Yet another GPS substitution question...

It's a given that you can't use GPS to shoot an approach labled "ADF
<blah>" unless it says "ADF or GPS <blah>", but how do the alternate
rules really work? The regs say that I have to have an approach that
I'm equipped for other than GPS at the alternate airport, like an ILS.
Am I correct in believing that if you need the GPS for DME, or to
identify missed approach holding points on the ILS, you still can't
use that as an alternate because the GPS is used in some way to
complete the approach?

Secondly, how about shooting this approach (VOR/DME 21 at Minuteman -
Stow, MA) - http://avn.faa.gov/d-tpp/0501/05764VD21.PDF . Assuming
that I'm shooting this as a primary approach (not my alternate), and
the aircraft doesn't have DME, what can I do with this approach?
Wouldn't I technically have to fly the approach with the HSI in VOR
mode (it doesn't say VOR or GPS, it says VOR/DME, and without an
overlay the GPS is only advisory)? But the DME is based off of the
MHT VOR. If I load the procedure into the GPS and go past the 'not a
gps approach, only advisory use' warning, now my distances are going
to be based on the waypoints the system loads up - EGORE, RW21, EGORE.
Since loading the approach for non-GPS or non-overlay approaches does
come up with the "advisory only" warning, how does it work to legally
use the GPS on this approach? It's not giving me DME from MHT, it's
not even giving me DME from EGORE, it's giving me DME to RW21, a
non-five-letter name waypoint (which should be coincident to the
threshold of the runway, and thus 25.1NM from MHT), but with the
"advisory only" warning, course guidance coming from the VOR, and the
distance references coming from something other than the DME origin
for the approach, how does this approach work? I'm sure I'm missing
something here, just curious what it is.

TIA.

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:29:41 GMT, wrote:

>On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 19:24:36 -0500, Peter Clark
> wrote:
>
>>Secondly, how about shooting this approach (VOR/DME 21 at Minuteman -
>>Stow, MA) - http://avn.faa.gov/d-tpp/0501/05764VD21.PDF . Assuming
>>that I'm shooting this as a primary approach (not my alternate), and
>>the aircraft doesn't have DME, what can I do with this approach?
>
>
>What difference does "alternate" make?
>
>When it comes to actually flying the approach, "alternate" is a
>meaningles term..

Since this approach is labeled as N/A as an alternate, and the first
question specifically dealt with alternate requirements, I was trying
to head off someone saying "But you can't use that as an alternate
anyway".....

> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 19:24:36 -0500, Peter Clark
> > wrote:
>
>>Secondly, how about shooting this approach (VOR/DME 21 at Minuteman -
>>Stow, MA) - http://avn.faa.gov/d-tpp/0501/05764VD21.PDF . Assuming
>>that I'm shooting this as a primary approach (not my alternate), and
>>the aircraft doesn't have DME, what can I do with this approach?
>
>
> What difference does "alternate" make?
>
> When it comes to actually flying the approach, "alternate" is a
> meaningles term..

Actually, I think Peter asked an interesting question. The AIM says:

(8) For TSO-C129/129A users, any required alternate airport must still have
an approved instrument approach procedure other than GPS that is anticipated
to be operational and available at the estimated time of arrival, and which
the aircraft is equipped to fly. If the non-GPS approaches on which the
pilot must rely require DME or ADF, the aircraft must be equipped with DME
or ADF avionics as appropriate.

This seems to say that substitution of GPS for DME or ADF is not authorized
for the purpose of determining whether an airport is suitable for filing as
an alternate.

Agreed, for actually flying the approach, it doesn't matter, but for filing,
it is interesting.

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 19:08:47 -0600, "Stan Prevost"
> wrote:

>
> wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 19:24:36 -0500, Peter Clark
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Secondly, how about shooting this approach (VOR/DME 21 at Minuteman -
>>>Stow, MA) - http://avn.faa.gov/d-tpp/0501/05764VD21.PDF . Assuming
>>>that I'm shooting this as a primary approach (not my alternate), and
>>>the aircraft doesn't have DME, what can I do with this approach?
>>
>>
>> What difference does "alternate" make?
>>
>> When it comes to actually flying the approach, "alternate" is a
>> meaningles term..
>
>Actually, I think Peter asked an interesting question. The AIM says:
>
>(8) For TSO-C129/129A users, any required alternate airport must still have
>an approved instrument approach procedure other than GPS that is anticipated
>to be operational and available at the estimated time of arrival, and which
>the aircraft is equipped to fly. If the non-GPS approaches on which the
>pilot must rely require DME or ADF, the aircraft must be equipped with DME
>or ADF avionics as appropriate.

