When doing an ILS approach, with the glideslope, is it a requirement to be
able to identify the outer marker or a substitute? FAR 91.175(k) lists the
outer marker as one of the "basic ground components" and gives the acceptable
substitutes, but doesn't explicitly say that it's required. The AIM 1-1-9(j)
on "Inoperative Components" mentions the localizer and glideslope, but says
nothing about the outer marker.

If you answer, please give a specific FAA reference that says whether or not
the OM or a substitute is required.

Thanks.

Barry

In a previous article, "Barry" > said:
>When doing an ILS approach, with the glideslope, is it a requirement to be
>able to identify the outer marker or a substitute? FAR 91.175(k) lists the

"or a substitute" is the operative phrase. If the FAF is identified by an
intersection, LOM, or DME, that's an acceptable substitute for a locator
beacon.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty will be charged to
dangers, real or imagined, from abroad." - James Madison

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:29:01 -0500, "Barry" > wrote:

>When doing an ILS approach, with the glideslope, is it a requirement to be
>able to identify the outer marker or a substitute? FAR 91.175(k) lists the
>outer marker as one of the "basic ground components" and gives the acceptable
>substitutes, but doesn't explicitly say that it's required. The AIM 1-1-9(j)
>on "Inoperative Components" mentions the localizer and glideslope, but says
>nothing about the outer marker.
>
>If you answer, please give a specific FAA reference that says whether or not
>the OM or a substitute is required.
>

Identification of the OM is not required but why do you think there will be
a specific reference to say that something is NOT required?

It's a good idea to check the OM, **if there is one**, in order to confirm
your GS altitude at that point, but there is no legal requirement.

You may also note that there is no "penalty" if an OM is not functioning.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 14:31:34 +0000 (UTC), (Paul
Tomblin) wrote:

>In a previous article, "Barry" > said:
>>When doing an ILS approach, with the glideslope, is it a requirement to be
>>able to identify the outer marker or a substitute? FAR 91.175(k) lists the
>
>"or a substitute" is the operative phrase. If the FAF is identified by an
>intersection, LOM, or DME, that's an acceptable substitute for a locator
>beacon.

In my experience, it has been most unusual for an OM to be located at the
FAF for an ILS approach. They try to get them close, but they rarely are
(at least here in the NorthEast).


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

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 14:31:34 +0000 (UTC), (Paul
> Tomblin) wrote:
>
> >In a previous article, "Barry" > said:
> >>When doing an ILS approach, with the glideslope, is it a requirement to
be
> >>able to identify the outer marker or a substitute? FAR 91.175(k) lists
the
> >
> >"or a substitute" is the operative phrase. If the FAF is identified by
an
> >intersection, LOM, or DME, that's an acceptable substitute for a locator
> >beacon.
>
> In my experience, it has been most unusual for an OM to be located at the
> FAF for an ILS approach. They try to get them close, but they rarely are
> (at least here in the NorthEast).

I wondered about that. It *is* at the marker at my home field (PAE), thanks
to a remarkably well-located spit of land north of the bay, and I made the
appropriate mistake on my oral. After a snack break, I looked it up and came
back to the examiner with the right answer (GS intercept).

-- David Brooks

Paul Tomblin wrote:
> In a previous article, Barry said:
> >When doing an ILS approach, with the glideslope, is it a requirement to
be
> >able to identify the outer marker or a substitute? FAR 91.175(k) lists
the
>
> "or a substitute" is the operative phrase. If the FAF is identified by an
> intersection, LOM, or DME, that's an acceptable substitute for a locator
> beacon.

The FAF on an ILS is glideslope intersect, not the LOM, DME etc which are
not required.

HIlton

"Hilton" > wrote in message .net>...
> Paul Tomblin wrote:
> > In a previous article, Barry said:
> > >When doing an ILS approach, with the glideslope, is it a requirement to
> be
> > >able to identify the outer marker or a substitute? FAR 91.175(k) lists
> the
> >
> > "or a substitute" is the operative phrase. If the FAF is identified by an
> > intersection, LOM, or DME, that's an acceptable substitute for a locator
> > beacon.
>
> The FAF on an ILS is glideslope intersect, not the LOM, DME etc which are
> not required.
>
> HIlton


Ahhh, but suppose your glideslope fails (onboard or on the ground)
after this "not required" intersection (with the "X" on Jepp charts)?
Suddenly you are doing a localizer approach and the FAF identification
becomes much more useful as a place from which you start your timing.


