Do I need DME or ADF in an IFR-certified GPS panel?

[No Spam]

Looking for thoughts out there...

If I have an IFR-certified GPS (terminal, not just enroute), is there any
reason to keep a DME or ADF in the panel? (Other than being able to listen
to am radio or tracking "non-offical" navaids - e.g., am radio stations!)

TIA,

-> Don
History does not long entrust the care of freedom
to the weak or the timid. - Dwight D. Eisenhower

[Peter R.]

No Spam > wrote:

> If I have an IFR-certified GPS (terminal, not just enroute), is there any
> reason to keep a DME or ADF in the panel? (Other than being able to listen
> to am radio or tracking "non-offical" navaids - e.g., am radio stations!)

There is no legal reason to keep those devices.

However, if you have them, they will certainly aid in situational
awareness.

--
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 =----

[Fred G. Black]

No Spam wrote:
> Looking for thoughts out there...
>
> If I have an IFR-certified GPS (terminal, not just enroute), is there any
> reason to keep a DME or ADF in the panel? (Other than being able to listen
> to am radio or tracking "non-offical" navaids - e.g., am radio stations!)

I would say that it depends on how important it is to you to have a
ground based alternative to GPS in case it becomes unusable (equipment
failure, RAIM, whatever) and what ground based alternatives are
available where you fly. In much of the US, there's little point in
having an ADF. In more remote places...

Fred.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 20:20:34 -0500, No Spam > wrote:

>Looking for thoughts out there...
>
>If I have an IFR-certified GPS (terminal, not just enroute), is there any
>reason to keep a DME or ADF in the panel? (Other than being able to listen
>to am radio or tracking "non-offical" navaids - e.g., am radio stations!)
>
>TIA,
>
>-> Don
> History does not long entrust the care of freedom
> to the weak or the timid. - Dwight D. Eisenhower
>

Without an ADF receiver, I would not be able to obtain the local altimeter
setting at my home airport, and take advantage of lower minimums available
with that information.

I have no idea how many other airports there are where the local altimeter
is available ONLY via the ADF, but that is the case at KEPM.


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

[No Spam]

On 6/7/05 20:40, "Peter R." > wrote:

> No Spam > wrote:
>
>> If I have an IFR-certified GPS (terminal, not just enroute), is there any
>> reason to keep a DME or ADF in the panel? (Other than being able to listen
>> to am radio or tracking "non-offical" navaids - e.g., am radio stations!)
>
> There is no legal reason to keep those devices.
>
> However, if you have them, they will certainly aid in situational
> awareness.

Thanks, Peter,

I hadn't considering legality, but thanks for that point.

I was assuming the Garmin 430/530/480 to be the GPS unit(s), so I wouldn't
think SA could be improved by keeping the DME or ADF.

-> Don
The cockpit of a plane is a world unto itself,
and to the pilot it is home.
"Wind, Sand and Stars" - Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

[No Spam]

On 6/7/05 20:43, "Fred G. Black" > wrote:

> No Spam wrote:
>> Looking for thoughts out there...
>>
>> If I have an IFR-certified GPS (terminal, not just enroute), is there any
>> reason to keep a DME or ADF in the panel? (Other than being able to listen
>> to am radio or tracking "non-offical" navaids - e.g., am radio stations!)
>
> I would say that it depends on how important it is to you to have a
> ground based alternative to GPS in case it becomes unusable (equipment
> failure, RAIM, whatever) and what ground based alternatives are
> available where you fly. In much of the US, there's little point in
> having an ADF. In more remote places...
>
> Fred.

Thanks, Fred,

I think the 430/530/480 incorporate VOR/ILS, so the loss of the GPS
constellation shouldn't leave one "lost", should it? I realize I'd be
limited to enroute/terminal operations that only require VOR/ILS should the
GPS system take a hike.

-> Don
Everybody needs a rubber chicken.

[No Spam]

On 6/7/05 21:32, "Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote:

> On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 20:20:34 -0500, No Spam > wrote:
>
>> Looking for thoughts out there...
>>
>> If I have an IFR-certified GPS (terminal, not just enroute), is there any
>> reason to keep a DME or ADF in the panel? (Other than being able to listen
>> to am radio or tracking "non-offical" navaids - e.g., am radio stations!)
>>
>> TIA,
>>
>> -> Don
>> History does not long entrust the care of freedom
>> to the weak or the timid. - Dwight D. Eisenhower
>>
>
> Without an ADF receiver, I would not be able to obtain the local altimeter
> setting at my home airport, and take advantage of lower minimums available
> with that information.
>
> I have no idea how many other airports there are where the local altimeter
> is available ONLY via the ADF, but that is the case at KEPM.
>
>
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Thanks, Ron, hadn't heard of such a case.

I see there's a phone number tied to your AWOS - have you tried calling it
airborne with a cell phone?

Never mind, that's illegal... ;)

-> Don
It's not how hard you fly 'em, it's how you fly 'em hard. - George Braly

[Matt Barrow]

"No Spam" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/7/05 20:40, "Peter R." > wrote:
>
> > No Spam > wrote:
> >
> >> If I have an IFR-certified GPS (terminal, not just enroute), is there
any
> >> reason to keep a DME or ADF in the panel? (Other than being able to
listen
> >> to am radio or tracking "non-offical" navaids - e.g., am radio
stations!)
> >
> > There is no legal reason to keep those devices.
> >
> > However, if you have them, they will certainly aid in situational
> > awareness.
>
> Thanks, Peter,
>
> I hadn't considering legality, but thanks for that point.
>
> I was assuming the Garmin 430/530/480 to be the GPS unit(s), so I wouldn't
> think SA could be improved by keeping the DME or ADF.
>
The ADF is no big deal, but definitely keep the DME. My guess is that you'll
find more GPS approaches that require DME than require ADF.

[Matt Barrow]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> Without an ADF receiver, I would not be able to obtain the local altimeter
> setting at my home airport, and take advantage of lower minimums available
> with that information.
>
> I have no idea how many other airports there are where the local altimeter
> is available ONLY via the ADF, but that is the case at KEPM.

Yours is the first I've ever heard of where the altimeter was even AVAILABLE
over an NDB (not that I was listening...).

[Matt Barrow]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>
> Without an ADF receiver, I would not be able to obtain the local altimeter
> setting at my home airport, and take advantage of lower minimums available
> with that information.

Not on 124.675?

[Frank Stutzman]

No Spam > wrote:

> I think the 430/530/480 incorporate VOR/ILS, so the loss of the GPS
> constellation shouldn't leave one "lost", should it? I realize I'd be
> limited to enroute/terminal operations that only require VOR/ILS should the
> GPS system take a hike.

Here's another thought about keeping your ADF.

