I don't have my AIM here at work, and I'm on dial up, so I won't attempt to
download it, but I'm looking at the ILS 32 into KMQY Smyrna TN. It says ADF
REQUIRED which I understand is to identify the IAF which is the SWZ NDB not
associated with a marker beacon, inside the outer marker. This is the only
IAF charted, it is also the missed approach holding location.

My question is: In this situation is it legal to use a IFR Term Certified
GPS to substitute for an ADF.

Thanks
Jim

Jim Burns > wrote:

> My question is: In this situation is it legal to use a IFR Term Certified
> GPS to substitute for an ADF.

In the US, my understanding is yes, the GPS is legal to use as a substitute
in this case. See the AIM 1-1-19, subsection F (Use of GPS in lieu of ADF
and DME)


--
Peter













----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-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 =----

Yes. The only time you can't use it is to substitute for an ADF on an
NDB approach.





Jim Burns wrote:

> I don't have my AIM here at work, and I'm on dial up, so I won't attempt to
> download it, but I'm looking at the ILS 32 into KMQY Smyrna TN. It says ADF
> REQUIRED which I understand is to identify the IAF which is the SWZ NDB not
> associated with a marker beacon, inside the outer marker. This is the only
> IAF charted, it is also the missed approach holding location.
>
> My question is: In this situation is it legal to use a IFR Term Certified
> GPS to substitute for an ADF.
>
> Thanks
> Jim
>
>

> The only time you can't use [GPS] is to substitute for an ADF on an NDB approach.

Any idea why that is?

Jose
--
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Newps > wrote:

> Yes. The only time you can't use it is to substitute for an ADF on an
> NDB approach.

Unless there is a GPS overlay for the NDB approach?

OK, you're right. That wouldn't technically be considered substitution.

--
Peter













----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-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 =----

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > The only time you can't use [GPS] is to substitute for an ADF on an NDB
> > approach.
>
> Any idea why that is?
>
> Jose

Because the FAA has a bad case of recto-cranial inversion?

Thanks. Just got home and that was my interpretation of the AIM. As for
Jose's question, Newps answer concerns an NDB only approach, not a NDB GPS
overlay, and the reason being is that because in an NDB only approach you
must have the proper radios for the approach. If it only says NDB in the
approach title, you need an ADF receiver to fly the approach. You may
already know that, if so, sorry for beating it to death.

The AIM ref is:

(f) Charted requirements for ADF and or DME can be met using the GPS system,
except for use as the principal instrument approach navigation system.

Beyond that, one reason may be that a NDB only approach hasn't been blessed
by the FAA and converted to an NDB / GPS or an overlay.
Or, they may have a separate GPS approach. There are several near me that
they've not chosen to do an overlay, but instead created a separate GPS only
approach that aligns you better with the runway.

Other reasons I'll leave up to the rest of the group.

Jim

Jose wrote:

> > The only time you can't use [GPS] is to substitute for an ADF on an NDB approach.
>
> Any idea why that is?

Every NDB approach in the country was authorized as a GPS overlay approach when the
overlay program came into being. Since then, these authorizations have been withdrawn
for any particular runway end when a stand-alone RNAV (GPS) approach was published for
that runway end.

You cannot use GPS for any final approach segment that is not retreivable from the
database, and for good reason: no approach RAIM and no approach sensitivity.

It's stupid. I can fly an NDB approach with a GPS and it's an easy
thing to do.

Jose wrote:
>> The only time you can't use [GPS] is to substitute for an ADF on an
>> NDB approach.
>
>
> Any idea why that is?
>
> Jose

Peter R. wrote:

> Newps > wrote:
>
>
>>Yes. The only time you can't use it is to substitute for an ADF on an
>>NDB approach.
>
>
> Unless there is a GPS overlay for the NDB approach?
>
> OK, you're right. That wouldn't technically be considered substitution.

He didn't have an approach box.

Jim Burns wrote:

> Thanks. Just got home and that was my interpretation of the AIM. As for
> Jose's question, Newps answer concerns an NDB only approach, not a NDB GPS
> overlay, and the reason being is that because in an NDB only approach you
> must have the proper radios for the approach.

Which is baloney. My terminal/enroute GPS has the NDB in its database.
There's no reason I can't fly the NDB approach with my GPS. And I'll
fly it 100 times more accurately than anybody else with an ADF.

wrote:

>
> Jose wrote:
>
>
>>>The only time you can't use [GPS] is to substitute for an ADF on an NDB approach.
>>
>>Any idea why that is?
>
>
> Every NDB approach in the country was authorized as a GPS overlay approach when the
> overlay program came into being. Since then, these authorizations have been withdrawn
> for any particular runway end when a stand-alone RNAV (GPS) approach was published for
> that runway end.
>
> You cannot use GPS for any final approach segment that is not retreivable from the
> database, and for good reason: no approach RAIM and no approach sensitivity.

Yeah and that's crucial condisering we're substituting for an ADF.