Lee

Lee Elson wrote:
> Hilton wrote:
> > Paul Tomblin wrote:
> > > In a previous article, Barry said:
> > > >When doing an ILS approach, with the glideslope, is it a requirement
to
> > be
> > > >able to identify the outer marker or a substitute? FAR 91.175(k)
lists
> > the
> > >
> > > "or a substitute" is the operative phrase. If the FAF is identified
by an
> > > intersection, LOM, or DME, that's an acceptable substitute for a
locator
> > > beacon.
> >
> > The FAF on an ILS is glideslope intersect, not the LOM, DME etc which
are
> > not required.
> >
> > HIlton
>
>
> Ahhh, but suppose your glideslope fails (onboard or on the ground)
> after this "not required" intersection (with the "X" on Jepp charts)?
> Suddenly you are doing a localizer approach and the FAF identification
> becomes much more useful as a place from which you start your timing.

Lee,

I agree with you 100%. I was speaking from a legal view, not a safety view.
A few years ago, an approach's minimum changed if the outer marker was bust.
That is no longer the case.

To be picky, the ILS's FAF is the glideslope intersept, not the 'cross'.
The 'cross' belongs to the non-precision approach that just happens to be
printed on the same piece of paper.

Hilton

> A few years ago, an approach's minimum changed if the outer marker was bust.
> That is no longer the case.

I remember there used to be a penalty for a middle marker out of service, but
was the outer marker included on the table, too?

Barry wrote:

>
> If you answer, please give a specific FAA reference that says whether or not
> the OM or a substitute is required.
>
> You guys that want a specific reference should buy Summit's Aviation Reference
> Library and do your own research.

Barry wrote:

> > A few years ago, an approach's minimum changed if the outer marker was bust.
> > That is no longer the case.
>
> I remember there used to be a penalty for a middle marker out of service, but
> was the outer marker included on the table, too?

Nope.

You tell the controller that you are executing the miss, go around, and get
set up for the LOC-only, if one exists. Changing from an ILS to a LOC in
midstream is not good practice...the assumption is that you briefed the ILS
(even if you are alone), not the LOC.

Bob Gardner

"Lee Elson" > wrote in message
om...
> "Hilton" > wrote in message
.net>...
> > Paul Tomblin wrote:
> > > In a previous article, Barry said:
> > > >When doing an ILS approach, with the glideslope, is it a requirement
to
> > be
> > > >able to identify the outer marker or a substitute? FAR 91.175(k)
lists
> > the
> > >
> > > "or a substitute" is the operative phrase. If the FAF is identified
by an
> > > intersection, LOM, or DME, that's an acceptable substitute for a
locator
> > > beacon.
> >
> > The FAF on an ILS is glideslope intersect, not the LOM, DME etc which
are
> > not required.
> >
> > HIlton
>
>
> Ahhh, but suppose your glideslope fails (onboard or on the ground)
> after this "not required" intersection (with the "X" on Jepp charts)?
> Suddenly you are doing a localizer approach and the FAF identification
> becomes much more useful as a place from which you start your timing.
>
>
> Lee

THat's how I do it, although I've had instructors doing my IPC ding me for not
starting the timer on an ILS. As politely as I can, I remind them that the
times are for a localizer only approach and that if the glideslope screws the
pooch, I'm going missed.

Bob Gardner wrote:

> You tell the controller that you are executing the miss, go around, and get
> set up for the LOC-only, if one exists. Changing from an ILS to a LOC in
> midstream is not good practice...the assumption is that you briefed the ILS
> (even if you are alone), not the LOC.
>
> Bob Gardner--

--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

In a previous article, Ray Andraka > said:
>THat's how I do it, although I've had instructors doing my IPC ding me for not
>starting the timer on an ILS. As politely as I can, I remind them that the
>times are for a localizer only approach and that if the glideslope screws the
>pooch, I'm going missed.

