of the fixes can't
> > be determined by dual VORs.
>
> > Thanks,
> > Padraig
>
> Sorry, here's the procedure.
>
> http://tiles.skyvector.com/sky/files/tpp/1002/pdf/05354IL9.PDF

Appears to me that HUKAG (MAP) is not defined by a VOR radial causing
the need for DME from the outer marker to the middle marker.

That would be my guess.

But that is also defined by time from FAF for the LOC, right? The
owner of the aircraft I tend to rent doesn't pay to keep his GPS
database up to date, so /U doesn't work too well in a lot of places.

On Mar 9, 8:54*pm, " > wrote:

>
> Appears to me that HUKAG (MAP) is not defined by a VOR radial causing
> the need for DME from the outer marker to the middle marker.
>
> That would be my guess.

On Mar 9, 8:54*pm, Padraig > wrote:
> But that is also defined by time from FAF for the LOC, right? *The
> owner of the aircraft I tend to rent doesn't pay to keep his GPS
> database up to date, so /U doesn't work too well in a lot of places.

I would think time would be part of it.

Good headwind down the ILS and your time now has changed since timing
is based on GS. Distance would be the constant that would confirm you
have reached the middle marker (along with the marker beacon) should
your actual time differ then what the chart projects on a no wind
situation.

ILS would be ground based, GPS would be informational only for DME
purposes. I would load the approach in the GPS and accept the warning
that it's for situational awareness as long as all the fixes matches
what I have on paper. This is how I would run my shop if I was to do
the approach.

On Mar 9, 11:11*pm, " > wrote:
> On Mar 9, 8:54*pm, Padraig > wrote:
>
> > But that is also defined by time from FAF for the LOC, right? *The
> > owner of the aircraft I tend to rent doesn't pay to keep his GPS
> > database up to date, so /U doesn't work too well in a lot of places.
>
> I would think time would be part of it.
>
> Good headwind down the ILS and your time now has changed since timing
> is based on GS. *Distance would be the constant that would confirm you
> have reached the middle marker (along with the marker beacon) should
> your actual time differ then what the chart projects on a no wind
> situation.
>
> ILS would be ground based, GPS would be informational only for DME
> purposes. *I would load the approach in the GPS and accept the warning
> that it's for situational awareness as long as all the fixes matches
> what I have on paper. *This is how I would run my shop if I was to do
> the approach.

Yes, the problem is technically speaking I can't accept the approach
since it requires DME and I don't have it. If I had a legal GPS
database, I could fly it legally. But either way, if I'm flying the
ILS approach, the DH is the missed approach point. Once I hit that
altitude and I'm on the glide slope, I'm at the MAP. So I don't need
timing at all for the ILS, just if I were doing the localizer.

Thanks,
Padraig.

On Mar 10, 9:42*pm, Padraig > wrote:

> *But either way, if I'm flying the
> ILS approach, the DH is the missed approach point. *Once I hit that
> altitude and I'm on the glide slope, I'm at the MAP. *So I don't need
> timing at all for the ILS, just if I were doing the localizer.

We may have answered our own question talking this out. DME required
for the LOC approach. Plate is for either ILS or LOC.

No glide slope for a LOC appraoch :-) to determine DH.

wrote:
> On Mar 10, 9:42 pm, Padraig > wrote:
>
>
>> But either way, if I'm flying the
>>ILS approach, the DH is the missed approach point. Once I hit that
>>altitude and I'm on the glide slope, I'm at the MAP. So I don't need
>>timing at all for the ILS, just if I were doing the localizer.
>
>
> We may have answered our own question talking this out. DME required
> for the LOC approach. Plate is for either ILS or LOC.
>
> No glide slope for a LOC appraoch :-) to determine DH.

There is a timing table to determine the LOC MAP.

FDC 9/0694 - FI/T CHARLESTON EXECUTIVE, CHARLESTON, SC.
ILS OR LOC RWY 9, AMDT 1A...
RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, ORIG-A...
RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, ORIG...
PROCEDURE NA. WIE UNTIL UFN. CREATED: 18 SEP 17:55 2009

On Mar 11, 5:10*pm, Sam Spade > wrote:

> > No glide slope for a LOC appraoch :-) to determine DH.
>
> There is a timing table to determine the LOC MAP.

But of course you do know that the timing table is based on GS. What
if your GS was 68 knots Sam?

DME is your ONLY source to ensure that you are at MAP along WITH
timing. If you want to descend below MDA based on time alone AND no
DME, I sure wouldn't want to fly with you.

wrote:
> On Mar 11, 5:10 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>
>>>No glide slope for a LOC appraoch :-) to determine DH.
>>
>>There is a timing table to determine the LOC MAP.
>
>
> But of course you do know that the timing table is based on GS. What
> if your GS was 68 knots Sam?
>
> DME is your ONLY source to ensure that you are at MAP along WITH
> timing. If you want to descend below MDA based on time alone AND no
> DME, I sure wouldn't want to fly with you.

Of course I do NOT know that. The timing table is for the LOC MAP. DA
is your MAP for the ILS.

This newsgroup is so lacking in the fundamentals.

On Mar 11, 8:09*pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Mar 11, 5:10 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
> >>>No glide slope for a LOC appraoch :-) to determine DH.
>
> >>There is a timing table to determine the LOC MAP.
>
> > But of course you do know that the timing table is based on GS. * What
> > if your GS was 68 knots Sam?
>
> > DME is your ONLY source to ensure that you are at MAP along WITH
> > timing. * If you want to descend below MDA based on time alone AND no
> > DME, I sure wouldn't want to fly with you.
>
> Of course I do NOT know that. *The timing table is for the LOC MAP. *DA
> is your MAP for the ILS.
>
> This newsgroup is so lacking in the fundamentals.

You imply Sam that timing alone is how you determine the MAP. I say
it's not.

DME determines when you can go below MDA which would be at MAP not 3
minutes 12 seconds.

Be my guest on descending below MDA at 3:12 without DME Sam. I won't
be in the plane with you as you come up short or even overshoot the
MAP due to headwinds or tailwind considerations.

wrote:
> On Mar 11, 8:09 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> On Mar 11, 5:10 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
>>>>> No glide slope for a LOC appraoch :-) to determine DH.
>>>> There is a timing table to determine the LOC MAP.
>>> But of course you do know that the timing table is based on GS. What
>>> if your GS was 68 knots Sam?
>>> DME is your ONLY source to ensure that you are at MAP along WITH
>>> timing. If you want to descend below MDA based on time alone AND no
>>> DME, I sure wouldn't want to fly with you.
>> Of course I do NOT know that. The timing table is for the LOC MAP. DA
>> is your MAP for the ILS.
>>
>> This newsgroup is so lacking in the fundamentals.
>
> You imply Sam that timing alone is how you determine the MAP. I say
> it's not.
>
> DME determines when you can go below MDA which would be at MAP not 3
> minutes 12 seconds.
>
> Be my guest on descending below MDA at 3:12 without DME Sam. I won't
> be in the plane with you as you come up short or even overshoot the
> MAP due to headwinds or tailwind considerations.

Please correct me if I'm wrong as I'm just working on my instrument
rating. On a localizer approach you never descend below MDA unless you
have the airport environment in sight. Timing is not required on an
ILS, but it's a good idea to start the timer anyway in case you lose the
glide slope (out of action, not too high/low) and have to revert to a
localizer approach. You never descend below the DH on an ILS unless you
have the airport environment in sight. MAP is determined by being on
glide slope and at DH. Cruising down the glide slope at 68 is just fine
as long as you stay on the glide slope. ("Just fine" may vary depending
on who is behind you.) The timer (not required) will expire, but DH is
determined by altitude, not time or DME anyway?

But I'm with the OP in wondering why DME is required. Timing seems to
work for most other localizer approaches to determine MAP, all the
intersections and the missed approach holding points are determined by
VOR radials.

wrote:
> On Mar 11, 8:09 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>>On Mar 11, 5:10 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
>>
>>>>>No glide slope for a LOC appraoch :-) to determine DH.
>>
>>>>There is a timing table to determine the LOC MAP.
>>
>>>But of course you do know that the timing table is based on GS. What
>>>if your GS was 68 knots Sam?
>>
>>>DME is your ONLY source to ensure that you are at MAP along WITH
>>>timing. If you want to descend below MDA based on time alone AND no
>>>DME, I sure wouldn't want to fly with you.
>>
>>Of course I do NOT know that. The timing table is for the LOC MAP. DA
>>is your MAP for the ILS.
>>
>>This newsgroup is so lacking in the fundamentals.
>
>
> You imply Sam that timing alone is how you determine the MAP. I say
> it's not.
>
> DME determines when you can go below MDA which would be at MAP not 3
> minutes 12 seconds.
>
> Be my guest on descending below MDA at 3:12 without DME Sam. I won't
> be in the plane with you as you come up short or even overshoot the
> MAP due to headwinds or tailwind considerations.