There are a considerable number of GPS approaches that are overlays of NDB
approaches. Normally, you would use the improved percision of the GPS and
fly it that way. Now the 430/530 requires that your database be current
in order to legally fly an approach (at least with the AFMS that I have).
Now say you are out of town when your database expires and you need to do
such an approach. With the ADF you could legally do the approach and
"monitor" it with the GPS. No ADF and you would need to choose some other
approach in order to stay legal.


--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

[Nathan Young]

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 20:20:34 -0500, No Spam > wrote:

>Looking for thoughts out there...
>
>If I have an IFR-certified GPS (terminal, not just enroute), is there any
>reason to keep a DME or ADF in the panel? (Other than being able to listen
>to am radio or tracking "non-offical" navaids - e.g., am radio stations!)

I find the DME to be an excellent cross reference on both IFR airways
and approaches.

I would pull the ADF though. It's use is minimal, and with XM/Sirius
radio, who needs AM anyway?

From a resale standpoint the DME is going to offer a higher value than
the ADF.

All this assumes you are posting/flying from the States. I believe
other countries still require ADF either for IFR flight or for many of
the approaches.

-Nathan

[Peter Clark]

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 20:20:34 -0500, No Spam > wrote:

>Looking for thoughts out there...
>
>If I have an IFR-certified GPS (terminal, not just enroute), is there any
>reason to keep a DME or ADF in the panel? (Other than being able to listen
>to am radio or tracking "non-offical" navaids - e.g., am radio stations!)

Depending on where you are the ADF might be useful. I bet the DME
would be more useful overall, though. Does the presence of an actual
ADF or DME open up any approaches you can use when filing alternates
that the GPS alone doesn't because of the anti-substitution rules?

[Jon Kraus]

KUMP in Indianapolis transmits AWOS over their NDB on channel 338.

Jon Kraus
'79 Mooney 201

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Without an ADF receiver, I would not be able to obtain the local altimeter
>>setting at my home airport, and take advantage of lower minimums available
>>with that information.
>>
>>I have no idea how many other airports there are where the local altimeter
>>is available ONLY via the ADF, but that is the case at KEPM.
>
>
> Yours is the first I've ever heard of where the altimeter was even AVAILABLE
> over an NDB (not that I was listening...).
>
>

[No Spam]

On 6/7/05 22:35, "Matt Barrow" > wrote:

>
> "No Spam" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 6/7/05 20:40, "Peter R." > wrote:
>>
>>> No Spam > wrote:
>>>
>>>> If I have an IFR-certified GPS (terminal, not just enroute), is there
> any
>>>> reason to keep a DME or ADF in the panel? (Other than being able to
> listen
>>>> to am radio or tracking "non-offical" navaids - e.g., am radio
> stations!)
>>>
>>> There is no legal reason to keep those devices.
>>>
>>> However, if you have them, they will certainly aid in situational
>>> awareness.
>>
>> Thanks, Peter,
>>
>> I hadn't considering legality, but thanks for that point.
>>
>> I was assuming the Garmin 430/530/480 to be the GPS unit(s), so I wouldn't
>> think SA could be improved by keeping the DME or ADF.
>>
> The ADF is no big deal, but definitely keep the DME. My guess is that you'll
> find more GPS approaches that require DME than require ADF.
>
>

Thanks, Matt,

I had no idea that any GPS approaches existed that required DME - guess that
would make them "GPS-DME" approaches. Can you name some?

-> Don
We can't all be heroes. Some of us have to
stand on the curb and clap as they go by.
- Will Rogers

[No Spam]

On 6/7/05 23:28, "Frank Stutzman" > wrote:

> No Spam > wrote:
>
>> I think the 430/530/480 incorporate VOR/ILS, so the loss of the GPS
>> constellation shouldn't leave one "lost", should it? I realize I'd be
>> limited to enroute/terminal operations that only require VOR/ILS should the
>> GPS system take a hike.
>
> Here's another thought about keeping your ADF.
>
> There are a considerable number of GPS approaches that are overlays of NDB
> approaches. Normally, you would use the improved percision of the GPS and
> fly it that way. Now the 430/530 requires that your database be current
> in order to legally fly an approach (at least with the AFMS that I have).
> Now say you are out of town when your database expires and you need to do
> such an approach. With the ADF you could legally do the approach and
> "monitor" it with the GPS. No ADF and you would need to choose some other
> approach in order to stay legal.
>

Good idea, Frank. Good reason to use the laptop update via USB from Jeppesen
- assuming you have a way to get your laptop online.

Which begs another question - how soon before a (28-day cycle?) database
expires is the next cycle available online from Jeppesen?

-> Don
The hardest thing about flying is the ground.
- Charles Kingsford-Smith

[Ron Natalie]

No Spam wrote:
> Looking for thoughts out there...
>
> If I have an IFR-certified GPS (terminal, not just enroute), is there any
> reason to keep a DME or ADF in the panel? (Other than being able to listen
> to am radio or tracking "non-offical" navaids - e.g., am radio stations!)
>
I just installed a GNS480/MX20/SL30 combo. I kept my old DME for no
particularly good reason other than it was a fairly recent King one
and I had the panel space. It means if my 480 crumps I can still
fly a ILS/DME approach into Dulles.

As for non-official navaids, you can drop an GPS waypoint anywhere
in the world and the 480 will drive the autopilot right to it.

As for ball games, my MX20 receives XM Radio as a side effect of
getting the weather downloads.

[Ron Natalie]

Matt Barrow wrote:

>
> The ADF is no big deal, but definitely keep the DME. My guess is that you'll
> find more GPS approaches that require DME than require ADF.
>
>

What GPS approaches would EVER require DME?

The only thing a DME lets you do is fly a non-GPS approach if
it required it. This is only useful if you want to fly to
places using a GPS-based approach and your only available
alternate requires DME.

[Ron Natalie]

No Spam wrote:
, Matt,
>
> I had no idea that any GPS approaches existed that required DME - guess that
> would make them "GPS-DME" approaches. Can you name some?

There are none, the concept is silly. If you have a GPS approach, the
DME is spurious.

[Ron Natalie]

Frank Stutzman wrote:

>
> There are a considerable number of GPS approaches that are overlays of NDB
> approaches. Normally, you would use the improved percision of the GPS and
> fly it that way. Now the 430/530 requires that your database be current
> in order to legally fly an approach (at least with the AFMS that I have).

My 480 FMS only requires me to know the approach info is right.
Of course the real answer is if you're going to fly IFR, you're going
to have to keep your NAVDATA (charts, GPS databases, etc... up to date).

[Ron Natalie]

Jon Kraus wrote:
> KUMP in Indianapolis transmits AWOS over their NDB on channel 338.
>

And neither FSS or Approach can get it for you?

>>
>

[Matt Barrow]

"No Spam" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/7/05 22:35, "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
> >>
> > The ADF is no big deal, but definitely keep the DME. My guess is that
you'll
> > find more GPS approaches that require DME than require ADF.
> >
> >
>
> Thanks, Matt,
>
> I had no idea that any GPS approaches existed that required DME - guess
that
> would make them "GPS-DME" approaches. Can you name some?
>
One I do fairly often is SDA GPS 12, which is a VOR/DME overlay.
Another is Laramie (WY) Rwy 30.