Which is where I was coming up with my understanding for the answer to
question number 1 - since the missed approach holding point is a NDB,
even though the approach is an ILS, without an ADF onboard it
"require[s] DME or ADF" so you can't file there as an alternate.

Or, are we saying that as long as you can find an airport without
"Alternate minimums N/A" with a VOR approach which only uses
cross-radials to identify the step-downs and holding fix, go ahead and
file that airport for the alternate, and in the event that you have to
divert you can still shoot a GPS or other approach which requires the
use of the GPS when you get there? If so, what is the requirement to
have a non-GPS shootable alternate available really protecting
against? Lack of RAIM?

Stan Prevost wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 19:24:36 -0500, Peter Clark
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Secondly, how about shooting this approach (VOR/DME 21 at Minuteman -
>>>Stow, MA) - http://avn.faa.gov/d-tpp/0501/05764VD21.PDF . Assuming
>>>that I'm shooting this as a primary approach (not my alternate), and
>>>the aircraft doesn't have DME, what can I do with this approach?
>>
>>
>>What difference does "alternate" make?
>>
>>When it comes to actually flying the approach, "alternate" is a
>>meaningles term..
>
>
> Actually, I think Peter asked an interesting question. The AIM says:
>
> (8) For TSO-C129/129A users, any required alternate airport must still have
> an approved instrument approach procedure other than GPS that is anticipated
> to be operational and available at the estimated time of arrival, and which
> the aircraft is equipped to fly. If the non-GPS approaches on which the
> pilot must rely require DME or ADF, the aircraft must be equipped with DME
> or ADF avionics as appropriate.
>
> This seems to say that substitution of GPS for DME or ADF is not authorized
> for the purpose of determining whether an airport is suitable for filing as
> an alternate.

Yes, unless your GPS is WAAS capable, then this doesn't apply.

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 01:44:14 GMT, wrote:

>You are free to go anywhere (including your alternate) and fly any
>approach for which you have the appropriate equipment on board to fly
>that approach, regardless of what the requirements are to select the
>alternate before departure.

OK, then why have the requirements that prohibit GPS substitution when
picking an alternate for filing?

Getting out of the alternate rathole, any thoughts about the general
rules of GPS substitution, specifically applying them to the questions
I had on the Minuteman approach?

Thanks.

I haven't read all the posts, but I'll through this out there.....

Since it's not a GPS approach or even a GPS overlay on the VOR, you're not
flying to or sequencing to the waypoints on this VOR approach, you're flying
away from MHT, so that's what you need to measure useing DME or GPS.
I'd go Direct TO MHT, or make MHT the active waypoint, put the GPS in OBS
mode... tune in the 210 bearing from MHT into the GPS or your OBS so it drew
my outbound course and it would also measure my distance from MHT along that
course.... then I'd fly the VOR needle because it's a VOR approach and use
the GPS from MHT for dme.
Jim

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Stan Prevost wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 19:24:36 -0500, Peter Clark
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Secondly, how about shooting this approach (VOR/DME 21 at Minuteman -
>>>>Stow, MA) - http://avn.faa.gov/d-tpp/0501/05764VD21.PDF . Assuming
>>>>that I'm shooting this as a primary approach (not my alternate), and
>>>>the aircraft doesn't have DME, what can I do with this approach?
>>>
>>>
>>>What difference does "alternate" make?
>>>
>>>When it comes to actually flying the approach, "alternate" is a
>>>meaningles term..
>>
>>
>> Actually, I think Peter asked an interesting question. The AIM says:
>>
>> (8) For TSO-C129/129A users, any required alternate airport must still
>> have an approved instrument approach procedure other than GPS that is
>> anticipated to be operational and available at the estimated time of
>> arrival, and which the aircraft is equipped to fly. If the non-GPS
>> approaches on which the pilot must rely require DME or ADF, the aircraft
>> must be equipped with DME or ADF avionics as appropriate.
>>
>> This seems to say that substitution of GPS for DME or ADF is not
>> authorized for the purpose of determining whether an airport is suitable
>> for filing as an alternate.
>
> Yes, unless your GPS is WAAS capable, then this doesn't apply.
>

Yes, the AIM statement begins with reference to the non-WAAS TSO.