There are bunches of IAPs with timing tables but no DME. There is a
buffer in TERPs for timing errors. But, you obviously don't understand
any of this.

Jim wrote:

> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 11, 8:09 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mar 11, 5:10 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> No glide slope for a LOC appraoch :-) to determine DH.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a timing table to determine the LOC MAP.
>>>>
>>>> But of course you do know that the timing table is based on GS. What
>>>> if your GS was 68 knots Sam?
>>>> DME is your ONLY source to ensure that you are at MAP along WITH
>>>> timing. If you want to descend below MDA based on time alone AND no
>>>> DME, I sure wouldn't want to fly with you.
>>>
>>> Of course I do NOT know that. The timing table is for the LOC MAP. DA
>>> is your MAP for the ILS.
>>>
>>> This newsgroup is so lacking in the fundamentals.
>>
>>
>> You imply Sam that timing alone is how you determine the MAP. I say
>> it's not.
>>
>> DME determines when you can go below MDA which would be at MAP not 3
>> minutes 12 seconds.
>>
>> Be my guest on descending below MDA at 3:12 without DME Sam. I won't
>> be in the plane with you as you come up short or even overshoot the
>> MAP due to headwinds or tailwind considerations.
>
>
> Please correct me if I'm wrong as I'm just working on my instrument
> rating. On a localizer approach you never descend below MDA unless you
> have the airport environment in sight. Timing is not required on an
> ILS, but it's a good idea to start the timer anyway in case you lose the
> glide slope (out of action, not too high/low) and have to revert to a
> localizer approach. You never descend below the DH on an ILS unless you
> have the airport environment in sight. MAP is determined by being on
> glide slope and at DH. Cruising down the glide slope at 68 is just fine
> as long as you stay on the glide slope. ("Just fine" may vary depending
> on who is behind you.) The timer (not required) will expire, but DH is
> determined by altitude, not time or DME anyway?
>
> But I'm with the OP in wondering why DME is required. Timing seems to
> work for most other localizer approaches to determine MAP, all the
> intersections and the missed approach holding points are determined by
> VOR radials.

The DME requirement is most likely an error. The FAA designers make
plenty of mistakes.

" wrote
> You imply Sam that timing alone is how you determine the MAP. I say
> it's not.
> DME determines when you can go below MDA which would be at MAP not 3
> minutes 12 seconds.

SAY WHAT!!! Let's take a look at the definition of MDA:

"A specified altitude referenced to sea level for a non-precision approach
below which descent must not be made until the required visual reference to
continue the approach to land has been established."

It's pretty clear that we're not supposed to go below the published MDA on
a non-precision approach, unless we can see enough to descend and land. The
MAP has nothing to do with it except that we can't continue the approach to
land after reaching the MAP.

It seems to me that everyone is missing the main point about "DME
Required" is that it is NOT required....normally, that is.

Since The name of the proceedure does not include "DME" as in LOC/DME,
timing is a perfectly acceptable method of determining the MAP for the LOC
approach.

In all cases where timing may not be used, the procedure must be annotated
“timing not authorized for defining MAPt.”

Note where "DME Required" does appear....in the note section about raising
the minimum DA/MDA when the local altimeter setting is not available. I
suspect that the answer to the OP's question is in here somewhere.

Recommended reading

http://www.faasafety.gov/gslac/ALC/libview_normal.aspx?id=17273

Some general copy and paste from the Instrument Flying Handbook....

APPROACH CHART NAMING CONVENTIONS
Individual NACO charts are identified on both the top and
the bottom of the page by their procedure name (based on
the NAVAIDs required for the final approach), runway
served, and airport location.

APPROACH CHART NOTES
The navigation equipment that is required to join and fly
an instrument approach procedure is indicated by the title
of the procedure and notes on the chart. Straight-in IAPs
are identified by the navigation system by providing the
final approach guidance and the runway with which the
approach is aligned (for example, VOR RWY 13).
Circling-only approaches are identified by the navigation
system by providing final approach guidance and a letter
(for example, VOR A). More than one navigation system
separated by a slant indicates that more than one type of
equipment must be used to execute the final approach (for
example, VOR/DME RWY 31). More than one navigation
system separated by the word “or” indicates either
type of equipment can be used to execute the final
approach (for example,VOR or GPS RWY 15).

When radar or other equipment is required
on portions of the procedure outside the final approach
segment, including the missed approach, a note is charted
in the notes box of the pilot briefing portion of the
approach chart (for example, RADAR REQUIRED or
DME REQUIRED).

On some nonprecision approaches, the MAP is given as
a fixed distance with an associated time from the FAF to
the MAP based on the groundspeed of the aircraft. A
table on the lower right hand side of the approach chart
shows the distance in NM from the FAF to the MAP and
the time it takes at specific groundspeeds, given in 30-
knot increments. Pilots must determine the approximate
groundspeed and time based on the approach speed and
true airspeed of their aircraft and the current winds along
the final approach course. A clock or stopwatch should
be started at the FAF of an approach requiring this
method.

When a missed approach is executed
prior to reaching the MAP, the pilot is required to continue
along the final approach course, at an altitude
above the DA, DH, or MDA, until reaching the MAP
before making any turns. If a turn is initiated prior to
the MAP, obstacle clearance is not guaranteed.

Bob Moore
ATP CFII
PanAm (retired)

On Mar 12, 9:41*am, Robert Moore > wrote:
> " *wrote

> It's pretty clear that we're not supposed to go below the published MDA on
> a non-precision approach, unless we can see enough to descend and land. The
> MAP has nothing to do with it except that we can't continue the approach to
> land after reaching the MAP.

Bob,

Bear with me on this. Are you suggesting or saying it's ok to go
below MDA BEFORE the MAP????

I was taught NEVER to descend below DH for the ILS or MDA before the
MAP for non precision approaches such as VOR alpha or LOC.

My point to Sam was that timing alone with wind consideration is not
enough to descend below MDA which again I was taught never descend
below BEFORE the MAP.

DME is the constant factor to finding MAP on this approach, not timing
since there are no intersecting radials to identify MAP.

Timing helps but since GS will vary based on wind conditions, timing
ALONE shouldn't be used to determine MAP.

This is what I was taught for what it's worth.

On Mar 12, 9:24*am, Sam Spade > wrote:
> wrote:

> There are bunches of IAPs with timing tables but no DME. *There is a
> buffer in TERPs for timing errors. *But, you obviously don't understand
> any of this.

Show me one that doesn't have a DME and NO intersecting radial or
intersection to identify the MAP.

I would be interested in this.

On 3/12/2010 8:51 AM, wrote:
> On Mar 12, 9:41 am, Robert Moore > wrote:
>> " wrote
>
>> It's pretty clear that we're not supposed to go below the published MDA on
>> a non-precision approach, unless we can see enough to descend and land. The
>> MAP has nothing to do with it except that we can't continue the approach to
>> land after reaching the MAP.
>
> Bob,
>
> Bear with me on this. Are you suggesting or saying it's ok to go
> below MDA BEFORE the MAP????
>
> I was taught NEVER to descend below DH for the ILS or MDA before the
> MAP for non precision approaches such as VOR alpha or LOC.

Whew... :(

When is the occasion when you descend below MDA on a non-precision
approach? Isn't it when you have met the requirements of 91.175?
Note: This part of the regs has to do with when you can descend
below MDA on a non-precision approach, among other things.

Are you saying that you were taught not to descend below MDA even
when you have met the requirements for descending below MDA simply
because you haven't yet reached the MAP?

That's a lu-lu of a misunderstanding.

>
> My point to Sam was that timing alone with wind consideration is not
> enough to descend below MDA which again I was taught never descend
> below BEFORE the MAP.

Hint: You can descend below MDA when you've met the requirements for
doing so, as per 91.175.

>
> DME is the constant factor to finding MAP on this approach, not timing
> since there are no intersecting radials to identify MAP.
>
> Timing helps but since GS will vary based on wind conditions, timing
> ALONE shouldn't be used to determine MAP.

What? I would ask if you're kidding, but I'm afraid I know the answer
to that.


>
> This is what I was taught for what it's worth.

You might find it useful to find a competent instructor and go over this
with him/her - for your own good.

" > wrote

> Bear with me on this. Are you suggesting or saying it's ok to go
> below MDA BEFORE the MAP????

MAP has NOTHING to do with MDA
>
> I was taught NEVER to descend below DH for the ILS or MDA before the
> MAP for non precision approaches such as VOR alpha or LOC.

DA IS the MAP for ILS, You may descend below the MDA ANYTIME that you
see the runway and can execute a safe landing. Most of the time, the
MAP for a VOR/LOC is over the end of the runway...how are you expected
to land from about 500' over the end of the runway?
>
> My point to Sam was that timing alone with wind consideration is not
> enough to descend below MDA which again I was taught never descend
> below BEFORE the MAP.