[Matt Barrow]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> >
> > The ADF is no big deal, but definitely keep the DME. My guess is that
you'll
> > find more GPS approaches that require DME than require ADF.
> >
> >
>
> What GPS approaches would EVER require DME?

Sorry, not what I wanted to say. It's not that the GPS approach requires
DME, but that it gives more/better options than a ADF.

> The only thing a DME lets you do is fly a non-GPS approach if
> it required it. This is only useful if you want to fly to
> places using a GPS-based approach and your only available
> alternate requires DME.

[Thomas Borchert]

No,

> I had no idea that any GPS approaches existed that required DME - guess that
> would make them "GPS-DME" approaches. Can you name some?
>

You can replace ALL DMEs required with the GPS as long as the DME is in the
database. The distinction is important for airfields where the aerodrome
reference point (which is always in the database) is not identical with the
position of the DME used for the approach - which is often.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Matt,

> My guess is that you'll
> find more GPS approaches that require DME than require ADF.
>

but how many would there be where the GPS could not legally replace the
DME? Those are only the very few where the DME is not in the database.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Nathan,

> I believe
> other countries still require ADF either for IFR flight or for many of
> the approaches.
>

DME required for IFR here in Germany - and ADF in training aircraft. Big
problem for Cirrus, which doesn't have the panel space for another box.
They will sell you some kind of remote DME box, as I udnerstand it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Roy Smith]

Matt Barrow > wrote:
>> I had no idea that any GPS approaches existed that required DME -
>> guess that would make them "GPS-DME" approaches. Can you name some?
>
>One I do fairly often is SDA GPS 12, which is a VOR/DME overlay.

To fly this approach you need either (VOR and DME) or GPS. If you're
flying it with a GPS, you don't need a DME. It's really just for
convenience that they put them both on the same chart.

[Roy Smith]

In article >, Roy Smith > wrote:
>Matt Barrow > wrote:
>>> I had no idea that any GPS approaches existed that required DME -
>>> guess that would make them "GPS-DME" approaches. Can you name some?
>>
>>One I do fairly often is SDA GPS 12, which is a VOR/DME overlay.
>
>To fly this approach you need either (VOR and DME) or GPS. If you're
>flying it with a GPS, you don't need a DME. It's really just for
>convenience that they put them both on the same chart.

Looking closer at this approach, I'm a little confused why the OVR
13 DME (CFDKH) fix exists. There's no course change. The MDA is the
same before and after. There's no timer to start. Why is the segment
after Omaha VOR not simply "2800 NoPT to PICAM"?

[Doug]

There is, in fact, a requirement to be able to fly the approach at your
alternate without the use of GPS. So having DME will assist you in
finding legal alternates that have VOR/DME approaches. This will allow
you to carry less fuel and more payload. Without DME or ADF, all you
can fly is a VOR approach, and if you have radar, an ILS or LOC (maybe
a few obscure others). Even then some ILS's require DME or ADF.

DME is a nice option to have with an IFR GPS VOR/GS setup. But you can
get by without it. Also, I think Marker Beacons are nice to have,
though not legally required for ILS's. It is good to have that aural
warning at the middle marker.

[Frank Stutzman]

Ron Natalie > wrote:
> Frank Stutzman wrote:

> >
> > There are a considerable number of GPS approaches that are overlays of NDB
> > approaches. Normally, you would use the improved percision of the GPS and
> > fly it that way. Now the 430/530 requires that your database be current
> > in order to legally fly an approach (at least with the AFMS that I have).

> My 480 FMS only requires me to know the approach info is right.
> Of course the real answer is if you're going to fly IFR, you're going
> to have to keep your NAVDATA (charts, GPS databases, etc... up to date).

Yup, a big advantage of the 480 over the 430/530.

Has anyone ever attempted to get a FMS approved for a 430/530 that has
verbage like the 480 so that you could still do an approach with an
expired DB?

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

[George Patterson]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
>
> but how many would there be where the GPS could not legally replace the
> DME? Those are only the very few where the DME is not in the database.

It's my understanding that the DME box in the plane measures distance from a
VOR. All VORs should be in the database.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[George Patterson]

Doug wrote:
>
> Also, I think Marker Beacons are nice to have,
> though not legally required for ILS's. It is good to have that aural
> warning at the middle marker.

IIRC, there are also approaches that have lower minimums for the ILS with an MBR
than without.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Mark Hansen]

On 6/8/2005 09:51, George Patterson wrote:

> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>>
>> but how many would there be where the GPS could not legally replace the
>> DME? Those are only the very few where the DME is not in the database.
>
> It's my understanding that the DME box in the plane measures distance from a
> VOR. All VORs should be in the database.

Actually, it measures distance from a DME or TACAN facility, not from
a VOR. It can use a VOR/DME or VORTAC, but not a VOR.

>
> George Patterson
> Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
> and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
> Because she smells like a new truck.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA

[Ron Natalie]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> One I do fairly often is SDA GPS 12, which is a VOR/DME overlay.
> Another is Laramie (WY) Rwy 30.
>
>

It doesn't require DME if you're going to fly it GPS.
The name of that appoach is
VOR/DME or GPS 12

[Ron Natalie]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Matt,
>
>
>>My guess is that you'll
>>find more GPS approaches that require DME than require ADF.
>>
>
>
> but how many would there be where the GPS could not legally replace the
> DME? Those are only the very few where the DME is not in the database.
>

There are no GPS appraoches that require DME period. It's not a
matter of "replacing" it.

The only issue is using GPS to substitute for DME on NON-GPS
approaches. You can do that if you have the fix AND this isn't
the non-GPS required alternate.

[Ron Natalie]

George Patterson wrote:
> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>
>>
>> but how many would there be where the GPS could not legally replace
>> the DME? Those are only the very few where the DME is not in the
>> database.
>
>
> It's my understanding that the DME box in the plane measures distance
> from a VOR. All VORs should be in the database.

There are ILS based DME's. The issue isn't GPS appraoches, it's
using a GPS to substitute for DME on another non-GPS approach.

[Ron Natalie]

Roy Smith wrote:

>
> Looking closer at this approach, I'm a little confused why the OVR
> 13 DME (CFDKH) fix exists. There's no course change. The MDA is the
> same before and after. There's no timer to start. Why is the segment
> after Omaha VOR not simply "2800 NoPT to PICAM"?
>
>

It's to let you know you're inside the circle :-)

[Ron Natalie]

George Patterson wrote:
> Doug wrote:
>
>>
>> Also, I think Marker Beacons are nice to have,
>> though not legally required for ILS's. It is good to have that aural
>> warning at the middle marker.
>
>
> IIRC, there are also approaches that have lower minimums for the ILS
> with an MBR than without.
>
It used to be that there was a penalty for no middle marker. This was
done away with almost a decade ago. The FAA doesn't take markers
seriously anymore. Unless it's a compass locator with some other
navigational function, they're pretty much ignored.