The instructors I've had come back to that with "What if you didn't have
enough fuel to go around again", to which I say "I would never be that
stupid about fuel planning". After all, the glide slope isn't the only
thing that could flag on the approach - what if you lost the localizer?
Switch to a VOR or GPS approach on the fly?


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"I'm fairly sure Linux exists principally because writing an operating system
probably seems like a good way to pass the <bignum> months of darkness in
Finland" - Rodger Donaldson

>>
to which I say "I would never be that stupid about fuel planning".
>>

You don't have to be "that stupid", you just have to be caught in weather that
screws your plans. The one who says "I'd never be that stupid...." is the one
that buys the farm.

Start the timer on an ILS, it gives you more options when (not if) things go
awry.

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Ray Andraka > wrote
> THat's how I do it, although I've had instructors doing my IPC ding me for not
> starting the timer on an ILS. As politely as I can, I remind them that the
> times are for a localizer only approach and that if the glideslope screws the
> pooch, I'm going missed.

Are you sure they dinged you?

If I'm doing an IPC and the student doesn't start the timer, I will
question it. If he does, I will still question it. Perhaps this is
what happened?

There are good arguments on both sides.

Some pilots believe that the time makes for a good crosscheck in case
the GS is lost. This can be true if the pilot elects to go to
LOC-only mins if he lacks another method of identifying the MAP, and
it is especially true if the missed approach calls for an immediate
climbing turn - recall that no consideration is given for an
abnormally early turn with regard to obstacle protection. On the
other hand, for missed approach turn purposes the point where the LOC
becomes impossible to center will do as the point where the turn
should be started.

Some pilots believe that you should fly the approach you briefed, and
if the GS goes out you should go missed. It could sure such to get
confused and go to ILS mins on the LOC. Of course there are times
when a missed approach is highly undesirable (single engine in a twin,
adverse weather, low fuel) and there is the nagging question - if the
GS just went out, what are you going to lose next - and how soon?

My point is that either position is defensible, and which is best can
depend on pilot style and proficiency, the equipment available, and
the situation. In my opinion, the headwork part of flying IFR is at
least as important as wiggling the stick and pushing buttons. I want
to see if the student actually made a conscious decision to time or
not to time, rather than acting out of habit and/or forgetting, and I
want to see if he has considered the implications of his decision.

Michael

No, I got criticized heavily, even after the explanation. For a split approach, it
isn't jsut the timer, you've also got a different set of altitudes to commit to
short term memory. I can only remember a few things at once in short term memory.
Put too much in, and it is all gone.

Michael wrote:


--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

Seems to me that there was an article in either IFR or Aviation Safety on
the subject of timing ILS approaches, and the consensus of the instructors
quoted seemed to be "don't bother." Rationale was that the miss is based on
an altitude, not a time, and if the glideslope goes kaflooey the pilot
should wave off, brief the localizer approach or whatever, and start over
again. I don't have a problem with that.

Bob Gardner

"Ray Andraka" > wrote in message
...
> No, I got criticized heavily, even after the explanation. For a split
approach, it
> isn't jsut the timer, you've also got a different set of altitudes to
commit to
> short term memory. I can only remember a few things at once in short term
memory.
> Put too much in, and it is all gone.
>
> Michael wrote:
>
>
> --
> --Ray Andraka, P.E.
> President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
> 401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
> email
> http://www.andraka.com
>
> "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
> temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> -Benjamin Franklin, 1759
>
>

>>
For a split approach, it
isn't jsut the timer, you've also got a different set of altitudes to commit to
short term memory. I can only remember a few things at once in short term
memory.
Put too much in, and it is all gone.
<<

It's on the plate, in big numbers. Kerflooey, take a peek.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Kerflooey?

