GPS can substitute for the ADF. Radar can substitute also.
So, if the acft has no ADF or the NDB is OTS, so, it could
be.


"Rick McPherson" > wrote in
message ...
| On Aug 28 I was practicing approaches at KAGC (FEW 008 BKN
012 OVR 025 4SM
| BR). My preflight brief indicated that the McKeesport NDB
is out of service.
| Yet, the ATIS identified runway 28 as active and we were
given the ILS 28
| approach for practice (upon request). Is this approach
legal without the
| beacon?
|
http://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/20060803/NE-4/agc_ils_rwy_28.pdf
|
| As a side note, is the equipment that you fly still using
ADF?
|
| Rick
|
|
|
| ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com -
Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
| http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the
World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
| ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
Encryption =----

Rick McPherson wrote:
> On Aug 28 I was practicing approaches at KAGC (FEW 008 BKN 012 OVR 025 4SM
> BR). My preflight brief indicated that the McKeesport NDB is out of service.
> Yet, the ATIS identified runway 28 as active and we were given the ILS 28
> approach for practice (upon request). Is this approach legal without the
> beacon?

No, unless you have a IFR certified GPS receiver(TSO C129 or TSO
C145/146a). "ADF Required" is written on chart, so you must have a
means of navigating to the NDB. If you were practicing the procedure
under VFR, then yes you were legal.

> http://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/20060803/NE-4/agc_ils_rwy_28.pdf
>
> As a side note, is the equipment that you fly still using ADF?

No XM on board, so it does serve minimal enroute entertainment value.
Not many NDB's or procedures left where I fly.

Brad wrote:
> Rick McPherson wrote:
>
>>On Aug 28 I was practicing approaches at KAGC (FEW 008 BKN 012 OVR 025 4SM
>>BR). My preflight brief indicated that the McKeesport NDB is out of service.
>>Yet, the ATIS identified runway 28 as active and we were given the ILS 28
>>approach for practice (upon request). Is this approach legal without the
>>beacon?
>
>
> No, unless you have a IFR certified GPS receiver(TSO C129 or TSO
> C145/146a). "ADF Required" is written on chart, so you must have a
> means of navigating to the NDB. If you were practicing the procedure
> under VFR, then yes you were legal.
>
>
>>http://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/20060803/NE-4/agc_ils_rwy_28.pdf
>>
>>As a side note, is the equipment that you fly still using ADF?
>
>
> No XM on board, so it does serve minimal enroute entertainment value.
> Not many NDB's or procedures left where I fly.

Does anyone besides me think the note should read "ADF OR RADAR REQUIRED"?

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

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

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

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

-- Dane

In article >,
Rick McPherson > wrote:
>On Aug 28 I was practicing approaches at KAGC (FEW 008 BKN 012 OVR 025 4SM
>BR). My preflight brief indicated that the McKeesport NDB is out of service.
>Yet, the ATIS identified runway 28 as active and we were given the ILS 28
>approach for practice (upon request). Is this approach legal without the
>beacon?
>http://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/20060803/NE-4/agc_ils_rwy_28.pdf
>
>As a side note, is the equipment that you fly still using ADF?
>
>Rick
>
>
>
>----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
>----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Dave Butler wrote:

> Does anyone besides me think the note should read "ADF OR RADAR REQUIRED"?

If MKP was a Radar Fix, they could.

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


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

Brad wrote:
> Dave Butler wrote:
>
>
>>Does anyone besides me think the note should read "ADF OR RADAR REQUIRED"?
>
>
> If MKP was a Radar Fix, they could.

I don't follow.

The only need to identify MKP is as an IAF. There's no step-down, no turn, it's
not required for flying the missed. If you have either ADF (for the full
approach) or RADAR (receiving vectors to final) you should able to safely fly
the approach.

On Aug 28 I was practicing approaches at KAGC (FEW 008 BKN 012 OVR 025 4SM
BR). My preflight brief indicated that the McKeesport NDB is out of service.
Yet, the ATIS identified runway 28 as active and we were given the ILS 28
approach for practice (upon request). Is this approach legal without the
beacon?
http://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/20060803/NE-4/agc_ils_rwy_28.pdf

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

Rick



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Rick McPherson wrote:
> On Aug 28 I was practicing approaches at KAGC (FEW 008 BKN 012 OVR 025 4SM
> BR). My preflight brief indicated that the McKeesport NDB is out of service.
> Yet, the ATIS identified runway 28 as active and we were given the ILS 28
> approach for practice (upon request). Is this approach legal without the
> beacon?
> http://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/20060803/NE-4/agc_ils_rwy_28.pdf
>
> As a side note, is the equipment that you fly still using ADF?