You were taught incorrectly. Timing alone is sufficient to define the
MAP, but that has NOTHING to do with descending from the MDA.
>
> Timing helps but since GS will vary based on wind conditions, timing
> ALONE shouldn't be used to determine MAP.

Not what the FAA says. Did you read my entire post?
>
> This is what I was taught for what it's worth.

Better get a better instructor. Of course when one thinks about the
Colgon Air crash, that might be kinda hard to do these days.

The FAA Instrument Flying Handbook is available from
http://faasafety.gov/

Bob Moore
CFIIing since 1970

" > wrote in news:f8ca37ee-3735-48ea-
:

> On Mar 12, 9:24*am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>> wrote:
>
>> There are bunches of IAPs with timing tables but no DME. *There is a
>> buffer in TERPs for timing errors. *But, you obviously don't understand
>> any of this.
>
> Show me one that doesn't have a DME and NO intersecting radial or
> intersection to identify the MAP.
>
> I would be interested in this.
>
Try this one
http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/1003/00532IL12.PDF

You see...I learned to fly way back when DME was a rareity and all of the
approaches were like this one.

Bob Moore

wrote:
> On Mar 12, 9:24 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
wrote:
>
>
>>There are bunches of IAPs with timing tables but no DME. There is a
>>buffer in TERPs for timing errors. But, you obviously don't understand
>>any of this.
>
>
> Show me one that doesn't have a DME and NO intersecting radial or
> intersection to identify the MAP.
>
> I would be interested in this.
>
Not as common as they used to be, but here is a VOR that doesn't have
DME at all:


http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/1003/05105VA.PDF

wrote:

> On Mar 12, 9:41 am, Robert Moore > wrote:
>
" wrote
>
>
>>It's pretty clear that we're not supposed to go below the published MDA on
>>a non-precision approach, unless we can see enough to descend and land. The
>>MAP has nothing to do with it except that we can't continue the approach to
>>land after reaching the MAP.
>
>
> Bob,
>
> Bear with me on this. Are you suggesting or saying it's ok to go
> below MDA BEFORE the MAP????
>
> I was taught NEVER to descend below DH for the ILS or MDA before the
> MAP for non precision approaches such as VOR alpha or LOC.
>
And, where there is no DME?

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/1003/05105VA.PDF

> My point to Sam was that timing alone with wind consideration is not
> enough to descend below MDA which again I was taught never descend
> below BEFORE the MAP.

You were poorly trained, at least as to MAPs based on timing.
>
> DME is the constant factor to finding MAP on this approach, not timing
> since there are no intersecting radials to identify MAP.

If DME were mandatory for the MAP then there would not be a timing table.
>
> Timing helps but since GS will vary based on wind conditions, timing
> ALONE shouldn't be used to determine MAP.
>
> This is what I was taught for what it's worth.

Not worth much, sadly.

Robert Moore wrote:

> " > wrote
>
>
>>Bear with me on this. Are you suggesting or saying it's ok to go
>>below MDA BEFORE the MAP????
>
>
> MAP has NOTHING to do with MDA
>
>>I was taught NEVER to descend below DH for the ILS or MDA before the
>>MAP for non precision approaches such as VOR alpha or LOC.
>
>
> DA IS the MAP for ILS, You may descend below the MDA ANYTIME that you
> see the runway and can execute a safe landing. Most of the time, the
> MAP for a VOR/LOC is over the end of the runway...how are you expected
> to land from about 500' over the end of the runway?
>
>>My point to Sam was that timing alone with wind consideration is not
>>enough to descend below MDA which again I was taught never descend
>>below BEFORE the MAP.
>
>
> You were taught incorrectly. Timing alone is sufficient to define the
> MAP, but that has NOTHING to do with descending from the MDA.
>
>>Timing helps but since GS will vary based on wind conditions, timing
>>ALONE shouldn't be used to determine MAP.
>
>
> Not what the FAA says. Did you read my entire post?
>
>>This is what I was taught for what it's worth.
>
>
> Better get a better instructor. Of course when one thinks about the
> Colgon Air crash, that might be kinda hard to do these days.
>
> The FAA Instrument Flying Handbook is available from
> http://faasafety.gov/
>
> Bob Moore
> CFIIing since 1970
>

Problem is, the CFI-Is of today are "children of the magenta line."
Many of them were not taught the fundamentals of approach procedures.

Padraig wrote:

> On Mar 9, 8:31 pm, Padraig > wrote:
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>I'm trying to figure out why the ILS or LOC Rwy 9 KJZI requires DME,
>>per the notes. Any ideas? I don't see where any of the fixes can't
>>be determined by dual VORs.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Padraig
>
>
> Sorry, here's the procedure.
>
> http://tiles.skyvector.com/sky/files/tpp/1002/pdf/05354IL9.PDF

I got an answer from the friendlies. The ALD radial is restricted below
6,000, thus DME is mandatory for BASSO. I pointed out that charting the
ALD R-120 as part of the fix composition on the approach chart is
misleading.

On 3/12/2010 11:44 AM, Sam Spade wrote:
> Problem is, the CFI-Is of today are "children of the magenta line."
> Many of them were not taught the fundamentals of approach procedures.

Perhaps I was just lucky. I've trained under three different CFIIs,
and they were all very good. In fact that only one I got that didn't
seem to know what he should was the owner of one of the training
facilities who gave me my first Instrument practical test.

On Mar 12, 11:39*am, Robert Moore > wrote:

> Try this onehttp://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/1003/00532IL12.PDF
>
> You see...I learned to fly way back when DME was a rareity and all of the
> approaches were like this one.
>
> Bob Moore

Thanks Bob.

I'm all for learning inspite of what Sam and Mark thinks.

I guess I take the conservative approach and just don't dip below
MDA. I was also told for checkride that I couldn't go below MDA
before MAP or it's a bust. (VOR alpha at KMBO is my most common non
precision approach) so that stuck out in my mind.

It's been describe to me as dive and drive. Dive down to MDA as soon
as you can, and drive it in at MDA to MAP. Go below it before MAP and
it's a bust for checkride.

On 3/12/2010 3:00 PM, wrote:
> On Mar 12, 11:39 am, Robert Moore > wrote:
>
>> Try this onehttp://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/1003/00532IL12.PDF
>>
>> You see...I learned to fly way back when DME was a rareity and all of the
>> approaches were like this one.
>>
>> Bob Moore
>
> Thanks Bob.
>
> I'm all for learning inspite of what Sam and Mark thinks.
>
> I guess I take the conservative approach and just don't dip below
> MDA. I was also told for checkride that I couldn't go below MDA
> before MAP or it's a bust. (VOR alpha at KMBO is my most common non
> precision approach) so that stuck out in my mind.
>
> It's been describe to me as dive and drive. Dive down to MDA as soon
> as you can, and drive it in at MDA to MAP. Go below it before MAP and
> it's a bust for checkride.

That's just simply not true. You say your willing to learn. Just read
the regulations already.

On Mar 12, 5:21*pm, Mark Hansen > wrote:

> That's just simply not true. You say your willing to learn. Just read
> the regulations already.

Thats your opinion Mark.

On 3/12/2010 3:35 PM, wrote:
> On Mar 12, 5:21 pm, Mark Hansen > wrote:
>
>> That's just simply not true. You say your willing to learn. Just read
>> the regulations already.
>
> Thats your opinion Mark.
>

What's my opinion? That you don't have to wait for the MAP before
descending below MDA?

Your statement doesn't make sense.

Do you still believe that you are required to wait for the MAP
before you are legally allowed to descend below MAP on a non-
precision approach?

wrote:
> On Mar 12, 5:21 pm, Mark Hansen > wrote:
>
>
>>That's just simply not true. You say your willing to learn. Just read
>>the regulations already.
>
>
> Thats your opinion Mark.
>

As in "just" his opinion, right?

It's his *considered* opinion based upon your *stated lack of
understanding* of the fundamentals of the purpose of MDA, the MAP, and
FAR 91.175 (c) (1) and (3) (i).

On Mar 12, 6:17*pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Mar 12, 5:21 pm, Mark Hansen > wrote:
>
> >>That's just simply not true. You say your willing to learn. Just read
> >>the regulations already.
>
> > Thats your opinion Mark.
>
> As in "just" his opinion, right?
>
> It's his *considered* opinion based upon your *stated lack of
> understanding* of the fundamentals of the purpose of MDA, the MAP, and
> FAR 91.175 (c) (1) and (3) (i).

I told you before, this is how I run my shop. I NEVER SAID IT WAS
ILLEGAL. So far, I have not hit anything below me by NOT descending
below MDA before the MAP. This is the way I was taught and if it
works for me, you can do whatever FARS says.