[Ron Natalie]

Frank Stutzman wrote:

>
> Yup, a big advantage of the 480 over the 430/530.
>
> Has anyone ever attempted to get a FMS approved for a 430/530 that has
> verbage like the 480 so that you could still do an approach with an
> expired DB?
>
Not with any FSDO around here for sure. I've even got the stupid
GPS/VOR annunciators because my 480 is three inches too far to the
right to qualify for the exemption.

[No Spam]

On 6/8/05 09:17, "Matt Barrow" > wrote:

>
> "No Spam" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 6/7/05 22:35, "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>>>>
>>> The ADF is no big deal, but definitely keep the DME. My guess is that
> you'll
>>> find more GPS approaches that require DME than require ADF.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Thanks, Matt,
>>
>> I had no idea that any GPS approaches existed that required DME - guess
> that
>> would make them "GPS-DME" approaches. Can you name some?
>>
> One I do fairly often is SDA GPS 12, which is a VOR/DME overlay.
> Another is Laramie (WY) Rwy 30.
>
>

Matt,

Those approaches can be flown with only the GPS - a DME isn't required. If
you flew them without a GPS, then you'd need the VOR/DME combination.

-> Don
Life is just what happens to you,
While you're busy making other plans
"Beautiful boy" - John Lennon

[Roy Smith]

George Patterson > wrote:
> It's my understanding that the DME box in the plane measures distance from a
> VOR. All VORs should be in the database.

Not all DME ground stations are co-located with VORs. Many are on
airports as part of an ILS-DME (and the exact location of the ground
station is not charted in that case).

If you look hard enough, you can find the occasional NDB-DME station.
I'm not aware of any stand-alone DME ground stations, but I can't
think of any reason why such a thing couldn't exist.

[Ron Natalie]

Roy Smith wrote:

> If you look hard enough, you can find the occasional NDB-DME station.
> I'm not aware of any stand-alone DME ground stations, but I can't
> think of any reason why such a thing couldn't exist.
>
There are probably some TACAN only stations around somewhere, but I'm
not sure any civil procedures would use them.

[xyzzy]

Doug wrote:

> There is, in fact, a requirement to be able to fly the approach at your
> alternate without the use of GPS. So having DME will assist you in
> finding legal alternates that have VOR/DME approaches. This will allow
> you to carry less fuel and more payload. Without DME or ADF, all you
> can fly is a VOR approach, and if you have radar, an ILS or LOC (maybe
> a few obscure others). Even then some ILS's require DME or ADF.

My home airport has an ILS approach with ADF required, but I just
figured I could use the GPS to substitute for the ADF. From what I
understand of the above, that's true but that also means my airport's
ILS approach is not a legal alternate for someone planning a GPS
somewhere else, do I understand that right? (I'm an instrument
student, still learning this stuff and have found this thread fascinating).

[Robert M. Gary]

I would say yes. Its very expensive to keep your IFR GPS IFR legal
(with updates). You may not keep it up to date year around, it would be
nice to have IFR equip in your plane that doesn't expire every 56 days.

[Thomas Borchert]

Matt,

> One I do fairly often is SDA GPS 12, which is a VOR/DME overlay.
> Another is Laramie (WY) Rwy 30.
>

And those don't allow you to substitute the DME?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Ron Natalie]

xyzzy wrote:

> My home airport has an ILS approach with ADF required, but I just
> figured I could use the GPS to substitute for the ADF. From what I
> understand of the above, that's true but that also means my airport's
> ILS approach is not a legal alternate for someone planning a GPS
> somewhere else, do I understand that right?

Yes.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 22:20:12 -0500, No Spam > wrote:

>I see there's a phone number tied to your AWOS - have you tried calling it
>airborne with a cell phone?

I was not aware of a phone number; and I just checked the database at
AIRNAV and don't see one listed there or at AOPA. What is it? Where did
you find it? I'll give it a call and see what answers.




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

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 20:40:10 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>
>"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Without an ADF receiver, I would not be able to obtain the local altimeter
>> setting at my home airport, and take advantage of lower minimums available
>> with that information.
>
>Not on 124.675?
>
>
>

No, the NDB transmits on 260.


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

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 09:58:14 -0400, Ron Natalie > wrote:

>Jon Kraus wrote:
>> KUMP in Indianapolis transmits AWOS over their NDB on channel 338.
>>
>
>And neither FSS or Approach can get it for you?
>
>>>
>>

So far as EPM is concerned, the information is only available on the NDB
frequency of 260. Neither Center nor FSS have access to it.


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

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On 8 Jun 2005 08:11:56 -0700, "Doug" > wrote:

>There is, in fact, a requirement to be able to fly the approach at your
>alternate without the use of GPS.

That is not a requirement for TSO-C146a boxes, such as the GNS480.




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

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 14:55:45 -0400, xyzzy > wrote:

>Doug wrote:
>
>> There is, in fact, a requirement to be able to fly the approach at your
>> alternate without the use of GPS. So having DME will assist you in
>> finding legal alternates that have VOR/DME approaches. This will allow
>> you to carry less fuel and more payload. Without DME or ADF, all you
>> can fly is a VOR approach, and if you have radar, an ILS or LOC (maybe
>> a few obscure others). Even then some ILS's require DME or ADF.
>
>My home airport has an ILS approach with ADF required, but I just
>figured I could use the GPS to substitute for the ADF. From what I
>understand of the above, that's true but that also means my airport's
>ILS approach is not a legal alternate for someone planning a GPS
>somewhere else, do I understand that right? (I'm an instrument
>student, still learning this stuff and have found this thread fascinating).

What is your home airport?

Some GPS units (GNS480) do NOT require that the the alternate have
something other than a GPS approach. But I'd like to look at your specific
approach to see if it would be legal to fly the ILS ADF approach there.


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

[No Spam]

On 6/8/05 18:40, "Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote:

> On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 22:20:12 -0500, No Spam > wrote:
>
>> I see there's a phone number tied to your AWOS - have you tried calling it
>> airborne with a cell phone?
>
> I was not aware of a phone number; and I just checked the database at
> AIRNAV and don't see one listed there or at AOPA. What is it? Where did
> you find it? I'll give it a call and see what answers.
>
>
>
>
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

<http://www.airnav.com/airport/KEPM> under "Airport Communications":

WX AWOS-A: 260 (207-853-0997)

-> Don
It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no
distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.
- Mark Twain

[No Spam]

On 6/8/05 18:42, "Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote:

> On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 09:58:14 -0400, Ron Natalie > wrote:
>
>> Jon Kraus wrote:
>>> KUMP in Indianapolis transmits AWOS over their NDB on channel 338.
>>>
>>
>> And neither FSS or Approach can get it for you?
>>
>>>>
>>>
>
> So far as EPM is concerned, the information is only available on the NDB
> frequency of 260. Neither Center nor FSS have access to it.
>
>
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Yeah, some of those AWOS units aren't tied into the "real" world. ;)

If you look at <http://adds.aviationweather.gov/metars/stations.txt>, it's
listed. However, if you go to ADDS, it won't come up as a METAR station.