Since it was a practice approach (VFR I assume) it would be legal even
if the loc was out of service.
However, even as an acutal IFR approach it can still be given assuming
you can identify the ADF on your GPS.

-Robert, CFII

Dane and Brad,

Does the 076 degree radial from AGC not accomplish the same thing? Or, is
this just a feeder route to get one from the VOR to the IAP? Either way, it
marks the position of the station while on the localizer at 3000. By the
way, I do agree that this approach is NA without ADF or a reliable signal
from the station.
"Dane Spearing" > wrote in message
...
>
> The use of an approach certified GPS in lieu of an ADF is addressed in
> AIM 1-1-19f. See:
>
> http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/AIM/Chap1/aim0101.html#1-1-19
>
> In a nutshell, yes, you can use your IFR approach certified GPS in lieu
> of an ADF for identifying the OM on an ILS approach, and/or for
> identifying
> a missed approach fix.
>
> In answering your second question, no, I don't have an ADF in my aircraft.
>
> -- Dane
>
> In article >,
> Rick McPherson > wrote:
>>On Aug 28 I was practicing approaches at KAGC (FEW 008 BKN 012 OVR 025 4SM
>>BR). My preflight brief indicated that the McKeesport NDB is out of
>>service.
>>Yet, the ATIS identified runway 28 as active and we were given the ILS 28
>>approach for practice (upon request). Is this approach legal without the
>>beacon?
>>http://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/20060803/NE-4/agc_ils_rwy_28.pdf
>>
>>As a side note, is the equipment that you fly still using ADF?
>>
>>Rick
>>
>>
>>
>>----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
>>News==----
>>http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
>>Newsgroups
>>----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
>>=----
>
>
>



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Jim Macklin wrote:
> GPS can substitute for the ADF. Radar can substitute also.
> So, if the acft has no ADF or the NDB is OTS, so, it could
> be.

Are you sure radar can be? When an ILS says "ADF Required" I believe
you must either have ADF or GPS. Usually if radar is good enough it
will say "ADF or Radar Required".

-Robert

"Rick McPherson" > wrote in message
...
>
> On Aug 28 I was practicing approaches at KAGC (FEW 008 BKN 012 OVR 025 4SM
> BR). My preflight brief indicated that the McKeesport NDB is out of
> service. Yet, the ATIS identified runway 28 as active and we were given
> the ILS 28 approach for practice (upon request). Is this approach legal
> without the beacon?
> http://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/20060803/NE-4/agc_ils_rwy_28.pdf
>

Yes.


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

Yes.

"Brad" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> If MKP was a Radar Fix, they could.
>

Radar fix? What purpose does MKP serve if you're vectored to the localizer?

"Dane Spearing" > wrote in message
...
>
> The use of an approach certified GPS in lieu of an ADF is addressed in
> AIM 1-1-19f. See:
>
> http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/AIM/Chap1/aim0101.html#1-1-19
>
> In a nutshell, yes, you can use your IFR approach certified GPS in lieu
> of an ADF for identifying the OM on an ILS approach, and/or for
> identifying
> a missed approach fix.
>

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

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

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

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Since it was a practice approach (VFR I assume) it would be legal even
> if the loc was out of service.
> However, even as an acutal IFR approach it can still be given assuming
> you can identify the ADF on your GPS.
>

Why would you need to identify the ADF?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Since it was a practice approach (VFR I assume) it would be legal even
> > if the loc was out of service.
> > However, even as an acutal IFR approach it can still be given assuming
> > you can identify the ADF on your GPS.
> >
>
> Why would you need to identify the ADF?

Well, in the case of the ILS SAC its because the course from the outer
marker is one degree off the localizer. ;)

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Since it was a practice approach (VFR I assume) it would be legal even
>> > if the loc was out of service.
>> > However, even as an acutal IFR approach it can still be given assuming
>> > you can identify the ADF on your GPS.
>> >
>>
>> Why would you need to identify the ADF?
>>
>
> Well, in the case of the ILS SAC its because the course from the outer
> marker is one degree off the localizer. ;)
>

Why would you need to identify the ADF in this case?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick McPherson ]
> Posted At: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 3:13 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Legal or not?
> Subject: Legal or not?
>
....
>
> As a side note, is the equipment that you fly still using ADF?
>
> Rick
>
>
Absolutely -- I just took my IPC 10 days ago and had to execute an NDB
intercept via own navigation, a 3 loop NDB hold, and an NDB approach.
Even though we had a GX55 on board, it was "failed".