You do it your way, and I will do it my way. Zero zero takes offs are
perfectly legal.

Just because FARS says so doesn't mean it's safe!!!!!!!!!!!

" > wrote
> It's been describe to me as dive and drive. Dive down to MDA as soon
> as you can, and drive it in at MDA to MAP. Go below it before MAP and
> it's a bust for checkride.

That's because your instructor was "teaching the checkride"and on most
check rides, you always go-missed and are never allowed to land. In real
life your goal is to land---Right?

Either you or your instructor have (had) a serious teaching or
understanding problem. Not knowing either of you, I can't really say
where the problem is, but the two of you really need to get together
and work-out this misunderstanding.

However.... YOU really have not utilized the freely available instructional
material available on the net.

Bob Moore

wrote:
> On Mar 12, 6:17 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>>On Mar 12, 5:21 pm, Mark Hansen > wrote:
>>
>>>>That's just simply not true. You say your willing to learn. Just read
>>>>the regulations already.
>>
>>>Thats your opinion Mark.
>>
>>As in "just" his opinion, right?
>>
>>It's his *considered* opinion based upon your *stated lack of
>>understanding* of the fundamentals of the purpose of MDA, the MAP, and
>>FAR 91.175 (c) (1) and (3) (i).
>
>
> I told you before, this is how I run my shop. I NEVER SAID IT WAS
> ILLEGAL. So far, I have not hit anything below me by NOT descending
> below MDA before the MAP. This is the way I was taught and if it
> works for me, you can do whatever FARS says.
>
> You do it your way, and I will do it my way. Zero zero takes offs are
> perfectly legal.
>
> Just because FARS says so doesn't mean it's safe!!!!!!!!!!!

What you said was:

"I was also told for checkride that I couldn't go below MDA
before MAP or it's a bust. (VOR alpha at KMBO is my most common non
precision approach) so that stuck out in my mind."

That is just plain wrong.

Further, if you insist on remaining at MDA until the MAP at a busy Class
D airport, the tower will get ****ed off to say the least, if other
aircraft have the required visual references to leave MDA in accordance
with the provisions of 91.175 so as to land straight in.

If I were giving you the oral for your instrument check ride or a
proficiency check and you told me that you couldn't leave MDA before the
MAP on the VOR-A at KBMO, my next question would be, "Is that always
true?" Unless you could explain the nuances of an IAP that has only
circling minimums, and when you can leave MDA and when you cannot, I
would send you home for some more study time or, preferably, serious
ground school.

As to "zero zero" take offs, that is begging the question. That is not
authorized by any FAR, it just isn't prohibited for Part 91 operations,
because there are no takeoff minimums for Part 91 only.

On Mar 12, 5:55*pm, Mark Hansen > wrote:
> On 3/12/2010 3:35 PM, wrote:
>
> > On Mar 12, 5:21 pm, Mark Hansen > wrote:
>
> >> That's just simply not true. You say your willing to learn. Just read
> >> the regulations already.
>
> > Thats your opinion Mark.
>
> What's my opinion?

READ what you said above. You said above that I am not willing to
learn. That is your opinion which sadly is wrong.

Now that it's been brought out I can descend below MDA before MAP,
fine and dandy, I have only stated what I was taught no matter how
incorrect it may have been. I was taught dive and drive to MDA and no
lower until missed.

I don't intend to start descending below MDA before MAP now just
because YOU and others say FARS says it's perfectly ok.. See my
response to Sam.

MDA at my airport KMBO is just above 500 AGL. I am not going to do a
circle to land below MDA before MAP even if I have the airport in
sight clear from the VOR.

On Mar 12, 6:48*pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
> wrote:

> Further, if you insist on remaining at MDA until the MAP at a busy Class
> D airport, the tower will get ****ed off to say the least, if other
> aircraft have the required visual references to leave MDA in accordance
> with the provisions of 91.175 so as to land straight in.

They can get ****ed all they want Sam. I am PIC, not the
tower.......

On Mar 12, 6:43*pm, Robert Moore > wrote:

> That's because your instructor was "teaching the checkride"and on most
> check rides, you always go-missed and are never allowed to land. In real
> life your goal is to land---Right?

And probably is where the problem of confusion ON ME. Since I am
based at an uncontrolled airport KMBO, Every practice approach was
done with missed so it was ingrained never go below MDA until the
MAP.

On my checkride, with the equipment I had at the time, I was only good
for ILS, LOC and DME type approaches (I didn't have ADF or GPS)

When I was taught LOC approaches at KHKS, I was told to go to MDA and
drive it in at 760 until I saw the airport which he had me pop the
hood at the MAP which happens to be at the middle marker.

> Either you or your instructor have (had) a serious teaching or
> understanding problem. Not knowing either of you, I can't really say
> where the problem is, but the two of you really need to get together
> and work-out this misunderstanding.

Unfortunately even if I wanted to, he has gone on to the airlines..

Like I told Sam and Mark, while it's good to know I can indeed descend
below MDA before MAP, I am not going to. Especially at my airport
where it's a circle to land and I just don't feel safe having to make
turns 300 feet AGL to land.

On Mar 12, 1:42*pm, Sam Spade > wrote:

> > This is what I was taught for what it's worth.
>
> Not worth much, sadly.

Sadly to you but worthy enough for me. I haven't hit anything below
me by being taught to err on the side of being higher have I?

I still get in on minimums with my method, so call what you want Sam,
but real world works for me. And altitude is my friend in the full
scheme of things.

On Mar 12, 7:03*pm, " > wrote:
> On Mar 12, 6:43*pm, Robert Moore > wrote:
>
> > That's because your instructor was "teaching the checkride"and on most
> > check rides, you always go-missed and are never allowed to land. In real
> > life your goal is to land---Right?
>
> And probably is where the problem of confusion ON ME. *Since I am
> based at an uncontrolled airport KMBO, Every practice approach was
> done with missed so it was ingrained never go below MDA until the
> MAP.
>
> On my checkride, with the equipment I had at the time, I was only good
> for ILS, LOC and DME type approaches (I didn't have ADF or GPS)
>
> When I was taught LOC approaches at KHKS, I was told to go to MDA and
> drive it in at 760 until I saw the airport which he had me pop the
> hood at the MAP which happens to be at the middle marker.
>
> > Either you or your instructor have (had) a serious teaching or
> > understanding problem. Not knowing either of you, I can't really say
> > where the problem is, but the two of you really need to get together
> > and work-out this misunderstanding.
>
> Unfortunately even if I wanted to, he has gone on to the airlines..
>
> Like I told Sam and Mark, while it's good to know I can indeed descend
> below MDA before MAP, I am not going to. *Especially at my airport
> where it's a circle to land and I just don't feel safe having to make
> turns 300 feet AGL to land.

Should add for clarity before Mark and Sam get on their high horse, so
we didn't bog down KJAN traffic, we used my VFR GPS in lieu of an ADF
to work around the ADF required to identify BRENZ so I could get ILS
and LOC experience.

On my checkride, I did my approaches at KJAN (ILS, BC before
decommissioning and LOC) since I didn't have ADF to legally conduct
approaches at KHKS.

On 3/12/2010 4:49 PM, wrote:
> I don't intend to start descending below MDA before MAP now just
> because YOU and others say FARS says it's perfectly ok.. See my
> response to Sam.

You don't *have* to descend before reaching MAP. Your statement that
it was not allowed was wrong.

On Mar 12, 7:22*pm, Mark Hansen > wrote:
> On 3/12/2010 4:49 PM, wrote:
>
> > I don't intend to start descending below MDA before MAP now just
> > because YOU and others say FARS says it's perfectly ok.. *See my
> > response to Sam.
>
> You don't *have* to descend before reaching MAP. Your statement that
> it was not allowed was wrong.

My exact words "I was told" I never said it was not allowed. Could
you please point me to where I said it wasn't allowed? Big difference
and I will be the first to apologize if I said it wasn't allowed..

Below the dashed lines is my response to Bob. I am only as good as
what I am told......

Who am I to question an instructor on what I am told UNTIL discussions
of this nature come up.

Like I said I am all for learning.
================
I was also told for checkride that I couldn't go below MDA
before MAP or it's a bust. (VOR alpha at KMBO is my most common non
precision approach) so that stuck out in my mind.

wrote:
> On Mar 12, 6:48 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
wrote:
>
>
>>Further, if you insist on remaining at MDA until the MAP at a busy Class
>>D airport, the tower will get ****ed off to say the least, if other
>>aircraft have the required visual references to leave MDA in accordance
>>with the provisions of 91.175 so as to land straight in.
>
>
> They can get ****ed all they want Sam. I am PIC, not the
> tower.......

True, but in the context of a presumption of competency and in a
cooperative spirit.