-> Don
Ships are safe in harbor, but that is not what ships are built for.
- John Shedd

[Newps]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> No,
>
>
>>I had no idea that any GPS approaches existed that required DME - guess that
>>would make them "GPS-DME" approaches. Can you name some?
>>
>
>
> You can replace ALL DMEs required with the GPS as long as the DME is in the
> database.

Not required. You just need to have any fix of the approach in the
database.

[Newps]

Ron Natalie wrote:

> xyzzy wrote:
>
>> My home airport has an ILS approach with ADF required, but I just
>> figured I could use the GPS to substitute for the ADF. From what I
>> understand of the above, that's true but that also means my airport's
>> ILS approach is not a legal alternate for someone planning a GPS
>> somewhere else, do I understand that right?
>
>
> Yes.

Until WAAS, then no.

[Matt Barrow]

"No Spam" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/8/05 09:17, "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
> >>
> >> I had no idea that any GPS approaches existed that required DME - guess
> > that
> >> would make them "GPS-DME" approaches. Can you name some?
> >>
> > One I do fairly often is SDA GPS 12, which is a VOR/DME overlay.
> > Another is Laramie (WY) Rwy 30.
> >
> >
>
> Matt,
>
> Those approaches can be flown with only the GPS - a DME isn't required. If
> you flew them without a GPS, then you'd need the VOR/DME combination.


And all this time I thought the other equipment was required. Oh, well,
better to use overkill then undercut it.

Live and learn.

Point is: if you'll frequently fly approaches that require ADF, keep them
both. I have both and use them just for redundancy. I didn't know that such
redundancy wasn't required, but it didn't cost me anything other than some
minor effort.

(Didn't I see in here somewhere that a ****load(1) of NDB's are going to be
decommissioned in the next few years?)

Matt B.

(1) ****load (n), a large, indeterminate quantity.

[Matt Barrow]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>
> Some GPS units (GNS480) do NOT require that the the alternate have
> something other than a GPS approach.

Why is that?

[Matt Barrow]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 20:40:10 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> Without an ADF receiver, I would not be able to obtain the local
altimeter
> >> setting at my home airport, and take advantage of lower minimums
available
> >> with that information.
> >
> >Not on 124.675?
> >
> >
> >
>
> No, the NDB transmits on 260.

Duh!

You're at KEMP (Emporia, KS) right?
--------------------
Airport Communications
CTAF/UNICOM: 122.8
WX ASOS: 124.675 (620-343-3733)

-------------------

[Matt Barrow]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 20:40:10 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >>
> > >> Without an ADF receiver, I would not be able to obtain the local
> altimeter
> > >> setting at my home airport, and take advantage of lower minimums
> available
> > >> with that information.
> > >
> > >Not on 124.675?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > No, the NDB transmits on 260.
>
> Duh!
>
> You're at KEMP (Emporia, KS) right?

Whoops...never mind. KEPM, not KEMP.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 20:25:15 -0500, No Spam > wrote:

>On 6/8/05 18:40, "Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 22:20:12 -0500, No Spam > wrote:
>>
>>> I see there's a phone number tied to your AWOS - have you tried calling it
>>> airborne with a cell phone?
>>
>> I was not aware of a phone number; and I just checked the database at
>> AIRNAV and don't see one listed there or at AOPA. What is it? Where did
>> you find it? I'll give it a call and see what answers.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
>
><http://www.airnav.com/airport/KEPM> under "Airport Communications":
>
>WX AWOS-A: 260 (207-853-0997)
>
>-> Don

I think that's an old number for the terminal building. A sleepy voice
answered when I dialed it just now :-(


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

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 20:33:53 -0500, No Spam > wrote:

>Yeah, some of those AWOS units aren't tied into the "real" world. ;)
>
>If you look at <http://adds.aviationweather.gov/metars/stations.txt>, it's
>listed. However, if you go to ADDS, it won't come up as a METAR station.

The ONLY data available is the local altimeter setting. So I would not
expect it to be listed as a METAR station.


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

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 19:30:01 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>
>"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Some GPS units (GNS480) do NOT require that the the alternate have
>> something other than a GPS approach.
>
>Why is that?
>
>

I believe it has to do with the idea that boxes certified under TSO C146,
which includes WAAS and other goodies, are more robust. Take a look at the
1-1-20. Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) for a more in-depth
presentation.

As a matter of fact, with a box certified under TSO C146, it is not even
required to have any other navigation equipment on board the aircraft.


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

[Ron Natalie]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Some GPS units (GNS480) do NOT require that the the alternate have
>>something other than a GPS approach.
>
>
> Why is that?
>
>
>
Certification to a higher standard.
The 480 is TSO C146c box, the rest are TSO C128a

[Peter Clark]

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 22:38:59 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld
> wrote:

>On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 20:25:15 -0500, No Spam > wrote:
>
>>On 6/8/05 18:40, "Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 22:20:12 -0500, No Spam > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I see there's a phone number tied to your AWOS - have you tried calling it
>>>> airborne with a cell phone?
>>>
>>> I was not aware of a phone number; and I just checked the database at
>>> AIRNAV and don't see one listed there or at AOPA. What is it? Where did
>>> you find it? I'll give it a call and see what answers.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
>>
>><http://www.airnav.com/airport/KEPM> under "Airport Communications":
>>
>>WX AWOS-A: 260 (207-853-0997)
>>
>>-> Don
>
>I think that's an old number for the terminal building. A sleepy voice
>answered when I dialed it just now :-(

There's no phone number in the AF/D and it doesn't show up on
877-any-awos either.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 22:49:00 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld >
wrote:

>On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 19:30:01 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> Some GPS units (GNS480) do NOT require that the the alternate have
>>> something other than a GPS approach.
>>
>>Why is that?
>>
>>
>
>I believe it has to do with the idea that boxes certified under TSO C146,
>which includes WAAS and other goodies, are more robust. Take a look at the
>1-1-20.