Newps > wrote in
:

> Yeah and that's crucial condisering we're substituting for an ADF.

And all the precision implied by an NDB approach. Bureaucracy lives!

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

> Every NDB approach in the country was authorized as a GPS overlay approach when the
> overlay program came into being. Since then, these authorizations have been withdrawn
> for any particular runway end when a stand-alone RNAV (GPS) approach was published for
> that runway end.
>
> You cannot use GPS for any final approach segment that is not retreivable from the
> database, and for good reason: no approach RAIM and no approach sensitivity.

I can see that for GPS approaches, where you are relying on all the
gee-whiz stuff (sequencing and such), but when the GPS is substituting
for a dumb radio needle, the approach segment doesn't have to be
anywhere to give good course guidance (which is all the NDB does anyway,
and it can be argued how good it is).

I still don't see the safety issue which would prompt the FAA to balk at
this substitution.

Jose
--
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Newps wrote:

> Yeah and that's crucial condisering we're substituting for an ADF.

I guess that you mean that sarcastically. Without RAIM is is possible to have a sudden loss
of accuracy that would exceed the widths of an NDB final approach segment.

How likely? No more or less likely than having such a failure on a stand-alone RNAV IAP.

In any case, the criteria and conditions are set forth by Flight Standards, not me, not you,
and not ATC. ;-)

Jose wrote:

> > Every NDB approach in the country was authorized as a GPS overlay approach when the
> > overlay program came into being. Since then, these authorizations have been withdrawn
> > for any particular runway end when a stand-alone RNAV (GPS) approach was published for
> > that runway end.
> >
> > You cannot use GPS for any final approach segment that is not retreivable from the
> > database, and for good reason: no approach RAIM and no approach sensitivity.
>
> I can see that for GPS approaches, where you are relying on all the
> gee-whiz stuff (sequencing and such), but when the GPS is substituting
> for a dumb radio needle, the approach segment doesn't have to be
> anywhere to give good course guidance (which is all the NDB does anyway,
> and it can be argued how good it is).
>
> I still don't see the safety issue which would prompt the FAA to balk at
> this substitution.

I am not their advocate; just stating the facts as established by Flight Standards.

You might want to ask the man in charge, John McGraw, Director, Technical Programs Division,
Flight Standards Service, FAA, at their DC head-shed address.

wrote:

> Beyond stupid.
>
> I can use a cruddy old ADF receiver that was manufactured in the stone
> age and provides no distance information with a highly innacurate
> signal and questionable reliability, but the FAA won't "allow" the use
> of a certified GPS.
>
> My Garmin Street Map GPS beats an ADF hands down.
>

Your Garmin Street Map is just as accurate as a Garmin 500. It doesn't
have the integrity that 500 has, though.

Newps wrote:

> Jim Burns wrote:
>
> > Thanks. Just got home and that was my interpretation of the AIM. As for
> > Jose's question, Newps answer concerns an NDB only approach, not a NDB GPS
> > overlay, and the reason being is that because in an NDB only approach you
> > must have the proper radios for the approach.
>
> Which is baloney. My terminal/enroute GPS has the NDB in its database.
> There's no reason I can't fly the NDB approach with my GPS. And I'll
> fly it 100 times more accurately than anybody else with an ADF.

You guys should volunteer to represent AOPA at some of the industry meetings
that deal with all this stuff. Apparently, you guys are smarter than them
dim-witted AOPA technical reps.

In article >, > wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>
>> Beyond stupid.
>>
>> I can use a cruddy old ADF receiver that was manufactured in the stone
>> age and provides no distance information with a highly innacurate
>> signal and questionable reliability, but the FAA won't "allow" the use
>> of a certified GPS.
>>
>> My Garmin Street Map GPS beats an ADF hands down.
>>
>
>Your Garmin Street Map is just as accurate as a Garmin 500. It doesn't
>have the integrity that 500 has, though.

How much integrity does an ADF have? I'll take an non-RAIM-ified
purple line over "it's still beeping" any day.

> wrote:
> You guys should volunteer to represent AOPA at some of the industry meetings
> that deal with all this stuff. Apparently, you guys are smarter than them
> dim-witted AOPA technical reps.

I'm sure the AOPA guys are plenty smart about technical stuff.
They're also plenty smart about political stuff and know how to
conservive political capital so they can win the fights that are
winnable and worth winning.

I can sit here and accuse the FAA of having a bad case of
recto-cranial inversion when it comes to using GPS for NDB approaches
with no ill effect. It makes me feel good to say it, it may make you
feel good to read it, but in the end it doesn't change anything.

If the AOPA guys did that, they'd lose cred with the feds, and their
efforts on regulatory issues would suffer as a result. I'm not giving
AOPA $100 a year (or whatever it is) to beat up the FAA about silly
**** like which radio I'm allowed to use to fly an approach into
Podunk Municipal. I'm giving them the money to make sure I can still
fly at all.