After not having done any serious clock-work for 18 years, I came back
about 6 pounds lighter and dripping wet; but thank heavens the laws of
physics haven't changed.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven P. McNicoll ]
> Posted At: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 6:06 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Legal or not?
> Subject: Re: Legal or not?
>
>
....
> certainly identify an LOM, it won't identify an OM.

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

In article t>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>"Dane Spearing" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> The use of an approach certified GPS in lieu of an ADF is addressed in
>> AIM 1-1-19f. See:
>>
>> http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/AIM/Chap1/aim0101.html#1-1-19
>>
>> In a nutshell, yes, you can use your IFR approach certified GPS in lieu
>> of an ADF for identifying the OM on an ILS approach, and/or for
>> identifying
>> a missed approach fix.
>>
>
>Use of GPS in lieu of ADF and DME is covered in that paragraph, but I see no
>mention of use of GPS in lieu of a marker beacon receiver. While an ADF can
>certainly identify an LOM, it won't identify an OM.

You are, of course, correct. I meant to type "LOM" not "OM". Must be old
age getting to me.... :)

-- Dane

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message news:002f01c6cc9a$0e276310$4001a8c0@omnibook6100.. .
>
> ...
>> certainly identify an LOM, it won't identify an OM.
>
> Ok, it's getting late and I haven't asked enough stupid questions today
> so here goes: what is the difference between an Outer Marker and a
> Locator Outer Marker? Aren't they the same frequency, same audio pattern
> and tone?
>
Must be late. :-) You'll probably wake up tomorrow and remember...
LOM = LF/MF Compass Locator Beacon at the Outer Marker (used by ADFs).
OM = 75-MHz Fan-shaped or Bone-shaped Beacon, with a pulsing 400-Hz modulation.

> > Well, in the case of the ILS SAC its because the course from the outer
> > marker is one degree off the localizer. ;)
> >
>
> Why would you need to identify the ADF in this case?

That's a good question. Steven, I actually thought you had said you
were going to call the FAA on this one and question it.

-Robert

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Brad" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>>Nope, you're correct, its just a feeder route to the IAF. If MKP was
>>an intersection, you'd see MKP INT on the profile and plan view. The
>>076 line and arrow would extend all the way to the fix, rather than
>>just pointing towards the fix as the feeder route does. Distance and
>>angle did not meet the terps requirement to serve as a radial to
>>identify it as a intersection fix.
>>
>
>
> Why would the feeder route need to do any more than that? All the ADF does
> on this approach is allow the pilot to navigate to the localizer. The
> feeder route does that and so does a radar vector.
>
>
The feeder route from AGC takes the aircraft to the localizer, but the
intersection of that feeder route and loc does not provide enough
divergence to meet criteria for holding in lieu of PT (minimum 45
degrees divergence), so you can't do a course reversal without the NDB
(or suitable substitute) being operational. The feeder from NESTO is NA
without the NDB. It does appear that the planview note should read
"RADAR or DME required" since radar vectors from approach control to
intercept the final would work as long as they had coverage at suitable
altitudes.

JPH

Dave Butler wrote:
> Brad wrote:
>
>> Rick McPherson wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 28 I was practicing approaches at KAGC (FEW 008 BKN 012 OVR
>>> 025 4SM
>>> BR). My preflight brief indicated that the McKeesport NDB is out of
>>> service.
>>> Yet, the ATIS identified runway 28 as active and we were given the
>>> ILS 28
>>> approach for practice (upon request). Is this approach legal without the
>>> beacon?
>>
>>
>>
>> No, unless you have a IFR certified GPS receiver(TSO C129 or TSO
>> C145/146a). "ADF Required" is written on chart, so you must have a
>> means of navigating to the NDB. If you were practicing the procedure
>> under VFR, then yes you were legal.
>>
>>
>>> http://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/20060803/NE-4/agc_ils_rwy_28.pdf
>>>
>>> As a side note, is the equipment that you fly still using ADF?
>>
>>
>>
>> No XM on board, so it does serve minimal enroute entertainment value.
>> Not many NDB's or procedures left where I fly.
>
>
> Does anyone besides me think the note should read "ADF OR RADAR REQUIRED"?

It appears that would be an appropriate note since there is an approach
control identified on the plate. Presumably they could provide vectors,
but may not have good enough radar coverage in that area, not have the
necessary depictions on the video map, or the minimum vectoring altitude
is too high.