That should be the AIM 1-1-20


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

[xyzzy]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 14:55:45 -0400, xyzzy > wrote:
>
>
>>Doug wrote:
>>
>>
>>>There is, in fact, a requirement to be able to fly the approach at your
>>>alternate without the use of GPS. So having DME will assist you in
>>>finding legal alternates that have VOR/DME approaches. This will allow
>>>you to carry less fuel and more payload. Without DME or ADF, all you
>>>can fly is a VOR approach, and if you have radar, an ILS or LOC (maybe
>>>a few obscure others). Even then some ILS's require DME or ADF.
>>
>>My home airport has an ILS approach with ADF required, but I just
>>figured I could use the GPS to substitute for the ADF. From what I
>>understand of the above, that's true but that also means my airport's
>>ILS approach is not a legal alternate for someone planning a GPS
>>somewhere else, do I understand that right? (I'm an instrument
>>student, still learning this stuff and have found this thread fascinating).
>
>
> What is your home airport?
>

TTA, ILS RWY 3.


> Some GPS units (GNS480) do NOT require that the the alternate have
> something other than a GPS approach. But I'd like to look at your specific
> approach to see if it would be legal to fly the ILS ADF approach there.

The other aproaches at TTA are GPS on both 3 and 21 and NDB on 3. So
basically an ADF is kinda important there. If you don't have an
approach certified GPS, you need one.

[xyzzy]

xyzzy wrote:

> Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 14:55:45 -0400, xyzzy > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Doug wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> There is, in fact, a requirement to be able to fly the approach at your
>>>> alternate without the use of GPS. So having DME will assist you in
>>>> finding legal alternates that have VOR/DME approaches. This will allow
>>>> you to carry less fuel and more payload. Without DME or ADF, all you
>>>> can fly is a VOR approach, and if you have radar, an ILS or LOC (maybe
>>>> a few obscure others). Even then some ILS's require DME or ADF.
>>>
>>>
>>> My home airport has an ILS approach with ADF required, but I just
>>> figured I could use the GPS to substitute for the ADF. From what I
>>> understand of the above, that's true but that also means my airport's
>>> ILS approach is not a legal alternate for someone planning a GPS
>>> somewhere else, do I understand that right? (I'm an instrument
>>> student, still learning this stuff and have found this thread
>>> fascinating).
>>
>>
>>
>> What is your home airport?
>>
>
> TTA, ILS RWY 3.

Re reading the chart I see that the NDB's location is also identified
with a DME fix on the ILS, so maybe that means ADF is not really
required if you have DME?

[Dave Butler]

xyzzy wrote:
> xyzzy wrote:

>> TTA, ILS RWY 3.
>
>
> Re reading the chart I see that the NDB's location is also identified
> with a DME fix on the ILS, so maybe that means ADF is not really
> required if you have DME?

You need ADF or GPS for the missed approach. DGB

[xyzzy]

Dave Butler wrote:

> xyzzy wrote:
>
>> xyzzy wrote:
>
>
>>> TTA, ILS RWY 3.
>>
>>
>>
>> Re reading the chart I see that the NDB's location is also identified
>> with a DME fix on the ILS, so maybe that means ADF is not really
>> required if you have DME?
>
>
> You need ADF or GPS for the missed approach. DGB

Duh, thanks. That's why I'm an instrument student, not instrument rated.

[Ron Natalie]

Tom Fleischman wrote:
> On 2005-06-08 09:52:31 -0400, Ron Natalie > said:
>
>> I just installed a GNS480/MX20/SL30 combo.
>
>
> Isn't it sweet! :)
>
>
Yep, and GPSS is way cool it's almost to the point that I've
stopped hovering my hand over the big red AP disconnect button
while it's driving itself around the purple line on the screen.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 09:55:37 -0400, xyzzy > wrote:

>Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 14:55:45 -0400, xyzzy > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Doug wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>There is, in fact, a requirement to be able to fly the approach at your
>>>>alternate without the use of GPS. So having DME will assist you in
>>>>finding legal alternates that have VOR/DME approaches. This will allow
>>>>you to carry less fuel and more payload. Without DME or ADF, all you
>>>>can fly is a VOR approach, and if you have radar, an ILS or LOC (maybe
>>>>a few obscure others). Even then some ILS's require DME or ADF.
>>>
>>>My home airport has an ILS approach with ADF required, but I just
>>>figured I could use the GPS to substitute for the ADF. From what I
>>>understand of the above, that's true but that also means my airport's
>>>ILS approach is not a legal alternate for someone planning a GPS
>>>somewhere else, do I understand that right? (I'm an instrument
>>>student, still learning this stuff and have found this thread fascinating).
>>
>>
>> What is your home airport?
>>
>
>TTA, ILS RWY 3.
>
>
>> Some GPS units (GNS480) do NOT require that the the alternate have
>> something other than a GPS approach. But I'd like to look at your specific
>> approach to see if it would be legal to fly the ILS ADF approach there.
>
>The other aproaches at TTA are GPS on both 3 and 21 and NDB on 3. So
>basically an ADF is kinda important there. If you don't have an
>approach certified GPS, you need one.

Well, according to my Jepp chart, TTA is NA for filing as an alternate, so
the ILS (or any other approach) would not be a legal alternate anyway.

For actually flying the ILS, an approach-approved GPS can substitute for
the NDB on that ILS approach.

Since the NDB Rwy 3 approach is not an overlay, an approach-approved GPS
could not fly it legally. This is not a loss as there is an RNAV(GPS) Rwy
3 approach which has lower minimums!

Best,

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

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 10:44:08 -0400, xyzzy > wrote:

>xyzzy wrote:
>
>> Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 14:55:45 -0400, xyzzy > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> There is, in fact, a requirement to be able to fly the approach at your
>>>>> alternate without the use of GPS. So having DME will assist you in
>>>>> finding legal alternates that have VOR/DME approaches. This will allow
>>>>> you to carry less fuel and more payload. Without DME or ADF, all you
>>>>> can fly is a VOR approach, and if you have radar, an ILS or LOC (maybe
>>>>> a few obscure others). Even then some ILS's require DME or ADF.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My home airport has an ILS approach with ADF required, but I just
>>>> figured I could use the GPS to substitute for the ADF. From what I
>>>> understand of the above, that's true but that also means my airport's
>>>> ILS approach is not a legal alternate for someone planning a GPS
>>>> somewhere else, do I understand that right? (I'm an instrument
>>>> student, still learning this stuff and have found this thread
>>>> fascinating).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What is your home airport?
>>>
>>
>> TTA, ILS RWY 3.
>
>Re reading the chart I see that the NDB's location is also identified
>with a DME fix on the ILS, so maybe that means ADF is not really
>required if you have DME?

No, the NDB is required to navigate to the missed approach fix. I believe
that is because you need PCG -- Positive Course Guidance.

To add a bit to my previous post, IF TTA were useable as an alternate, I'm
sure that an a/c with a GPS receiver certified to TSO146 (WAAS) could use
it without a functioning ADF receiver; but I believe (I'm not sure on this)
that an a/c with a TSO129 box could NOT legally file there as an alternate,
unless that a/c also had a functioning ADF.


