ILS Notam question

[John Clonts]

<quote>
Fort Smith AR [FSM]: July NOTAM #23
Runway 25 ILS glide path unmonitored 0400 - 1030 daily will be effective
July 17th, 2003 at 11:00 PM CDT (0307180400
</quote>

It doesn't say "procedure NA", so I can still (legally) fly this, right? I
just have to see if its working when I get there?

What other practical and/or legal effects does it have?

Thanks,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
"John Clonts" > wrote:

> <quote>
> Fort Smith AR [FSM]: July NOTAM #23
> Runway 25 ILS glide path unmonitored 0400 - 1030 daily will be effective
> July 17th, 2003 at 11:00 PM CDT (0307180400
> </quote>
>
> It doesn't say "procedure NA", so I can still (legally) fly this, right? I
> just have to see if its working when I get there?
>
> What other practical and/or legal effects does it have?
>
> Thanks,
> John Clonts
> Temple, Texas
>
>

From a practical point of view, it means that if the glide slope
transmitter were to fail, ATC would not know about it (and thus not be
able to warn you about it). The fact that it's got a daily time window
makes me think that the monitor alarm must be located in some tower
which closes down for the night so there's nobody around to hear/see the
alarm. It's curious that just the glide slope (and not the localizer)
is subject to this.

From a legal point of view, it doesn't mean anything to a part-91
operator. I believe part 135/121 guys may not be able to file that
approach as an alternate, or something like that.

[Stan Gosnell]

Roy Smith > wrote in
:

> From a practical point of view, it means that if the glide slope
> transmitter were to fail, ATC would not know about it (and thus not be
> able to warn you about it). The fact that it's got a daily time
> window makes me think that the monitor alarm must be located in some
> tower which closes down for the night so there's nobody around to
> hear/see the alarm. It's curious that just the glide slope (and not
> the localizer) is subject to this.
>
> From a legal point of view, it doesn't mean anything to a part-91
> operator. I believe part 135/121 guys may not be able to file that
> approach as an alternate, or something like that.
>
Yep. If it's unmonitored, we can't use that approach when determining an
alternate. We've had that problem at KGLS for a long time. The ILS is
unmonitored, because the light is in a closet somewhere in HOU Approach,
not in view of the controllers. Apparently there is no way to get it
moved. Thus, we can't use the ILS approach for alternate determination.
The only approach available is the VOR, which makes alternate minimums
there higher. We can still use the airport for an alternate, but the
weather minimums are higher, because we can't use the ILS approach.

[Teacherjh]

>>
We've had that problem at KGLS for a long time. The ILS is
unmonitored, because the light is in a closet somewhere in HOU Approach,
not in view of the controllers. Apparently there is no way to get it
moved.
<<

How about a webcam, with a clock in view (so that controllers know they are
seeing a live image)? Well, ok not as hokey as a webcam, but some sort of
video feed should do the trick.

Jose

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

[Greg Esres]

<<If it's unmonitored, we can't use that approach when determining an
alternate. >>

I'm not aware of a regulation that says that.

I know that having monitored navaids is a criterion to an airport
having alternate minimums, but that's an issue for Flight Procedures,
not us. Once it has alternate minimums, unless the alternate minimums
are NA'd, I'd argue we'd be fine to use it as an alternate.

[Dave S]

Perhaps thats the REASON that the only approach APPROVED for filing as
an alternate at GLS is the VOR 13 approach. All other procedures are
lumped as NA for filing as an alternate.

Dave

Greg Esres wrote:

> <<If it's unmonitored, we can't use that approach when determining an
> alternate. >>
>
> I'm not aware of a regulation that says that.
>
> I know that having monitored navaids is a criterion to an airport
> having alternate minimums, but that's an issue for Flight Procedures,
> not us. Once it has alternate minimums, unless the alternate minimums
> are NA'd, I'd argue we'd be fine to use it as an alternate.
>
>
>
>

[Stan Gosnell]

(Teacherjh) wrote in
:

> How about a webcam, with a clock in view (so that
> controllers know they are seeing a live image)? Well, ok
> not as hokey as a webcam, but some sort of video feed
> should do the trick.

There are lots of solutions, but getting the FAA to do any of it
seems to be impossible. They ain't gonna let me go in there &
install cameras.

--
Regards,

Stan