On 3/12/2010 5:32 PM, wrote:
> On Mar 12, 7:22 pm, Mark Hansen > wrote:
>> On 3/12/2010 4:49 PM, wrote:
>>
>> > I don't intend to start descending below MDA before MAP now just
>> > because YOU and others say FARS says it's perfectly ok.. See my
>> > response to Sam.
>>
>> You don't *have* to descend before reaching MAP. Your statement that
>> it was not allowed was wrong.
>
> My exact words "I was told" I never said it was not allowed. Could
> you please point me to where I said it wasn't allowed? Big difference
> and I will be the first to apologize if I said it wasn't allowed..

Sure, how about this one:

> DME determines when you can go below MDA which would be at MAP not 3
> minutes 12 seconds.
>

However, as long as you realize that it's your choice and not a requirement,
then we're in agreement.

Best Regards,

A Lieberman wrote:

> On Mar 12, 7:03 pm, " > wrote:
>
>>On Mar 12, 6:43 pm, Robert Moore > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>That's because your instructor was "teaching the checkride"and on most
>>>check rides, you always go-missed and are never allowed to land. In real
>>>life your goal is to land---Right?
>>
>>And probably is where the problem of confusion ON ME. Since I am
>>based at an uncontrolled airport KMBO, Every practice approach was
>>done with missed so it was ingrained never go below MDA until the
>>MAP.
>>
>>On my checkride, with the equipment I had at the time, I was only good
>>for ILS, LOC and DME type approaches (I didn't have ADF or GPS)
>>
>>When I was taught LOC approaches at KHKS, I was told to go to MDA and
>>drive it in at 760 until I saw the airport which he had me pop the
>>hood at the MAP which happens to be at the middle marker.
>>
>>
>>>Either you or your instructor have (had) a serious teaching or
>>>understanding problem. Not knowing either of you, I can't really say
>>>where the problem is, but the two of you really need to get together
>>>and work-out this misunderstanding.
>>
>>Unfortunately even if I wanted to, he has gone on to the airlines..
>>
>>Like I told Sam and Mark, while it's good to know I can indeed descend
>>below MDA before MAP, I am not going to. Especially at my airport
>>where it's a circle to land and I just don't feel safe having to make
>>turns 300 feet AGL to land.
>
>
> Should add for clarity before Mark and Sam get on their high horse, so
> we didn't bog down KJAN traffic, we used my VFR GPS in lieu of an ADF
> to work around the ADF required to identify BRENZ so I could get ILS
> and LOC experience.
>
> On my checkride, I did my approaches at KJAN (ILS, BC before
> decommissioning and LOC) since I didn't have ADF to legally conduct
> approaches at KHKS.

High horse? Help me out on that one.

On Mar 12, 8:06*pm, Sam Spade > wrote:

> > Should add for clarity before Mark and Sam get on their high horse, so
> > we didn't bog down KJAN traffic, we used my VFR GPS in lieu of an ADF
> > to work around the ADF required to identify BRENZ so I could get ILS
> > and LOC experience.
>
> > On my checkride, I did my approaches at KJAN (ILS, BC before
> > decommissioning and LOC) since I didn't *have ADF to legally conduct
> > approaches at KHKS.
>
> High horse? *Help me out on that one.

If you would have read the above Sam BEFORE my clarification, AND look
at the HKS approach plate it would be very clear I wasn't legal for
the approach which I am sure you would have deftly pointed out had I
not added the clarification since you are just too smart for this
common pilot that post boring videos.

It's your attitude I don't like but it's not like you even care or
need to care.

On Mar 12, 8:05*pm, Mark Hansen > wrote:

> > DME determines when you can go below MDA which would be at MAP not 3
> > minutes 12 seconds.
>
> However, as long as you realize that it's your choice and not a requirement,
> then we're in agreement.

Oh we were in agreement once the FARS was pointed out. Thanks and my
apologies!!!!

Only solace I can say is the above was based on information from what
I was told and as has been pointed out, is incorrect.

I think in a nutshell, Bob nailed it, I was taught checkride scenarios
which does not necessarily reflect real world scenarios which goes to
show you that simple misunderstandings can be accounted for.

And my checkride was 8 years ago!

On Mar 12, 8:15*pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
> wrote:

> If you want to indeed circle to land (assuming a CAT A airplane) you
> indeed do not want to leave 840 until *after* the MAP if you want to
> land on 35. *But, if you want to land on 17 and have that runway in
> sight a mile or two prior to the airport, why would you remain at 840
> instead of leaving 840 in order to make a normal descent for landing on 17?

I have to cross mid field, downwind base and final. 500 AGL is close
enough to terra firma for me.

One of my boring videos will show you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFR8zmSpIgE

Start at 4:40 and if this doesn't make it clear, I don't know what
will.

On Mar 12, 8:31*pm, " > wrote:
> On Mar 12, 8:15*pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
> > wrote:
> > If you want to indeed circle to land (assuming a CAT A airplane) you
> > indeed do not want to leave 840 until *after* the MAP if you want to
> > land on 35. *But, if you want to land on 17 and have that runway in
> > sight a mile or two prior to the airport, why would you remain at 840
> > instead of leaving 840 in order to make a normal descent for landing on 17?
>
> I have to cross mid field, downwind base and final. *500 AGL is close
> enough to terra firma for me.
>
> One of my boring videos will show you.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFR8zmSpIgE
>
> Start at 4:40 and if this doesn't make it clear, I don't know what
> will.

Just in case Sam you are interested on landing on the 35 end at
minimums and why I hold MDA for my circle to land see
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjPOrMBrQ40

What the video shows real well is that west and south of the field,
the clouds were significantly lower then the north end of the field.
So I had to turn final much sooner so I didn't lose sight of the
field, hence a longer landing. I always have the option of slipping
to dump altitude which in this case I didn't need to do.

Watching both videos in it's entirety will give you insight on how I
run my shop during an approach and as always I do encourage input to
make me a better pilot.

wrote:
> On Mar 12, 8:06 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>
>>>Should add for clarity before Mark and Sam get on their high horse, so
>>>we didn't bog down KJAN traffic, we used my VFR GPS in lieu of an ADF
>>>to work around the ADF required to identify BRENZ so I could get ILS
>>>and LOC experience.
>>
>>>On my checkride, I did my approaches at KJAN (ILS, BC before
>>>decommissioning and LOC) since I didn't have ADF to legally conduct
>>>approaches at KHKS.
>>
>>High horse? Help me out on that one.
>
>
> If you would have read the above Sam BEFORE my clarification, AND look
> at the HKS approach plate it would be very clear I wasn't legal for
> the approach which I am sure you would have deftly pointed out had I
> not added the clarification since you are just too smart for this
> common pilot that post boring videos.
>
> It's your attitude I don't like but it's not like you even care or
> need to care.

I care as much about your view of my attitude as your concern for
control tower operations.

wrote:

> On Mar 12, 8:15 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
wrote:
>
>
>>If you want to indeed circle to land (assuming a CAT A airplane) you
>>indeed do not want to leave 840 until *after* the MAP if you want to
>>land on 35. But, if you want to land on 17 and have that runway in
>>sight a mile or two prior to the airport, why would you remain at 840
>>instead of leaving 840 in order to make a normal descent for landing on 17?
>
>
> I have to cross mid field, downwind base and final. 500 AGL is close
> enough to terra firma for me.
>
> One of my boring videos will show you.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFR8zmSpIgE
>
> Start at 4:40 and if this doesn't make it clear, I don't know what
> will.

Repeating myself: if you have 17 in sight a mile or two prior to the
MDA why would you not align yourself with the runway and descend
straight ahead in a normal descent for landing?

On Mar 13, 7:15*am, Sam Spade > wrote:
> wrote:

> Repeating myself: *if you have 17 in sight a mile or two prior to the
> MDA why would you not align yourself with the runway and descend
> straight ahead in a normal descent for landing?

Ummm it doesn't line up with the 137 radial should for some reason I
do have to go missed, deer on the runway, departing plane not
necessarily under ATC control. Do you even fly at uncontrolled
airports? I wonder if you ask a question of this nature.

Nor what you suggest is a standard entry into an uncontrolled airport
per AIM.

On Mar 13, 7:13*am, Sam Spade > wrote:
> wrote:

> I care as much about your view of my attitude as your concern for
> control tower operations.

Doesn't surprise me, you know it all, I just fly in the system and
regularity stay current so just like Mx, you speak without foundation
about "my concerns"......

Show me where I have made any safety errors with regards to control
tower operations. YOU CAN'T.

ATC's job is separation, my job is flying the plane. If you consider
my safety parameters of holding MDA altitude to missed bad for control
tower operations, they you have the problem not me, NOT ATC either..
Why I say this about ATC? ATC does not have a problem with what I do
holding MDA altitude to the MAP at several D class airports of the
likes of KNEW, KTUP, KHKS, KOWB, and the list goes on. I haven't
received instructions to call the tower after landing because of my
technique so there must be merit on what I say.