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 10:26:27 -0800, wrote:

>I guess that you mean that sarcastically. Without RAIM is is possible to have a sudden loss
>of accuracy that would exceed the widths of an NDB final approach segment.


I think everybody is saying that the same loss of accuracy exists with
ADF receivers, especially the older ones, all the time.

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 10:29:29 -0800, wrote:

>
>
wrote:
>
>> Beyond stupid.
>>
>> I can use a cruddy old ADF receiver that was manufactured in the stone
>> age and provides no distance information with a highly innacurate
>> signal and questionable reliability, but the FAA won't "allow" the use
>> of a certified GPS.
>>
>> My Garmin Street Map GPS beats an ADF hands down.
>>
>
>Your Garmin Street Map is just as accurate as a Garmin 500. It doesn't
>have the integrity that 500 has, though.

I'm not comapring it to a 500.

I'm comparing it to an ADF receiver.

On 11 Feb 2005 13:41:05 -0500, (Roy Smith) wrote:

>How much integrity does an ADF have? I'll take an non-RAIM-ified
>purple line over "it's still beeping" any day.

Especially after you've flown a few NDB approaches and look down and
see the transmitter coming up below your right wing and see the needle
pointing left of the nose.

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 10:30:44 -0800, wrote:

>
>
>Newps wrote:
>
>> Jim Burns wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks. Just got home and that was my interpretation of the AIM. As for
>> > Jose's question, Newps answer concerns an NDB only approach, not a NDB GPS
>> > overlay, and the reason being is that because in an NDB only approach you
>> > must have the proper radios for the approach.
>>
>> Which is baloney. My terminal/enroute GPS has the NDB in its database.
>> There's no reason I can't fly the NDB approach with my GPS. And I'll
>> fly it 100 times more accurately than anybody else with an ADF.
>
>You guys should volunteer to represent AOPA at some of the industry meetings
>that deal with all this stuff. Apparently, you guys are smarter than them
>dim-witted AOPA technical reps.


Much smarter. Probably better-looking as well.

Roy Smith wrote:

>
> How much integrity does an ADF have? I'll take an non-RAIM-ified
> purple line over "it's still beeping" any day.

All that "proves" is that ADF, at least the way its used in light aircraft,
is no good.

OTOH, in Eastern Europe, where NDB approaches used to be the only way to get
into a lot of places, and the aircraft had RMIs and two ADF receivers, the
pilots got good results in lock-stepping the usual two NDBs.

This is something the USAF neither understood nor was equipped to do when
they took out Secretary Brown.

wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 10:29:29 -0800, wrote:
>
> >
> >
> wrote:
> >
> >> Beyond stupid.
> >>
> >> I can use a cruddy old ADF receiver that was manufactured in the stone
> >> age and provides no distance information with a highly innacurate
> >> signal and questionable reliability, but the FAA won't "allow" the use
> >> of a certified GPS.
> >>
> >> My Garmin Street Map GPS beats an ADF hands down.
> >>
> >
> >Your Garmin Street Map is just as accurate as a Garmin 500. It doesn't
> >have the integrity that 500 has, though.
>
> I'm not comapring it to a 500.
>
> I'm comparing it to an ADF receiver.

Well, I was comparing the two.

> wrote in message
...
> On 11 Feb 2005 13:41:05 -0500, (Roy Smith) wrote:
>
> >How much integrity does an ADF have? I'll take an non-RAIM-ified
> >purple line over "it's still beeping" any day.
>
> Especially after you've flown a few NDB approaches and look down and
> see the transmitter coming up below your right wing and see the needle
> pointing left of the nose.

A dyslexic NDB?

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

Y'All,
The ILS existed in 1930 much as it is today. But bureacratic rules required
zero-zero performance for government financing. It was not until weather
and operational conditions successfully killed more airmen than all combat
opereations that reason and logic allowed the military use of the ILS.

I am in the process of composing a technical paper that I hope will
give the 'new' FAA a jump start in a safety program that will break
all existing safety records in most major categories. More another time.
Gene Whitt

I think the reason you aren't supposed to do it is that for a stand-alone
NDB approach, the accuracy of the location of the NDB in the GPS database
has not been verified.

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jim Burns wrote:
>
>> Thanks. Just got home and that was my interpretation of the AIM. As for
>> Jose's question, Newps answer concerns an NDB only approach, not a NDB
>> GPS
>> overlay, and the reason being is that because in an NDB only approach you
>> must have the proper radios for the approach.
>
> Which is baloney. My terminal/enroute GPS has the NDB in its database.
> There's no reason I can't fly the NDB approach with my GPS. And I'll fly
> it 100 times more accurately than anybody else with an ADF.
>

Gene Whitt wrote:

>
>
> I am in the process of composing a technical paper that I hope will
> give the 'new' FAA a jump start in a safety program that will break
> all existing safety records in most major categories. More another time.
> Gene Whitt

Must be great to be the only person with such special insights.