> I think I'd interpret "as appropriate" as meaning that the GPS
> essentially meets the definition of "DME or ADF avionics", since the
> rules say it can be substituted for such,

I do not concur, and believe such an interpretation is contrary to the
intent if the statement.

>(8) For TSO-C129/129A users, any required alternate airport must still
have
>an approved instrument approach procedure other than GPS that is
anticipated
>to be operational and available at the estimated time of arrival, and
which
>the aircraft is equipped to fly. If the non-GPS approaches on which
the
>pilot must rely require DME or ADF, the aircraft must be equipped with
DME
>or ADF avionics as appropriate.

I believe the last statement means what it says - that for purposes of
selecting a valid alternate, one must select an approach that can be
completed without reliance on GPS.

Michael

On 11 Feb 2005 11:23:14 -0800, "Michael"
> wrote:

>> I think I'd interpret "as appropriate" as meaning that the GPS
>> essentially meets the definition of "DME or ADF avionics", since the
>> rules say it can be substituted for such,
>
>I do not concur, and believe such an interpretation is contrary to the
>intent if the statement.
>
>>(8) For TSO-C129/129A users, any required alternate airport must still
>have
>>an approved instrument approach procedure other than GPS that is
>anticipated
>>to be operational and available at the estimated time of arrival, and
>which
>>the aircraft is equipped to fly. If the non-GPS approaches on which
>the
>>pilot must rely require DME or ADF, the aircraft must be equipped with
>DME
>>or ADF avionics as appropriate.
>
>I believe the last statement means what it says - that for purposes of
>selecting a valid alternate, one must select an approach that can be
>completed without reliance on GPS.
>
>Michael


"What it says" depends on how one interprets "as appropriate".

(a) Since it is "appropriate" to substitute GPS for DME and ADF on
non-GPS approaches, then it's acceptable as far as I am concerned.
Furthermore, (b) The aircraft is "equipped to fly" the non-GPS
approach.and (c) they'll never catch me anyway even if I'm wrong.

>OK, then why have the requirements that prohibit GPS substitution when

>picking an alternate for filing?

When you ask why, you are making the assumption that the FAA makes
rules for valid and comprehensible reasons. That's not an assumption
that is supported by the facts :)

Seriously, the logic, if you can call it that, is that GPS is an
unproven technology, and thus one should have a backup plan that does
not rely on it. The FAA would rather you rely on a 30-year-old ADF
receiver pointing at a WWII-era NDB transmitter.

>Getting out of the alternate rathole, any thoughts about the general
>rules of GPS substitution, specifically applying them to the questions

>I had on the Minuteman approach?

The rules are clear enough - any approved GPS may be substituted for
DME or ADF on any approach except that you may not use a GPS to fly an
NDB approach unless it is an approach-certified GPS being used to fly a
published overlay. Now those are rules. Your question regards
procedures.

As a Part-91 operator, you can pretty much use whatever procedures make
sense to you - if it's not prohibited, it's allowed.

In your particular case, the DME is used in conjunction with the VOR to
identify the IAF/FAF (EGORE, 210 rad 20.0 DME MHT) and the MAP (210 rad
25.1 DME MHT). If you like, you can configure the GPS to point to the
MHT VOR and read distance just as you would off the DME. That would be
fine. Or you can configure it to point to EGORE, and call the MAP at
5.1 from there. That would be fine. Or you can configure it to point
to the MAP, and call 5.1 from that the IAF/FAF. That would be fine.
Or you could write yourself a flight plan that would take you to the
IAF and then the MAP, so you could get a readout of distance counting
down to the IAF/FAF, and then the MAP. That would be fine. And if
someone has already done that for you (in this case the manufacturer
who provided the software for approach monitoring) and you're
comfortable that he did the job properly, that's fine too. Use
whatever procedure works for you.

The question become more interesting when GPS is substituted for ADF,
especially when the NDB is the missed approach holding point. One
option (if available) is to use the missed approach sequencing provided
by the GPS for the approach monitoring function (some will even depict
the hold and tell you which entry to use) but anything you care to do,
up to and including setting up the display to read out the bearng and
distance to the NDB and flying the hold off the numbers is acceptable.

If you would tell us more about what kind of equipment you have in the
cockpit, we might be able to make more intelligent suggestions about
what procedures would be optimal.