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> It's on the plate, in big numbers. Kerflooey, take a peek.
>
> Jose
>
> --
> (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Ray Andraka" > wrote in message
...
> THat's how I do it, although I've had instructors doing my IPC ding me for
not
> starting the timer on an ILS. As politely as I can, I remind them that
the
> times are for a localizer only approach and that if the glideslope screws
the
> pooch, I'm going missed.
>
Don't Time That ILS Approach! -
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182042-1.html

>> Kerflooey?

Yes. If the glide slope goes kerflooey, you look down for the new numbers.
You only need one - the MDA.

If you have a series of stepdown fixes and you aren't set up to know when
you've passed them, then maybe it's better to go missed than to scramble. But
if what's ahead of you is simple, just grab the MDA and keep going. If you
were on the glide slope, then everything ahead of you is still clear at that
altitude, stepdown or no.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Barry wrote:

> When doing an ILS approach, with the glideslope, is it a requirement to be
> able to identify the outer marker or a substitute? FAR 91.175(k) lists the
> outer marker as one of the "basic ground components" and gives the acceptable
> substitutes, but doesn't explicitly say that it's required. The AIM 1-1-9(j)
> on "Inoperative Components" mentions the localizer and glideslope, but says
> nothing about the outer marker.
>
> If you answer, please give a specific FAA reference that says whether or not
> the OM or a substitute is required.

Whenever someone makes a post requesting specific FAA references, you are in
effect asking for someone else to do your research for you an challenging them in
the process. When I see I post like that I recommend you hire a Washington DC
top end aviation law firm and pay for the precision you expect.

I was commenting on the word - which I now have added to my vocabulary...

Thanks,
Michael

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> >> Kerflooey?
>
> Yes. If the glide slope goes kerflooey, you look down for the new
numbers.
> You only need one - the MDA.
>
> If you have a series of stepdown fixes and you aren't set up to know when
> you've passed them, then maybe it's better to go missed than to scramble.
But
> if what's ahead of you is simple, just grab the MDA and keep going. If
you
> were on the glide slope, then everything ahead of you is still clear at
that
> altitude, stepdown or no.
>
> Jose
>
> --
> (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Is that the actual sound that the glideslope makes when it goes out?

;)

"dit-dit-dit-dah...kerflouey"


"Michael 182" > wrote in
news:rhm1c.170139$jk2.618747@attbi_s53:

> I was commenting on the word - which I now have added to my
> vocabulary...
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
> "Teacherjh" > wrote in message
> ...
>> >> Kerflooey?
>>
>> Yes. If the glide slope goes kerflooey, you look down for the new
>> numbers. You only need one - the MDA.
>>
>> If you have a series of stepdown fixes and you aren't set up to know
>> when you've passed them, then maybe it's better to go missed than to
>> scramble. But if what's ahead of you is simple, just grab the MDA and
>> keep going. If you were on the glide slope, then everything ahead of
>> you is still clear at that altitude, stepdown or no.
>>
>> Jose
>>
>> --
>> (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)
>
>

>>
Is that the actual sound that the glideslope makes when it goes out? ;)
"dit-dit-dit-dah...Kerflouey"
<<

No, actually it's "Erflooey". I'm using the ICAO convention.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

In article >,
(Teacherjh) wrote:

> >>
> Is that the actual sound that the glideslope makes when it goes out? ;)
> "dit-dit-dit-dah...Kerflouey"
> <<
>
> No, actually it's "Erflooey". I'm using the ICAO convention.
>
> Jose

Except in Canada, where it's "Kerflouey, eh?"

Only on the Toronto side. In French Canada, it's "Querphlouis".

Roy Smith > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> (Teacherjh) wrote:
>
>> >>
>> Is that the actual sound that the glideslope makes when it goes out?
>> ;) "dit-dit-dit-dah...Kerflouey" <<
>>
>> No, actually it's "Erflooey". I'm using the ICAO convention.
>>
>> Jose
>
> Except in Canada, where it's "Kerflouey, eh?"
>

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
news:S281c.165778$jk2.607247@attbi_s53...
> Seems to me that there was an article in either IFR or Aviation Safety on
> the subject of timing ILS approaches, and the consensus of the instructors
> quoted seemed to be "don't bother." Rationale was that the miss is based
on
> an altitude, not a time, and if the glideslope goes kaflooey the pilot
> should wave off, brief the localizer approach or whatever, and start over
> again. I don't have a problem with that.