JPH

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
news:002f01c6cc9a$0e276310$4001a8c0@omnibook6100.. .
>
> Ok, it's getting late and I haven't asked enough stupid questions today
> so here goes: what is the difference between an Outer Marker and a
> Locator Outer Marker? Aren't they the same frequency, same audio pattern
> and tone?
>

An LOM is a collocated Compass Locator, an NDB, and an Outer Marker. You
receive the Compass Locator with an ADF and the Outer Marker with a marker
beacon receiver.

"JPH" > wrote in message
news:McsJg.8259$Tl4.7021@dukeread06...
>
> The feeder route from AGC takes the aircraft to the localizer, but the
> intersection of that feeder route and loc does not provide enough
> divergence to meet criteria for holding in lieu of PT (minimum 45 degrees
> divergence), so you can't do a course reversal without the NDB (or
> suitable substitute) being operational. The feeder from NESTO is NA
> without the NDB. It does appear that the planview note should read "RADAR
> or DME required" since radar vectors from approach control to intercept
> the final would work as long as they had coverage at suitable altitudes.
>

Why do I need ADF for the hold in lieu of PT? AGC has DME, if I'm 12.8 DME
from AGC on the 076 radial and on the localizer I'm there.

"Rick McPherson" > wrote in message
...
>
> Steve,
>
> You feel this is a legal approach?
>

Yes.

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> That's a good question. Steven, I actually thought you had said you
> were going to call the FAA on this one and question it.
>

I said I was going to query the FAA about the SAC case, not this case.

This was an "actual" approach. Much of my actual time comes from practicing
approaches on days like this one, and KAGC provides alot to offer close to
home. The club planes I fly are all equipped with ADF's, but rarely is the
station out of service. Because of radar, garmin 195,co-pilot and a ceiling
well above ILS minimums, I felt comfortable flying this approach.
Legal...no. Useful for quality practice...absolutely.
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Rick McPherson wrote:
>> On Aug 28 I was practicing approaches at KAGC (FEW 008 BKN 012 OVR 025
>> 4SM
>> BR). My preflight brief indicated that the McKeesport NDB is out of
>> service.
>> Yet, the ATIS identified runway 28 as active and we were given the ILS 28
>> approach for practice (upon request). Is this approach legal without the
>> beacon?
>> http://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/20060803/NE-4/agc_ils_rwy_28.pdf
>>
>> As a side note, is the equipment that you fly still using ADF?
>
> Since it was a practice approach (VFR I assume) it would be legal even
> if the loc was out of service.
> However, even as an acutal IFR approach it can still be given assuming
> you can identify the ADF on your GPS.
>
> -Robert, CFII
>
>



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Good luck getting a straight answer. According to our club safety director
(CFII) no definitive answer has been given...the prompt for this thread.
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> > Well, in the case of the ILS SAC its because the course from the outer
>> > marker is one degree off the localizer. ;)
>> >
>>
>> Why would you need to identify the ADF in this case?
>
> That's a good question. Steven, I actually thought you had said you
> were going to call the FAA on this one and question it.
>
> -Robert
>
>



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Steve,

You feel this is a legal approach?
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Rick McPherson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> On Aug 28 I was practicing approaches at KAGC (FEW 008 BKN 012 OVR 025
>> 4SM BR). My preflight brief indicated that the McKeesport NDB is out of
>> service. Yet, the ATIS identified runway 28 as active and we were given
>> the ILS 28 approach for practice (upon request). Is this approach legal
>> without the beacon?
>> http://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/20060803/NE-4/agc_ils_rwy_28.pdf
>>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>>
>> As a side note, is the equipment that you fly still using ADF?
>>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>
>
>



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "JPH" > wrote in message
> news:McsJg.8259$Tl4.7021@dukeread06...
>
>>The feeder route from AGC takes the aircraft to the localizer, but the
>>intersection of that feeder route and loc does not provide enough
>>divergence to meet criteria for holding in lieu of PT (minimum 45 degrees
>>divergence), so you can't do a course reversal without the NDB (or
>>suitable substitute) being operational. The feeder from NESTO is NA
>>without the NDB. It does appear that the planview note should read "RADAR
>>or DME required" since radar vectors from approach control to intercept
>>the final would work as long as they had coverage at suitable altitudes.
>>
>
>
> Why do I need ADF for the hold in lieu of PT? AGC has DME, if I'm 12.8 DME
> from AGC on the 076 radial and on the localizer I'm there.
>
>
It's not a DME fix. The holding pattern was built using the localizer
and NDB for course guidance. When using a LOC for course guidance the
DME source can't exceed 23 degrees left or right of the LOC course. AGC
appears to be 25 degrees left of the final course.
I suspect if it met criteria for a DME fix, the specialist would have
made it so to prevent having to place the "ADF required" note there.
If AGC was within 23 degrees left/right, they could use the DME to
create a DME fix on the LOC centerline. If it was more than 45 degrees,
they could have made it an intersection with the LOC. Unfortunately,
it's in that grey area where it can't be used for either purpose except
as a route to the NDB.