BUT THIS IS OK as I take your opinion for what it's worth. You
APPARENTLY sit behind a keyboard like Mx, make judgment. I am in a
plane.

At the end of the flight, I am the one that has to land, not you so I
am comfortable with my process. Again, while nice to know I can
descend below MDA before MAP thanks to Mark and Bob getting me up to
speed, my safety parameters will continue to err on the side of the
thought process altitude is my friend. My way still REASONABLY (not
guarantee) assures me gliding distance to the runway should the fan
quit.

You are sadly mistaken if you think that I don't work with or not
concerned about ATC operations. Don't believe me, watch my boring
videos as you call it. I have more then plenty to show that I
willingly accommodate to ATC requests outside of my normal operating
parameters but within my safety parameters.

Perfect I am not Sam, don't profess to be and never will be as long as
I am on the top side of where the green grass grows. I even got a
video where I made a mistake, thought I was cleared for an approach
and posted it so others can learn. But apparently you are too good to
watch my videos.

wrote:
> On Mar 13, 7:15 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
wrote:
>
>
>>Repeating myself: if you have 17 in sight a mile or two prior to the
>>MDA why would you not align yourself with the runway and descend
>>straight ahead in a normal descent for landing?
>
>
> Ummm it doesn't line up with the 137 radial should for some reason I
> do have to go missed, deer on the runway, departing plane not
> necessarily under ATC control. Do you even fly at uncontrolled
> airports? I wonder if you ask a question of this nature.
>
> Nor what you suggest is a standard entry into an uncontrolled airport
> per AIM.

This is actually getting funny.

Okay, at an uncontrolled airport like KMBO you certainly have the
election to hold MDA until the MAP, then (using Runway 17) turn
downwind, base, and final. And, as you roll out on final and descend
below 840 (514) the runway is now immune from a deer running out on it,
or an airplane taking the runway without a CTAF announcement?

To save a message slot about holding MDA at airports with operating
control towers. Have you ever read this in the AIM?

c. Straight-in Minimums are shown on the IAP when the final approach
course is within 30 degrees of the runway alignment (15 degrees for GPS
IAPs) and a normal descent can be made from the IFR altitude shown on
the IAP to the runway surface. When either the normal rate of descent or
the runway alignment factor of 30 degrees (15 degrees for GPS IAPs) is
exceeded, a straight-in minimum is not published and a circling minimum
applies. The fact that a straight-in minimum is not published does not
preclude pilots from landing straight-in if they have the active runway
in sight and have sufficient time to make a normal approach for landing.
Under such conditions and when ATC has cleared them for landing on that
runway, pilots are not expected to circle even though only circling
minimums are published. If they desire to circle, they should advise ATC.

On Mar 13, 8:30*am, Sam Spade > wrote:

> Okay, at an uncontrolled airport like KMBO you certainly have the
> election to hold MDA until the MAP, then (using Runway 17) turn
> downwind, base, and final. *

You are right Sam, it's amusing. Talk to me when you get in the real
world of flying. You want to enter the pattern non standard, great,
knock your socks off. Flying the plane doesn't stop at MAP or when
you go visual. I fly based on what I deem safe AND within the ATC
parameters given to me.. If ATC gives me something I deem unsafe, I
won't hesitate to use the word unable.

Apparently I don't have the book smarts, but I believe I do have the
street smarts to make it in the instrument world. I think I have
proven this through my videos. That's all I need..............

Carry on in your book world Sam, I'd rather spend the time in a plane
staying current then waste my time on you nit picking over something
like what to do on an approach when I am conducting the approach
within legal and MOST IMPORTANTLY safe guidelines :-)

Other then learning from Bob and Mark that I indeed was misinformed
about not being able to descend below MDA before missed, what have you
provided for me? I honestly can't think of a thing.

On Mar 13, 8:30*am, Sam Spade > wrote:
> wrote:

>The fact that a straight-in minimum is not published does not
> preclude pilots from landing straight-in if they have the active runway
> in sight and have sufficient time to make a normal approach for landing.
> Under such conditions and when ATC has cleared them for landing on that
> runway, pilots are not expected to circle even though only circling
> minimums are published. If they desire to circle, they should advise ATC.

Oh yean, one other thing. The above does NOT apply to KMBO. I will
NEVER get cleared to land at KMBO. But of course you don't apparently
fly in the real world to understand this.

After all, if the winds were blowing out of the north, I wouldn't
request the GPS 17 would I?

wrote:
> On Mar 13, 8:30 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>
>>Okay, at an uncontrolled airport like KMBO you certainly have the
>>election to hold MDA until the MAP, then (using Runway 17) turn
>>downwind, base, and final.
>
>
> You are right Sam, it's amusing. Talk to me when you get in the real
> world of flying. You want to enter the pattern non standard, great,
> knock your socks off. Flying the plane doesn't stop at MAP or when
> you go visual. I fly based on what I deem safe AND within the ATC
> parameters given to me.. If ATC gives me something I deem unsafe, I
> won't hesitate to use the word unable.
>
> Apparently I don't have the book smarts, but I believe I do have the
> street smarts to make it in the instrument world. I think I have
> proven this through my videos. That's all I need..............
>
> Carry on in your book world Sam, I'd rather spend the time in a plane
> staying current then waste my time on you nit picking over something
> like what to do on an approach when I am conducting the approach
> within legal and MOST IMPORTANTLY safe guidelines :-)
>
> Other then learning from Bob and Mark that I indeed was misinformed
> about not being able to descend below MDA before missed, what have you
> provided for me? I honestly can't think of a thing.

I provided you with a chart from North Dakota of a procedure you
asserted did not exist.

wrote:

> On Mar 13, 8:30 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
wrote:
>
>
>>The fact that a straight-in minimum is not published does not
>>preclude pilots from landing straight-in if they have the active runway
>>in sight and have sufficient time to make a normal approach for landing.
>>Under such conditions and when ATC has cleared them for landing on that
>>runway, pilots are not expected to circle even though only circling
>>minimums are published. If they desire to circle, they should advise ATC.
>
>
> Oh yean, one other thing. The above does NOT apply to KMBO. I will
> NEVER get cleared to land at KMBO. But of course you don't apparently
> fly in the real world to understand this.
>
> After all, if the winds were blowing out of the north, I wouldn't
> request the GPS 17 would I?

Oh, KMBO doesn't have a control tower?

On Mar 13, 9:25*am, Sam Spade > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Mar 13, 8:30 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
> wrote:
>
> >>The fact that a straight-in minimum is not published does not
> >>preclude pilots from landing straight-in if they have the active runway
> >>in sight and have sufficient time to make a normal approach for landing..
> >>Under such conditions and when ATC has cleared them for landing on that
> >>runway, pilots are not expected to circle even though only circling
> >>minimums are published. If they desire to circle, they should advise ATC.
>
> > Oh yean, one other thing. *The above does NOT apply to KMBO. *I will
> > NEVER get cleared to land at KMBO. *But of course you don't apparently
> > fly in the real world to understand this.
>
> > After all, if the winds were blowing out of the north, I wouldn't
> > request the GPS 17 would I?
>
> Oh, KMBO doesn't have a control tower?

NOPE. You would know this if you looked on the approach plate.

On Mar 13, 9:24*am, Sam Spade > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Mar 13, 8:30 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
> >>Okay, at an uncontrolled airport like KMBO you certainly have the
> >>election to hold MDA until the MAP, then (using Runway 17) turn
> >>downwind, base, and final. *
>
> > You are right Sam, it's amusing. *Talk to me when you get in the real
> > world of flying. *You want to enter the pattern non standard, great,
> > knock your socks off. *Flying the plane doesn't stop at MAP or when
> > you go visual. *I fly based on what I deem safe AND within the ATC
> > parameters given to me.. *If ATC gives me something I deem unsafe, I
> > won't hesitate to use the word unable.
>
> > Apparently I don't have the book smarts, but I believe I do have the
> > street smarts to make it in the instrument world. *I think I have
> > proven this through my videos. *That's all I need..............
>
> > Carry on in your book world Sam, I'd rather spend the time in a plane
> > staying current then waste my time on you nit picking over something
> > like what to do on an approach when I am conducting the approach
> > within legal and MOST IMPORTANTLY safe guidelines :-)
>
> > Other then learning from Bob and Mark that I indeed was misinformed
> > about not being able to descend below MDA before missed, what have you
> > provided for me? *I honestly can't think of a thing.
>
> I provided you with a chart from North Dakota of a procedure you
> asserted did not exist.