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

[BillJ]

No Spam wrote:
> Looking for thoughts out there...
>
> If I have an IFR-certified GPS (terminal, not just enroute), is there any
> reason to keep a DME or ADF in the panel? (Other than being able to listen
> to am radio or tracking "non-offical" navaids - e.g., am radio stations!)
>
> TIA,
>
> -> Don
> History does not long entrust the care of freedom
> to the weak or the timid. - Dwight D. Eisenhower
>
>
You need to be able to execute an approach at your alternate without
reliance on GPS. So, for example, if alternate only has a VOR/DME
approach, you better keep the DME.

[Dave S]

Newps wrote:

> Not required. You just need to have any fix of the approach in the
> database.

Usually I agree with you, but I am confused here.

Why WOULDN'T you need the physical location of the DME in the database,
if you are using the distance from that location as the basis of
whatever decision you were using the DME for?

I know that your answers are always light on the "why" part of the
answer, but just once do you think you can throw the why in? as well as
a reference, because I am unfamiliar with the rationale for your answer.

Dave

[Dave S]

KEFD (ellington field) has some DME arcs on its TERPS that are based on
an on-field TACAN. Once upon a time this was a VORTAC, but its been a
TACAN only for at least the past 5 years, prolly closer to 10.

the ILS 17R is one of em. The Govt charts list the TACAN/DME chan as
31.. by having the jepp charts, you can know the freq as 109.4 mhz.

I use the DME routinely just to know distance to the field in non-gps
planes.

Dave


Ron Natalie wrote:

> Roy Smith wrote:
>
>> If you look hard enough, you can find the occasional NDB-DME station.
>> I'm not aware of any stand-alone DME ground stations, but I can't
>> think of any reason why such a thing couldn't exist.
>>
> There are probably some TACAN only stations around somewhere, but I'm
> not sure any civil procedures would use them.

[Dave S]

If you already OWN the equipment, and have the panel space, and it
WORKS.. then there is no reason in my mind to REMOVE IT.

Keep it in case the GPS fairy takes a giant dump on you some day...

Dave

No Spam wrote:

> Looking for thoughts out there...
>
> If I have an IFR-certified GPS (terminal, not just enroute), is there any
> reason to keep a DME or ADF in the panel? (Other than being able to listen
> to am radio or tracking "non-offical" navaids - e.g., am radio stations!)
>
> TIA,
>
> -> Don
> History does not long entrust the care of freedom
> to the weak or the timid. - Dwight D. Eisenhower
>
>

[Thomas Borchert]

Ron,

> GPSS is way cool
>

It's way cool with our 430 and an S-TEC 50 plus GPSS box, too ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Peter Clark]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 03:06:48 GMT, Dave S >
wrote:

>
>
>Newps wrote:
>
>> Not required. You just need to have any fix of the approach in the
>> database.
>
>Usually I agree with you, but I am confused here.
>
>Why WOULDN'T you need the physical location of the DME in the database,
>if you are using the distance from that location as the basis of
>whatever decision you were using the DME for?

I would think it depends on the type of approach. For example, flying
the VOR/DME 23 into 6B6 (Stow, MA) I could either use distance from
MHT, leaving MHT as the waypoint, or I could use the 5.1 distance from
EGORE intersection instead. Either way, the MAP is 25.1 from MHT.

However, it appears that you do need the actual I-whatever ILS device
in the database if you're substituting the GPS for an actual DME on a
ILS/DME or LOC/DME approach. KLN94 manual, 6.2.13 - "Using GPS
Distance as a Substitute for DME on Localizer-Type Approaches" reads
"The FAA allows the use of GPS distance as a substitute for DME on
localizer-type approaches when the DME facility is stored in the GPS
database. The KLN 94 stores DME's associated with localizer-type
approaches using the navaid identifier of the approach. For example,
the DME facility associated with the ILS DME 33 approach for
Burlington International airport is stored in the KLN 94's database as
IVOE."

[Dave Butler]

Dave S wrote:
>
>
> Newps wrote:
>
>> Not required. You just need to have any fix of the approach in the
>> database.
>
>
> Usually I agree with you, but I am confused here.
>
> Why WOULDN'T you need the physical location of the DME in the database,
> if you are using the distance from that location as the basis of
> whatever decision you were using the DME for?
>
> I know that your answers are always light on the "why" part of the
> answer, but just once do you think you can throw the why in? as well as
> a reference, because I am unfamiliar with the rationale for your answer.

I'm not newps, but if you have some fix that's along the approach in the
database, you can use the distance to that fix, and use mental arithmetic to
calculate the distance to the DME station.

At one time this was more common before the ILS/DME locations were included in
the databases. I don't have a cite, but believe it's all spelled out in the AIM
(assuming US).

[BTIZ]

Study Advisory Circular 90-94
BT

"No Spam" > wrote in message
...
> Looking for thoughts out there...
>
> If I have an IFR-certified GPS (terminal, not just enroute), is there any
> reason to keep a DME or ADF in the panel? (Other than being able to listen
> to am radio or tracking "non-offical" navaids - e.g., am radio stations!)
>
> TIA,
>
> -> Don
> History does not long entrust the care of freedom
> to the weak or the timid. - Dwight D. Eisenhower
>
>

[xyzzy]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 09:55:37 -0400, xyzzy > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 14:55:45 -0400, xyzzy > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Doug wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>There is, in fact, a requirement to be able to fly the approach at your
>>>>>alternate without the use of GPS. So having DME will assist you in
>>>>>finding legal alternates that have VOR/DME approaches. This will allow
>>>>>you to carry less fuel and more payload. Without DME or ADF, all you
>>>>>can fly is a VOR approach, and if you have radar, an ILS or LOC (maybe
>>>>>a few obscure others). Even then some ILS's require DME or ADF.
>>>>
>>>>My home airport has an ILS approach with ADF required, but I just
>>>>figured I could use the GPS to substitute for the ADF. From what I
>>>>understand of the above, that's true but that also means my airport's
>>>>ILS approach is not a legal alternate for someone planning a GPS
>>>>somewhere else, do I understand that right? (I'm an instrument
>>>>student, still learning this stuff and have found this thread fascinating).
>>>
>>>
>>>What is your home airport?
>>>
>>
>>TTA, ILS RWY 3.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Some GPS units (GNS480) do NOT require that the the alternate have
>>>something other than a GPS approach. But I'd like to look at your specific
>>>approach to see if it would be legal to fly the ILS ADF approach there.
>>
>>The other aproaches at TTA are GPS on both 3 and 21 and NDB on 3. So
>>basically an ADF is kinda important there. If you don't have an
>>approach certified GPS, you need one.
>
>
> Well, according to my Jepp chart, TTA is NA for filing as an alternate, so
> the ILS (or any other approach) would not be a legal alternate anyway.
>

Why do they designate airports NA for alternates? Is it perhaps because
a major class-C airport (RDU) is nearby and should be used as the
alternate instead?