JPH

"JPH" > wrote in message
news:FSLJg.8528$Tl4.5360@dukeread06...
>
> It's not a DME fix.

So what? Is there any doubt about your position?

JPH wrote:
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>> "JPH" > wrote in message
>> news:McsJg.8259$Tl4.7021@dukeread06...
>>
>>> The feeder route from AGC takes the aircraft to the localizer, but
>>> the intersection of that feeder route and loc does not provide enough
>>> divergence to meet criteria for holding in lieu of PT (minimum 45
>>> degrees divergence), so you can't do a course reversal without the
>>> NDB (or suitable substitute) being operational. The feeder from NESTO
>>> is NA without the NDB. It does appear that the planview note should
>>> read "RADAR or DME required" since radar vectors from approach
>>> control to intercept the final would work as long as they had
>>> coverage at suitable altitudes.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Why do I need ADF for the hold in lieu of PT? AGC has DME, if I'm
>> 12.8 DME from AGC on the 076 radial and on the localizer I'm there.
>>
> It's not a DME fix. The holding pattern was built using the localizer
> and NDB for course guidance. When using a LOC for course guidance the
> DME source can't exceed 23 degrees left or right of the LOC course. AGC
> appears to be 25 degrees left of the final course.
> I suspect if it met criteria for a DME fix, the specialist would have
> made it so to prevent having to place the "ADF required" note there.
> If AGC was within 23 degrees left/right, they could use the DME to
> create a DME fix on the LOC centerline. If it was more than 45 degrees,
> they could have made it an intersection with the LOC. Unfortunately,
> it's in that grey area where it can't be used for either purpose except
> as a route to the NDB.

I see. Thanks for taking the time to explain. Dave

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "JPH" > wrote in message
> news:FSLJg.8528$Tl4.5360@dukeread06...
>
>>It's not a DME fix.
>
>
> So what? Is there any doubt about your position?
>
>
The "so what" is fix displacements have limits that were established by
the authors of TERPS, which did not include you.

If the system operated on your view of limits (as in "so what") then we
wouldn't need any approach procedures at all. Just roll your own.

Jim Macklin wrote:

> GPS can substitute for the ADF. Radar can substitute also.
> So, if the acft has no ADF or the NDB is OTS, so, it could
> be.
>
>
You cannot count on ATC identifying a fix on an IAP unless it is marked
"radar."

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
news:khWKg.5032$c07.4685@fed1read04...
>
> The "so what" is fix displacements have limits that were established by
> the authors of TERPS, which did not include you.
>

So it's the authors of TERPS that are at fault and not the designer of this
particular approach? Is that what you're saying?

Perhaps you have not thoroughly examined this approach. The NDB serves only
to transition from the enroute phase of flight to the approach. That's the
same function as the feeder route. If the ADF is required to fly this
approach then the feeder route is completely superfluous. So why is it
there?

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
news:ojWKg.5033$c07.4305@fed1read04...
>
> You cannot count on ATC identifying a fix on an IAP unless it is marked
> "radar."
>

That's not correct. Both ASR and ARSR may be used for identifying initial
and intermediate approach fixes, only ASR may be used for identification of
the final approach fix. There's no requirement that the fixes be marked
"RADAR" on the IAP.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> news:ojWKg.5033$c07.4305@fed1read04...
>
>>You cannot count on ATC identifying a fix on an IAP unless it is marked
>>"radar."
>>
>
>
> That's not correct. Both ASR and ARSR may be used for identifying initial
> and intermediate approach fixes, only ASR may be used for identification of
> the final approach fix. There's no requirement that the fixes be marked
> "RADAR" on the IAP.
>
>
Sure, they MAY be used but still need to meet some criteria in order to
be ESTABLISHED as radar fixes. The TERPs specialist can't identify it as
a radar fix on a procedure without the consent of ATC and verification
by flight check.
If the fix is marked "radar", that means flight check aircraft have
verified the radar fix meets accuracy requirements and it's depicted
properly on the scope. (Radar facilities do not have to depict or
display all fixes on their scope.) It also means that the specialist has
annotated the fix specifically as a radar fix on the 8260-2 forms that
were submitted IAW FAR 97 requirements.
So, as Sam says, you can't count on ATC identifying a fix on the IAP
unless it's marked "radar". Reason? It may or may not be depicted on the
scope (clutter) and they may or may not have agreed to be responsible
for calling the fix passage.