Michael

On 11 Feb 2005 11:49:43 -0800, "Michael"
> wrote:


>In your particular case, the DME is used in conjunction with the VOR to
>identify the IAF/FAF (EGORE, 210 rad 20.0 DME MHT) and the MAP (210 rad
>25.1 DME MHT). If you like, you can configure the GPS to point to the
>MHT VOR and read distance just as you would off the DME. That would be
>fine. Or you can configure it to point to EGORE, and call the MAP at
>5.1 from there. That would be fine. Or you can configure it to point
>to the MAP, and call 5.1 from that the IAF/FAF. That would be fine.
>Or you could write yourself a flight plan that would take you to the
>IAF and then the MAP, so you could get a readout of distance counting
>down to the IAF/FAF, and then the MAP. That would be fine. And if
>someone has already done that for you (in this case the manufacturer
>who provided the software for approach monitoring) and you're
>comfortable that he did the job properly, that's fine too. Use
>whatever procedure works for you.

Using the GPS to point at MHT and read DME like that I can understand.
The rest seems awfully like a GPS overlay to the VOR approach, but
this isn't a "VOR or GPS", it's a VOR/DME. Using named waypoints (and
then using the GPS to locate them) makes sense too, but in this case
the MAP isn't a named fix, it's a radial/DME. I guess I'm just making
this more complicated than it needs to be.....

>The question become more interesting when GPS is substituted for ADF,
>especially when the NDB is the missed approach holding point. One
>option (if available) is to use the missed approach sequencing provided
>by the GPS for the approach monitoring function (some will even depict
>the hold and tell you which entry to use) but anything you care to do,
>up to and including setting up the display to read out the bearng and
>distance to the NDB and flying the hold off the numbers is acceptable.
>
>If you would tell us more about what kind of equipment you have in the
>cockpit, we might be able to make more intelligent suggestions about
>what procedures would be optimal.

it's a pretty vanilla stack with an HSI, KLN94, MFD, and dual VOR.

> Using the GPS to point at MHT and read DME like that I can
understand.

If that's what it takes to make you feel comfortable, then go with it.

> The rest seems awfully like a GPS overlay to the VOR approach

Except it's not. You still have the VOR, not the GPS, driving your HSI
needle, right? That makes it a VOR (or, in this case, VOR/DME)
approach.

> Using named waypoints (and
> then using the GPS to locate them) makes sense too, but in this case

> the MAP isn't a named fix, it's a radial/DME.

So? You could, if you wished, enter it into the GPS and use it. Once
you accept that, is it really a stretch to say that you could also have
someone else enter it?

> I guess I'm just making this more complicated than it needs to
be.....

Well, what's happening is that you are confusing the sensor and the
presentation. There is no difference whatsoever in having the GPS give
a distance to MHT vs EGORE vs the MAP of the approach. All of those
waypoints were entered into the database by the manufacturer. You have
no compelling reason to trust one more than another, and the position
is calculated the same way always. It's just a question of how you
want the presentation done, and that's up to you.

Since the KLN94 provides sequencing for approach monitoring, there's
precious little reason not to use it - it gives you a line to follow on
the MFD and a convenient countdown to the next fix. I don't know if
putting the unit in OBS mode will draw a line corresponding to the
selected course on your map - if it will, there is little difference.
If not, that's a compelling reason to use the approach sequencing
instead.

Michael

> wrote in message ...
> On 11 Feb 2005 11:23:14 -0800, "Michael"
> > wrote:
>
>>> I think I'd interpret "as appropriate" as meaning that the GPS
>>> essentially meets the definition of "DME or ADF avionics", since the
>>> rules say it can be substituted for such,
>>
>>I do not concur, and believe such an interpretation is contrary to the
>>intent if the statement.
>>
>>>(8) For TSO-C129/129A users, any required alternate airport must still
>>have
>>>an approved instrument approach procedure other than GPS that is
>>anticipated
>>>to be operational and available at the estimated time of arrival, and
>>which
>>>the aircraft is equipped to fly. If the non-GPS approaches on which
>>the
>>>pilot must rely require DME or ADF, the aircraft must be equipped with
>>DME
>>>or ADF avionics as appropriate.
>>
>>I believe the last statement means what it says - that for purposes of
>>selecting a valid alternate, one must select an approach that can be
>>completed without reliance on GPS.
>>
>>Michael
>
>
> "What it says" depends on how one interprets "as appropriate".
>
> (a) Since it is "appropriate" to substitute GPS for DME and ADF on
> non-GPS approaches, then it's acceptable as far as I am concerned.
> Furthermore, (b) The aircraft is "equipped to fly" the non-GPS
> approach.and (c) they'll never catch me anyway even if I'm wrong.