[John Clonts]

>Why do they designate airports NA for alternates? Is it perhaps because
> a major class-C airport (RDU) is nearby and should be used as the
>alternate instead?

They don't designate airports NA for alternates. They only designate
approaches NA for alternates. Pilots then sometimes refer to an
airport as being NA for alternates when they discover that all the
approaches are NA for alternates.

Often times, though, some approaches will be NA and others will not
be...

--
Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

[xyzzy]

John Clonts wrote:

>>Why do they designate airports NA for alternates? Is it perhaps because
>>a major class-C airport (RDU) is nearby and should be used as the
>>alternate instead?
>
>
> They don't designate airports NA for alternates. They only designate
> approaches NA for alternates. Pilots then sometimes refer to an
> airport as being NA for alternates when they discover that all the
> approaches are NA for alternates.
>
> Often times, though, some approaches will be NA and others will not
> be...
>

Ok, why do they designate approaches NA for alternates (every approach
at this airport is so designated)?

[John Clonts]

>Ok, why do they designate approaches NA for alternates (every approach
>at this airport is so designated)?

The NACO approach books' legend explains thus:
[Black Triangle "A" NA] - Alternate minimums are Not Authorized due to
unmonitored facility or absence of weather reporting service

I understand that the "unmonitored facility" basically means that ATC
has no means of confirming that the facility (VOR, ILS, NDB, etc) is
working at a given time.


More info in this thread:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.aviation.ifr/browse_frm/thread/217a9031acc10224/

--
Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

[Mark Hansen]

On 6/15/2005 09:51, John Clonts wrote:

>>Ok, why do they designate approaches NA for alternates (every approach
>>at this airport is so designated)?
>
> The NACO approach books' legend explains thus:
> [Black Triangle "A" NA] - Alternate minimums are Not Authorized due to
> unmonitored facility or absence of weather reporting service
>
> I understand that the "unmonitored facility" basically means that ATC
> has no means of confirming that the facility (VOR, ILS, NDB, etc) is
> working at a given time.

This still doesn't mean that the NA applies to the entire airport.
For example, at one of the local airports here, one of the approachs
is not authorized for use as an alternate when the tower is closed,
because it is not monitored. However, a different approach (at the
same airport) uses a VOR facility that is off-field, and it is
authorized as an alternate.

Of course, I'm an instrument student, so I may still be missing
something...

>
>
> More info in this thread:
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.aviation.ifr/browse_frm/thread/217a9031acc10224/
>


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA

[Peter Clark]

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:05:07 -0700, Mark Hansen >
wrote:

>This still doesn't mean that the NA applies to the entire airport.
>For example, at one of the local airports here, one of the approachs
>is not authorized for use as an alternate when the tower is closed,
>because it is not monitored. However, a different approach (at the
>same airport) uses a VOR facility that is off-field, and it is
>authorized as an alternate.

If there's no weather reporting, you're out of luck for the airport.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:10:33 -0400, xyzzy > wrote:

>Why do they designate airports NA for alternates? Is it perhaps because
> a major class-C airport (RDU) is nearby and should be used as the
>alternate instead?

Usually it is either because of unmonitored facilities or an absence of
weather reporting.

In point of fact, it is the approaches that are designated NA and not the
airport as a whole.

The fact that all of the approaches at TTA leads to an interesting
conundrum which get debated here from time to time.

Part 91 prescribes certain minima for an airport to be used as an
alternate. The way it reads (91.169c), if an instrument approach has been
published, then certain minima are required (depending on precision vs
non-precision, etc). However, if no instrument approach has been
published, then "the ceiling and visibility minima are those allowing
descent from the MEA, approach, and landing under basic VFR".

There's no exception for an airport which has published approaches, but
they're all marked NA for an alternate, as at TTA.

So, you're filed to RDU, and the weather requires an alternate. You obtain
"appropriate weather reports or weather forecasts, or a combination ..."
that indicate the weather at TTA will be severe clear at your time of
arrival. According to a strict reading of those regulations, you still
could not use it as an alternate; although it would be perfectly OK to use
some grass strip as an alternate. Makes no sense to me.


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

[John Clonts]

"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:05:07 -0700, Mark Hansen >
> wrote:
>
>>This still doesn't mean that the NA applies to the entire airport.
>>For example, at one of the local airports here, one of the approachs
>>is not authorized for use as an alternate when the tower is closed,
>>because it is not monitored. However, a different approach (at the
>>same airport) uses a VOR facility that is off-field, and it is
>>authorized as an alternate.
>
> If there's no weather reporting, you're out of luck for the airport.
>

Not necessarily.

[Dave Butler]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> So, you're filed to RDU, and the weather requires an alternate. You obtain
> "appropriate weather reports or weather forecasts, or a combination ..."
> that indicate the weather at TTA will be severe clear at your time of
> arrival. According to a strict reading of those regulations, you still
> could not use it as an alternate; although it would be perfectly OK to use
> some grass strip as an alternate. Makes no sense to me.

You can't use it to satisfy the requirements for *filing* an alternate. You can
*use* whatever you want. Right?

Dave

[xyzzy]

Dave Butler wrote:

> Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
>> So, you're filed to RDU, and the weather requires an alternate. You
>> obtain
>> "appropriate weather reports or weather forecasts, or a combination ..."
>> that indicate the weather at TTA will be severe clear at your time of
>> arrival. According to a strict reading of those regulations, you still
>> could not use it as an alternate; although it would be perfectly OK to
>> use
>> some grass strip as an alternate. Makes no sense to me.
>
>
> You can't use it to satisfy the requirements for *filing* an alternate.
> You can *use* whatever you want. Right?

Right, couldn't you file, say FAY, as an alternate then on your way
there when you break out cancel IFR and land at TTA?

[Dave Butler]

xyzzy wrote:
> Dave Butler wrote:
>
>> Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>>
>>> So, you're filed to RDU, and the weather requires an alternate. You
>>> obtain
>>> "appropriate weather reports or weather forecasts, or a combination ..."
>>> that indicate the weather at TTA will be severe clear at your time of
>>> arrival. According to a strict reading of those regulations, you still
>>> could not use it as an alternate; although it would be perfectly OK
>>> to use
>>> some grass strip as an alternate. Makes no sense to me.
>>
>>
>>
>> You can't use it to satisfy the requirements for *filing* an
>> alternate. You can *use* whatever you want. Right?
>
>
> Right, couldn't you file, say FAY, as an alternate then on your way
> there when you break out cancel IFR and land at TTA?

Sure, except there's no requirement to cancel IFR. Just tell ATC you've decided
to go to TTA. There's no requirement to actually go to the alternate that you
filed. You just have to file it. When you divert, you decide where you're going.
ATC will say something like "say intentions". You say (for example) "I'd like
to try for a visual approach at TTA". ATC does not know what alternate you
filed. The approaches marked NA might also be viable choices. You just can't
*file* TTA as an alternate expecting to use one of the NA approaches.

Dave