JPH

"JPH" > wrote in message
news:gE2Og.11816$Tl4.8274@dukeread06...
>
> Sure, they MAY be used but still need to meet some criteria in order to be
> ESTABLISHED as radar fixes.
>

They do not need to be ESATALISHED as radar fixes in order for ATC to
identify them.


>
> The TERPs specialist can't identify it as a
> radar fix on a procedure without the consent of ATC and verification by
> flight check.
> If the fix is marked "radar", that means flight check aircraft have
> verified the radar fix meets accuracy requirements and it's depicted
> properly on the scope. (Radar facilities do not have to depict or display
> all fixes on their scope.) It also means that the specialist has annotated
> the fix specifically as a radar fix on the 8260-2 forms that were
> submitted IAW FAR 97 requirements.
> So, as Sam says, you can't count on ATC identifying a fix on the IAP
> unless it's marked "radar". Reason? It may or may not be depicted on the
> scope (clutter) and they may or may not have agreed to be responsible for
> calling the fix passage.
>

What Sam says if frequently wrong, as it is in this case. For example, take
a look at the VOR or GPS-A approach at Blackhawk Airfield:

http://map.aeroplanner.com/mapping/chart/aptrpt.cfm?a=7&id=87Y&tab=approaches

REINE is identified as a RADAR fix but this approach isn't depicted on ZAU
ARTCC video maps at all. If the fix appears on the video map and it fits
the criteria specified in FAAO 7110.65 the controller can call the fix,
being identified as a RADAR fix on the IAP has nothing to do with it.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "JPH" > wrote in message
> news:gE2Og.11816$Tl4.8274@dukeread06...
>
>>Sure, they MAY be used but still need to meet some criteria in order to be
>>ESTABLISHED as radar fixes.
>>
>
>
> They do not need to be ESATALISHED as radar fixes in order for ATC to
> identify them.
>
>
>
>>The TERPs specialist can't identify it as a
>>radar fix on a procedure without the consent of ATC and verification by
>>flight check.
>>If the fix is marked "radar", that means flight check aircraft have
>>verified the radar fix meets accuracy requirements and it's depicted
>>properly on the scope. (Radar facilities do not have to depict or display
>>all fixes on their scope.) It also means that the specialist has annotated
>>the fix specifically as a radar fix on the 8260-2 forms that were
>>submitted IAW FAR 97 requirements.
>>So, as Sam says, you can't count on ATC identifying a fix on the IAP
>>unless it's marked "radar". Reason? It may or may not be depicted on the
>>scope (clutter) and they may or may not have agreed to be responsible for
>>calling the fix passage.
>>
>
>
> What Sam says if frequently wrong, as it is in this case. For example, take
> a look at the VOR or GPS-A approach at Blackhawk Airfield:
>
> http://map.aeroplanner.com/mapping/chart/aptrpt.cfm?a=7&id=87Y&tab=approaches
>
> REINE is identified as a RADAR fix but this approach isn't depicted on ZAU
> ARTCC video maps at all. If the fix appears on the video map and it fits
> the criteria specified in FAAO 7110.65 the controller can call the fix,
> being identified as a RADAR fix on the IAP has nothing to do with it.
>
>
That doesn't mean it will approach on the approach chart. Sam isn't
wrong, you are.

Did I ever say ATC can't call any fix they feel they can? The issue was
identify a fix as a radar fix on an approach chart.

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> That doesn't mean it will approach on the approach chart.
>

I don't know what that's supposed to mean.


>
> Sam isn't wrong, you are.
>

Am I? What did I say that Sam believes is wrong?


>
> Did I ever say ATC can't call any fix they feel they can?
>

You said, "You cannot count on ATC identifying a fix on an IAP unless it is
marked 'radar'." How does ATC identify a fix that is not depicted on the
controller's video map?


>
> The issue was identify a fix as a radar fix on an approach chart.
>

No, the issue was the legality of flying the ILS RWY 28 at AGC with
McKeesport NDB out of service.