Hm, I'm not sure I follow. Going missed and starting over sounds good, but
to go missed you may need to identify the MAP (if there's a turn there).
And I thought the MAP is based on a *position* which--if the GS is working
and you're following it--is indeed identifiable by an altitude. But if the
GS fails, you might have no means other than your timer to identify the MAP.

--Gary

>
> Bob Gardner
>
> "Ray Andraka" > wrote in message
> ...
> > No, I got criticized heavily, even after the explanation. For a split
> approach, it
> > isn't jsut the timer, you've also got a different set of altitudes to
> commit to
> > short term memory. I can only remember a few things at once in short
term
> memory.
> > Put too much in, and it is all gone.
> >
> > Michael wrote:
> >
> >
> > --
> > --Ray Andraka, P.E.
> > President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
> > 401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
> > email
> > http://www.andraka.com
> >
> > "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
> > temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> > -Benjamin Franklin, 1759
> >
> >
>
>

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 17:54:52 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote:

>
> "Ray Andraka" > wrote in message
> ...
> > THat's how I do it, although I've had instructors doing my IPC ding me for
> not
> > starting the timer on an ILS. As politely as I can, I remind them that
> the
> > times are for a localizer only approach and that if the glideslope screws
> the
> > pooch, I'm going missed.
> >
> Don't Time That ILS Approach! -
> http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182042-1.html
>
I have no problem with the article as far as not continung the approach as a
LOC-only one, just vecause you are timing it.

The whole reason to tinme the ILS is in case of GS failure, you can still
locate the MAP. An immediate climb is safe, but any turns on the missed
approach segment assume that you initiated the miss at the MAP. If the GS
flags, the only way you can begin to determine where the MAP is, is by the
time.

So, time all ILS approaches, and use the time ONLY to identify the MAP on a
missed approach.

"Jay Somerset" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 17:54:52 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" >
wrote:
>
> > Don't Time That ILS Approach! -
> > http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182042-1.html
> >
> I have no problem with the article as far as not continung the approach as
a
> LOC-only one, just vecause you are timing it.
>
> The whole reason to tinme the ILS is in case of GS failure, you can still
> locate the MAP. An immediate climb is safe, but any turns on the missed
> approach segment assume that you initiated the miss at the MAP. If the GS
> flags, the only way you can begin to determine where the MAP is, is by the
> time.
>
> So, time all ILS approaches, and use the time ONLY to identify the MAP on
a
> missed approach.

I'd agree with this last, but only in using time as a cross-check to other
measurements such as VOR, DME, GPS. Changing winds and other conditions can
throw time checks out the window very quickly.

On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 20:19:10 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote:

>
> "Jay Somerset" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 17:54:52 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" >
> wrote:
> >
> > > Don't Time That ILS Approach! -
> > > http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182042-1.html
> > >
> > I have no problem with the article as far as not continung the approach as
> a
> > LOC-only one, just vecause you are timing it.
> >
> > The whole reason to tinme the ILS is in case of GS failure, you can still
> > locate the MAP. An immediate climb is safe, but any turns on the missed
> > approach segment assume that you initiated the miss at the MAP. If the GS
> > flags, the only way you can begin to determine where the MAP is, is by the
> > time.
> >
> > So, time all ILS approaches, and use the time ONLY to identify the MAP on
> a
> > missed approach.
>
> I'd agree with this last, but only in using time as a cross-check to other
> measurements such as VOR, DME, GPS. Changing winds and other conditions can
> throw time checks out the window very quickly.
>
If the time is accurate enough to identify the MAP on the LOC approach. then
it is adequate for the ILS appraoch as well. If you are on on ILS approach,
and the GS flags, you really don't want to be messing around with setting up
cross-checks that are only used with the LOC approach, and which you don't
have already set up.

I think we are basically in agreement, but I would emphasize that timing the
ILS is prudent, but as a way to do a missed, and not to convert a flagged GS
into a LOC approah.