Well, my 2 cents says that "as appropriate" specifically applies to the phrase "DME or ADF", meaning the
equivalent to the following rewrite: "If the non-GPS approaches on which the pilot must rely require DME, the
aircraft must be equipped with DME; if the non-GPS approaches on which the pilot must rely require ADF , the
aircraft must be equipped with ADF". I agree that other readings are possible, but that's the way I would
normally use and/or hear that idiom.

Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

The whole point of all this is to be sure you are not stuck with no
approach because GPS goes dead. Nothing at alternate can require GPS.
That's what it means (I think).

John Clonts wrote:
> > wrote in message ...
>
>>On 11 Feb 2005 11:23:14 -0800, "Michael"
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>I think I'd interpret "as appropriate" as meaning that the GPS
>>>>essentially meets the definition of "DME or ADF avionics", since the
>>>>rules say it can be substituted for such,
>>>
>>>I do not concur, and believe such an interpretation is contrary to the
>>>intent if the statement.
>>>
>>>
>>>>(8) For TSO-C129/129A users, any required alternate airport must still
>>>
>>>have
>>>
>>>>an approved instrument approach procedure other than GPS that is
>>>
>>>anticipated
>>>
>>>>to be operational and available at the estimated time of arrival, and
>>>
>>>which
>>>
>>>>the aircraft is equipped to fly. If the non-GPS approaches on which
>>>
>>>the
>>>
>>>>pilot must rely require DME or ADF, the aircraft must be equipped with
>>>
>>>DME
>>>
>>>>or ADF avionics as appropriate.
>>>
>>>I believe the last statement means what it says - that for purposes of
>>>selecting a valid alternate, one must select an approach that can be
>>>completed without reliance on GPS.
>>>
>>>Michael
>>
>>
>>"What it says" depends on how one interprets "as appropriate".
>>
>>(a) Since it is "appropriate" to substitute GPS for DME and ADF on
>>non-GPS approaches, then it's acceptable as far as I am concerned.
>>Furthermore, (b) The aircraft is "equipped to fly" the non-GPS
>>approach.and (c) they'll never catch me anyway even if I'm wrong.
>
>
> Well, my 2 cents says that "as appropriate" specifically applies to the phrase "DME or ADF", meaning the
> equivalent to the following rewrite: "If the non-GPS approaches on which the pilot must rely require DME, the
> aircraft must be equipped with DME; if the non-GPS approaches on which the pilot must rely require ADF , the
> aircraft must be equipped with ADF". I agree that other readings are possible, but that's the way I would
> normally use and/or hear that idiom.
>
> Cheers,
> John Clonts
> Temple, Texas
> N7NZ
>
>
>

"Bill J" > wrote in message
...
> The whole point of all this is to be sure you are not stuck with no
> approach because GPS goes dead. Nothing at alternate can require GPS.
> That's what it means (I think).
>

I think that is correct, but only for purposes of fuel planning and filing
flight plan.

"Michael" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> I believe the last statement means what it says - that for purposes of
> selecting a valid alternate, one must select an approach that can be
> completed without reliance on GPS.

Is a radar approach (presumably requiring no avionics but a Com radio)
authorised for use as an alternate?

Julian Scarfe

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 09:21:53 GMT, "Julian Scarfe" >
wrote:

>"Michael" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>> I believe the last statement means what it says - that for purposes of
>> selecting a valid alternate, one must select an approach that can be
>> completed without reliance on GPS.
>
>Is a radar approach (presumably requiring no avionics but a Com radio)
>authorised for use as an alternate?
>
>Julian Scarfe
>

Sure. Orlando, Pensacola, Jacksonville all publish alternate minima
for their radar approaches.

Presumably, if no alternate minimums are specified and the airport has
a radar approach, then standard minimums apply.