So did Bob and his came through first.

wrote:

> On Mar 12, 1:42 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>
>>>This is what I was taught for what it's worth.
>>
>>Not worth much, sadly.
>
>
> Sadly to you but worthy enough for me. I haven't hit anything below
> me by being taught to err on the side of being higher have I?
>
> I still get in on minimums with my method, so call what you want Sam,
> but real world works for me. And altitude is my friend in the full
> scheme of things.
>

You're right. I have trouble relating to hobby pilots who get
instrument ratings yet don't want to learn all the rules. Hobby flying
is fine until it gets to instrument flying.

Then again, I flew for a living, and my employer expected me to burn as
little fuel as possible, and arrive on time, while doing it all safey
and professionally.

On Mar 13, 9:29*am, Sam Spade > wrote:
> wrote:

> Then again, I flew for a living, and my employer expected me to burn as
> little fuel as possible, and arrive on time, while doing it all safey
> and professionally.

So again I ask of you, what am I doing UNSAFE? Where in my videos do
I lack professionalism.

I even have posted my videos to get input to up the anti of my game
flying in the instrument world and been very clear about soliciting
constructive feedback. What have you provided other then to say the
videos are boring.

I am all ears for safety.

For what it is worth, I am instrument rated, and current, and I am with Sam
on this one. You are indeed expected to know what your ground speed is on
final, within a reasonable margin of error, and the timing table (or your
own time/speed calculation) is the correct way to determine the MAP. There
are plenty of LOC approaches without DME, and not that many that actually
require it. The minimums applied here, along with the penalties for no
local altimeter etc are plenty conservative to make this a safe LOC
approach without DME. It could simply be a charting mistake.

If they really meant for DME to be required it would likely be in the name;
ILS or LOC/DME RWY 9.




In article
>,
says...
>
>

>> > But of course you do know that the timing table is based on GS. * What
>> > if your GS was 68 knots Sam?
>>
>> > DME is your ONLY source to ensure that you are at MAP along WITH
>> > timing. * If you want to descend below MDA based on time alone AND no
>> > DME, I sure wouldn't want to fly with you.
>>
>> Of course I do NOT know that. *The timing table is for the LOC MAP. *DA
>> is your MAP for the ILS.
>>
>> This newsgroup is so lacking in the fundamentals.
>
>You imply Sam that timing alone is how you determine the MAP. I say
>it's not.
>
>DME determines when you can go below MDA which would be at MAP not 3
>minutes 12 seconds.
>
>Be my guest on descending below MDA at 3:12 without DME Sam. I won't
>be in the plane with you as you come up short or even overshoot the
>MAP due to headwinds or tailwind considerations.

" > wrote in news:c81d3614-8898-4f3d-91d0-
:

> I was taught dive and drive to MDA and no
> lower until missed.
>

What if you are going into a short runway? A lot of non-precision approaches
have the MAP at the runway end. If you see the runway enviroment before the
MAP, wouldn't it be safer to descend below the MDA to make a normal landing,
rather than landing halfway down the runway? Depending on runway length and
aircraft type, it might not even be possible to land if you stay at MDA all
the way to the MAP.

Don't get me wrong. I don't know your aircraft or the runways you land at.
What you are doing is safe and legal; I just wanted to give an example of why
you might want to go below MDA in certain situations.

Gents,

Thanks for the responses. Sorry to have incited such an argument.

Sam, just curious, did you talk to FAA folks (friendlies, as you put
it)? Thanks for the info. Interesting. You're saying it's
misleading to show the 120R ADL versus just the CHS Radial and
Distance. I agree if that's what you're saying.

One of the big take-aways from this back-and-forth that surprised me
was that no one talked about Visual Descent Points (VDPs), charted or
otherwise. The point of a VDP is to indicate to the pilot when they
are at a safe distance from the MAP at which point they can leave MDA
(assuming they meet the requirements for leaving MDA). In lieu of a
charted VDPs, make your own using the rule of 300 ft/nm descent rate.
So if your MDA takes you to 600 AGL, leave MDA 2.0NM before the runway
(again, assuming you're in a position to land and meet the reqs of
descending below MDA). I believe in part it's to keep a/c from
descending into the ground after the "DIVE/DRIVE" method and they
break out way before MAP (especially at night).

Airlines have redone a lot of their tactics on non-precision
approaches, and the whole dive/drive method is somewhat outdated.
It's preferred to have a fairly constant descent to MAP, just like an
ILS approach or LPV. Getting down to MDA early can be dangerous if
you have to drive for some distance before it's safe to descend to the
runway.

Anyway, thanks for the videos. It's good to see actual footage when
most of the time I'm stuck inside thinking about flying.

Last point. And I know the approach name doesn't call out ILS/DME,
but what the heck do I do if I go missed and have to fess up that I
don't have DME. I would imagine the FAA could come after me (in
theory) since it's required per the procedural note.

Thanks,
Padraig

On Mar 12, 3:46*pm, Sam Spade > wrote:

> I got an answer from the friendlies. *The ALD radial is restricted below
> 6,000, thus DME is mandatory for BASSO. *I pointed out that charting the
> ALD R-120 as part of the fix composition on the approach chart is
> misleading.

Padraig > wrote
> The point of a VDP is to indicate to the pilot when they
> are at a safe distance from the MAP at which point they can leave MDA
> (assuming they meet the requirements for leaving MDA).

Nope!! As I pointed out to Atlieb, MDA has nothing to do with the MAP, the
VDP has nothing to do with the MAP except that it must be outside the MAP.

The following is the U.S. FAA's official definition of VDP:

"A defined point on the final approach course of a nonprecision straight-in
approach procedure from which normal descent from the MDA to the runway
touchdown point may be commenced, provided the approach threshold of that
runway, or approach lights, or other markings identifiable with the
approach end of that runway are clearly visible to the pilot."

Bob Moore

wrote:

> On Mar 13, 9:25 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>>On Mar 13, 8:30 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>>
wrote:
>>
>>>>The fact that a straight-in minimum is not published does not
>>>>preclude pilots from landing straight-in if they have the active runway
>>>>in sight and have sufficient time to make a normal approach for landing.
>>>>Under such conditions and when ATC has cleared them for landing on that
>>>>runway, pilots are not expected to circle even though only circling
>>>>minimums are published. If they desire to circle, they should advise ATC.
>>
>>>Oh yean, one other thing. The above does NOT apply to KMBO. I will
>>>NEVER get cleared to land at KMBO. But of course you don't apparently
>>>fly in the real world to understand this.
>>
>>>After all, if the winds were blowing out of the north, I wouldn't
>>>request the GPS 17 would I?
>>
>>Oh, KMBO doesn't have a control tower?
>
>
> NOPE. You would know this if you looked on the approach plate.

You apparently don't get sarcasm when you see it.

VOR-DME wrote:

> For what it is worth, I am instrument rated, and current, and I am with Sam
> on this one. You are indeed expected to know what your ground speed is on
> final, within a reasonable margin of error, and the timing table (or your
> own time/speed calculation) is the correct way to determine the MAP. There
> are plenty of LOC approaches without DME, and not that many that actually
> require it. The minimums applied here, along with the penalties for no
> local altimeter etc are plenty conservative to make this a safe LOC
> approach without DME. It could simply be a charting mistake.
>
> If they really meant for DME to be required it would likely be in the name;
> ILS or LOC/DME RWY 9.
>
No, that is not correct. Several years ago the naming convention was
changed to include DME in the title only when it is required for the
final approach segment. If it is required for the intermediate segment,
or all of initial approach segments (if there is more than one) or the
missed approach segment, it will be a note.

In the case of the procedure that started this thread, DME is required
for the missed approach holding fix, because the crossing radial does
not pass flight inspection below 6,000. The crossing radial should not
be shown in that case, but the procedures staff keeps it on there hoping
that maintenance will eventually get it fixed so they remove the DME
note. Yes, convoluted and confusing.

Padraig wrote:

> Gents,
>
> Thanks for the responses. Sorry to have incited such an argument.
>
> Sam, just curious, did you talk to FAA folks (friendlies, as you put
> it)? Thanks for the info. Interesting. You're saying it's
> misleading to show the 120R ADL versus just the CHS Radial and
> Distance. I agree if that's what you're saying.

Yes, my work causes me to interface with AeroNav Services in OKC
(formerly the National Flight Procedures Office), which is the office
that designs and maintains instrument procedures. Anyone can review
pending procedures and contact them through their web site at:

http://naco.faa.gov/acifp.asp

The links to the left side of the page will lead to other information,
such as instrument procedures production plans.