>>
If you are on on ILS approach,
and the GS flags, you really don't want to be messing around with setting up
cross-checks that are only used with the LOC approach, and which you don't
have already set up.
<<

If you are on the GS when it goes kerflooey, eh?, then you are probably beyond
many of these cross checks. The GS itself is kind of a cross check, though it
doesn't place you relative to any fixes, it does place you reliably beyond
terrain.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Jay Somerset" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 20:19:10 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" >
wrote:
>
> >
> > "Jay Somerset" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 17:54:52 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Don't Time That ILS Approach! -
> > > > http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182042-1.html
> > > >
> > > I have no problem with the article as far as not continung the
approach as
> > a
> > > LOC-only one, just vecause you are timing it.
> > >
> > > The whole reason to tinme the ILS is in case of GS failure, you can
still
> > > locate the MAP. An immediate climb is safe, but any turns on the
missed
> > > approach segment assume that you initiated the miss at the MAP. If
the GS
> > > flags, the only way you can begin to determine where the MAP is, is by
the
> > > time.
> > >
> > > So, time all ILS approaches, and use the time ONLY to identify the MAP
on
> > a
> > > missed approach.
> >
> > I'd agree with this last, but only in using time as a cross-check to
other
> > measurements such as VOR, DME, GPS. Changing winds and other conditions
can
> > throw time checks out the window very quickly.
> >
> If the time is accurate enough to identify the MAP on the LOC approach.
then
> it is adequate for the ILS appraoch as well.

Sounds like you're describing more of a stablized/precision approach.??

> If you are on on ILS approach,
> and the GS flags, you really don't want to be messing around with setting
up
> cross-checks that are only used with the LOC approach, and which you don't
> have already set up.

Which is why I said I'd use time primarily a a cross-check. By the very
meaning of the word (okay...somebody with a PhD in English Lit can chime in)
cross-checking is done from the beginning and monitored.

>
> I think we are basically in agreement, but I would emphasize that timing
the
> ILS is prudent, but as a way to do a missed, and not to convert a flagged
GS
> into a LOC approah.

I think we're more in agreement than you realize, but in an approach with a
lot of wind (particularly swirling winds as the have around the front range
lf the mountains) and a lot of turns, that'll mean a hell of a lot more time
recalculating and less time actually flying the approach.

So, yes, I'd saying time every approach, but I'd be damn concerned about
relying on it for much of anything.

Ray Andraka > wrote in message >...
> THat's how I do it, although I've had instructors doing my IPC ding me for not
> starting the timer on an ILS. As politely as I can, I remind them that the
> times are for a localizer only approach and that if the glideslope screws the
> pooch, I'm going missed.

As a flight instructor, I'd ding you on it, too. Now, I don't expect
anyone to convert midstream (I wouldn't do it either), but I've seen
too many pilots get out of the habit of starting the timer at the FAF.
This directly correlates to missing the timer on non-precision
approaches. (I know... I fell into that trap personally, and am still
trying to climb out of it.)

-Rob

You've got a valid point there, and if he'd put it that way I'd have to aggree with him.
The other valid point raised here was timing as a cross check for the missed. The
instructor I had for a good deal of my inst training always did a "what are you setting
that for" when passed the FAF on an ILS. LIke you said, old habits die hard. Based on
the reasons given here, I'm going to make a concerted effort to start timing the ILSs if
for no other reason, just to make all approaches the same. Thanks guys.

Rob Montgomery wrote:

> Ray Andraka > wrote in message >...
> > THat's how I do it, although I've had instructors doing my IPC ding me for not
> > starting the timer on an ILS. As politely as I can, I remind them that the
> > times are for a localizer only approach and that if the glideslope screws the
> > pooch, I'm going missed.
>
> As a flight instructor, I'd ding you on it, too. Now, I don't expect
> anyone to convert midstream (I wouldn't do it either), but I've seen
> too many pilots get out of the habit of starting the timer at the FAF.
> This directly correlates to missing the timer on non-precision
> approaches. (I know... I fell into that trap personally, and am still
> trying to climb out of it.)
>
> -Rob

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759