OK, if my IFR GPS goes out (and my handheld goes out), I am down to
just my VOR/GS. No DME, no ADF, no GPS, no Marker Beacons. Am I legal
to fly an ILS? The only way I have of identifying the outer marker is
ATC radar, so certainly I would need radar coverage. So, lets say I
have radar coverage and its just a plain ILS, no DME or ADF
requirement? Legal? Safe?

On 12 Feb 2005 20:56:18 -0800, "Doug" >
wrote:

>OK, if my IFR GPS goes out (and my handheld goes out), I am down to
>just my VOR/GS. No DME, no ADF, no GPS, no Marker Beacons. Am I legal
>to fly an ILS? The only way I have of identifying the outer marker is
>ATC radar, so certainly I would need radar coverage. So, lets say I
>have radar coverage and its just a plain ILS, no DME or ADF
>requirement? Legal? Safe?

I think it would depend on how you identify the missed approach
holding point. If the MHP is an NDB, you have no way of navigating to
it or holding at it. Course, in a radar environment it's unlikely
they'll tell you to go hold as published, but what happens if you have
to go missed and lose comms too?

On 12 Feb 2005 20:56:18 -0800, "Doug" >
wrote:

>OK, if my IFR GPS goes out (and my handheld goes out), I am down to
>just my VOR/GS. No DME, no ADF, no GPS, no Marker Beacons. Am I legal
>to fly an ILS? The only way I have of identifying the outer marker is
>ATC radar, so certainly I would need radar coverage. So, lets say I
>have radar coverage and its just a plain ILS, no DME or ADF
>requirement? Legal? Safe?


Sure.

On 12 Feb 2005 20:56:18 -0800, "Doug" > wrote:

>OK, if my IFR GPS goes out (and my handheld goes out), I am down to
>just my VOR/GS. No DME, no ADF, no GPS, no Marker Beacons. Am I legal
>to fly an ILS? The only way I have of identifying the outer marker is
>ATC radar, so certainly I would need radar coverage. So, lets say I
>have radar coverage and its just a plain ILS, no DME or ADF
>requirement? Legal? Safe?

You're becoming to0 dependent on your GPS :-)

There are any number of charted approaches such as you describe:

KPVC ILS RWY 7 has no marker beacons.
KPWM ILS RWY 29 has a MM, but there's no penalty for it being OTS.



Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Declare emergency, fly said approach.




Doug wrote:

> OK, if my IFR GPS goes out (and my handheld goes out), I am down to
> just my VOR/GS. No DME, no ADF, no GPS, no Marker Beacons. Am I legal
> to fly an ILS? The only way I have of identifying the outer marker is
> ATC radar, so certainly I would need radar coverage. So, lets say I
> have radar coverage and its just a plain ILS, no DME or ADF
> requirement? Legal? Safe?
>

"Doug" > wrote in
ups.com:

> OK, if my IFR GPS goes out (and my handheld goes out), I am down to
> just my VOR/GS. No DME, no ADF, no GPS, no Marker Beacons. Am I legal
> to fly an ILS? The only way I have of identifying the outer marker is
> ATC radar, so certainly I would need radar coverage. So, lets say I
> have radar coverage and its just a plain ILS, no DME or ADF
> requirement? Legal? Safe?
>
The FAF is often fixed by VOR radials from other VORs, and you can
certainly use these. If you're vectored to the localizer, then the FAF
is glideslope intercept. The only necessity for the outer marker is
really to insure that you're on the main glideslope, not a false lobe,
and if you're vectored to final and intercept the GS from below, this
isn't a problem.

--
Regards,

Stan

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

On 13 Feb 2005 21:11:23 GMT, Stan Gosnell > wrote:

>The FAF is often fixed by VOR radials from other VORs, and you can
>certainly use these. If you're vectored to the localizer, then the FAF
>is glideslope intercep


If?

Vectoring doesn't change the definition of the FAF.

OK, same scenario. All I have is one VOR/GS, GPS is out of service, BUT
now, NO RADAR service!! Can I fly the ILS legally? Safely?

In article . com>,
"Doug" > wrote:

> OK, same scenario. All I have is one VOR/GS, GPS is out of service, BUT
> now, NO RADAR service!! Can I fly the ILS legally? Safely?

I think you need an engine too :-)

"Doug" > wrote in
oups.com:

> OK, same scenario. All I have is one VOR/GS, GPS is out of service, BUT
> now, NO RADAR service!! Can I fly the ILS legally? Safely?
>
Depends on the approach, and how the fixes are determined.

--
Regards,

Stan

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