>
> One of the big take-aways from this back-and-forth that surprised me
> was that no one talked about Visual Descent Points (VDPs), charted or
> otherwise. The point of a VDP is to indicate to the pilot when they
> are at a safe distance from the MAP at which point they can leave MDA
> (assuming they meet the requirements for leaving MDA). In lieu of a
> charted VDPs, make your own using the rule of 300 ft/nm descent rate.
> So if your MDA takes you to 600 AGL, leave MDA 2.0NM before the runway
> (again, assuming you're in a position to land and meet the reqs of
> descending below MDA). I believe in part it's to keep a/c from
> descending into the ground after the "DIVE/DRIVE" method and they
> break out way before MAP (especially at night).
>
> Airlines have redone a lot of their tactics on non-precision
> approaches, and the whole dive/drive method is somewhat outdated.
> It's preferred to have a fairly constant descent to MAP, just like an
> ILS approach or LPV. Getting down to MDA early can be dangerous if
> you have to drive for some distance before it's safe to descend to the
> runway.
>
> Anyway, thanks for the videos. It's good to see actual footage when
> most of the time I'm stuck inside thinking about flying.
>
> Last point. And I know the approach name doesn't call out ILS/DME,
> but what the heck do I do if I go missed and have to fess up that I
> don't have DME. I would imagine the FAA could come after me (in
> theory) since it's required per the procedural note.
>
> Thanks,
> Padraig
>
> On Mar 12, 3:46 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>
>>I got an answer from the friendlies. The ALD radial is restricted below
>>6,000, thus DME is mandatory for BASSO. I pointed out that charting the
>>ALD R-120 as part of the fix composition on the approach chart is
>>misleading.
>
>

Padraig wrote:

> One of the big take-aways from this back-and-forth that surprised me
> was that no one talked about Visual Descent Points (VDPs), charted or
> otherwise. The point of a VDP is to indicate to the pilot when they
> are at a safe distance from the MAP at which point they can leave MDA
> (assuming they meet the requirements for leaving MDA). In lieu of a
> charted VDPs, make your own using the rule of 300 ft/nm descent rate.
> So if your MDA takes you to 600 AGL, leave MDA 2.0NM before the runway
> (again, assuming you're in a position to land and meet the reqs of
> descending below MDA). I believe in part it's to keep a/c from
> descending into the ground after the "DIVE/DRIVE" method and they
> break out way before MAP (especially at night).

The VDP is invaluable when it is charted. But, many NPAs don't have
them because the charting requirements are rather stringent.

Of course, use of a VDP requires leaving MDA prior to the MAP. ;-)

Bob, sorry, substitute TDZ with MAP. My point is that generally a VDP
is measured from the end of the runway (beginning of TDZ) which is
often where the MAP is (on RNAV approaches).

Thanks.

On Mar 16, 9:20*am, Bob Moore > wrote:
> Padraig > wrote
>
> > *The point of a VDP is to indicate to the pilot when they
> > are at a safe distance from the MAP at which point they can leave MDA
> > (assuming they meet the requirements for leaving MDA).
>
> Nope!! As I pointed out to Atlieb, MDA has nothing to do with the MAP, the
> VDP has nothing to do with the MAP except that it must be outside the MAP..
>
> The following is the U.S. FAA's official definition of VDP:
>
> "A defined point on the final approach course of a nonprecision straight-in
> approach procedure from which normal descent from the MDA to the runway
> touchdown point may be commenced, provided the approach threshold of that
> runway, or approach lights, or other markings identifiable with the
> approach end of that runway are clearly visible to the pilot."
>
> Bob Moore

Padraig wrote:
> Bob, sorry, substitute TDZ with MAP. My point is that generally a VDP
> is measured from the end of the runway (beginning of TDZ) which is
> often where the MAP is (on RNAV approaches).

Not exactly correct:

(1) For runways served by a VGSI (regardless of coincidence with final
VDA) , using the VGSI TCH, establish the distance from RWT coordinates
to a point where the lowest published VGSI glidepath angle reaches the
appropriate MDA.

(2) For runways NOT served by a VGSI, using an appropriate TCH from Vol.
3, chapter 2, table 2-3, establish the distance from RWT coordinates to
a point where the greater of a three degree or the final segment VDA
reaches the appropriate MDA.

My point is that a VDP has a threshold crossing height (TCH) as do all
vertically guided IAPs.

As to the MAP being at the approach end of the runway (AER), that is
correct only for NPAs whether LNAV, VOR, NDB, or LOC/LDA. The NPA MAP
will be prior to the AER when obstacles in the missed approach segment
preclude siting it at the AER.

Vertically guided approaches (with a DA/DH) always have their MAP at DA/DH.

It would be nice to have a flight engineer figuring this out if I need
to make an approach.

Problem is, we sometimes need to determine where to let down from MDA
in relation to some known point. If we use the threshold (since we
generally have information on distance, i.e. MAP on RNAV approach), we
can use that as a VDP. If you use the 3 degree descent rate trick
(groundspeed x 10 / 2 = FPM), it's always going to err on the side of
being higher than you actually want to be since 300/ft per nm (what we
used for our VDP) is actually shallower, 2.8 degrees. So we'll arrive
at the threshold above our plan.

I guess the other thing, from a practical standpoint, is that we're
landing the aircraft visually. So we're not going to use our
predetermined descent rate/VDP point when we're flying the a/c over
the threshold at the TCH. We'll use the visual indications in the TDZ
(or VGSI) to get us on the ground.

In any case, the information you provide is good to know. Probably
more for design of an approach in the office, not practical
application in the cockpit. I would have to declare an emergency if I
had to do all of that math and fly at the same time!

PW

On Mar 18, 10:58*am, Sam Spade > wrote:
> Padraig wrote:
> > Bob, sorry, substitute TDZ with MAP. *My point is that generally a VDP
> > is measured from the end of the runway (beginning of TDZ) which is
> > often where the MAP is (on RNAV approaches).
>
> Not exactly correct:
>
> (1) For runways served by a VGSI (regardless of coincidence with final
> VDA) , using the VGSI TCH, establish the distance from RWT coordinates
> to a point where the lowest published VGSI glidepath angle reaches the
> appropriate MDA.
>
> (2) For runways NOT served by a VGSI, using an appropriate TCH from Vol.
> 3, chapter 2, table 2-3, establish the distance from RWT coordinates to
> a point where the greater of a three degree or the final segment VDA
> reaches the appropriate MDA.
>
> My point is that a VDP has a threshold crossing height (TCH) as do all
> vertically guided IAPs.
>
> As to the MAP being at the approach end of the runway (AER), that is
> correct only for NPAs whether LNAV, VOR, NDB, or LOC/LDA. *The NPA MAP
> will be prior to the AER when obstacles in the missed approach segment
> preclude siting it at the AER.
>
> Vertically guided approaches (with a DA/DH) always have their MAP at DA/DH.

What I cited is indeed for the approach designer. But, some of it good
"background" info for pilots.

Padraig wrote:
> It would be nice to have a flight engineer figuring this out if I need
> to make an approach.
>
> Problem is, we sometimes need to determine where to let down from MDA
> in relation to some known point. If we use the threshold (since we
> generally have information on distance, i.e. MAP on RNAV approach), we
> can use that as a VDP. If you use the 3 degree descent rate trick
> (groundspeed x 10 / 2 = FPM), it's always going to err on the side of
> being higher than you actually want to be since 300/ft per nm (what we
> used for our VDP) is actually shallower, 2.8 degrees. So we'll arrive
> at the threshold above our plan.
>
> I guess the other thing, from a practical standpoint, is that we're
> landing the aircraft visually. So we're not going to use our
> predetermined descent rate/VDP point when we're flying the a/c over
> the threshold at the TCH. We'll use the visual indications in the TDZ
> (or VGSI) to get us on the ground.
>
> In any case, the information you provide is good to know. Probably
> more for design of an approach in the office, not practical
> application in the cockpit. I would have to declare an emergency if I
> had to do all of that math and fly at the same time!
>
> PW
>
> On Mar 18, 10:58 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>>Padraig wrote:
>>
>>>Bob, sorry, substitute TDZ with MAP. My point is that generally a VDP
>>>is measured from the end of the runway (beginning of TDZ) which is
>>>often where the MAP is (on RNAV approaches).
>>
>>Not exactly correct:
>>
>>(1) For runways served by a VGSI (regardless of coincidence with final
>>VDA) , using the VGSI TCH, establish the distance from RWT coordinates
>>to a point where the lowest published VGSI glidepath angle reaches the
>>appropriate MDA.
>>
>>(2) For runways NOT served by a VGSI, using an appropriate TCH from Vol.
>>3, chapter 2, table 2-3, establish the distance from RWT coordinates to
>>a point where the greater of a three degree or the final segment VDA
>>reaches the appropriate MDA.
>>
>>My point is that a VDP has a threshold crossing height (TCH) as do all
>>vertically guided IAPs.
>>
>>As to the MAP being at the approach end of the runway (AER), that is
>>correct only for NPAs whether LNAV, VOR, NDB, or LOC/LDA. The NPA MAP
>>will be prior to the AER when obstacles in the missed approach segment
>>preclude siting it at the AER.
>>
>>Vertically guided approaches (with a DA/DH) always have their MAP at DA/DH.
>
>