Instrument Approaches and procedure turns....

[Cecil E. Chapman]

I'm reviewing the approach plates for my Instrument lesson this coming
Thursday (which I just realized is September 11, of all things..). I've
found it useful to 'practice' approaches using OnTop flight sim before my
lessons, seems to give me more 'bang for the buck'.

Anyway (I'm sorry, in advance, if I'm am asking something that should be
obvious), I'm looking at the LOC Rwy 2 approach to Watsonville Municipal
(California). There is a procedure turn that sits just before the
'entrance' into the localizer. How does one identify where it actually is
(the beginning of the procedure turn, that is)? Does one simply fly up the
localizer and when the localizer signal is lost THAT is where the location
of the procedure turn sits?

Thanks in advance!

--
--
Good Flights!

Cecil E. Chapman, Jr.
PP-ASEL

"We who fly do so for the love of flying.
We are alive in the air with this miracle
that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"

- Cecil Day Lewis-

My personal adventures as a student pilot
and after my PPL: www.bayareapilot.com

[Bob Gardner]

Gotta go along with Dave. Don't fall into the trap of flying outbound a
certain number of minutes...the changing wind makes that a poor choice. Go
out until you are beneath the glideslope and, as Dave says, far enough so
that you have time to get squared away (and get a handle on the wind at PT
altitude...which is a clue, but not the answer, to the wind going downhill).

Bob Gardner

"Cecil E. Chapman" > wrote in message
. ..
> I'm reviewing the approach plates for my Instrument lesson this coming
> Thursday (which I just realized is September 11, of all things..). I've
> found it useful to 'practice' approaches using OnTop flight sim before my
> lessons, seems to give me more 'bang for the buck'.
>
> Anyway (I'm sorry, in advance, if I'm am asking something that should be
> obvious), I'm looking at the LOC Rwy 2 approach to Watsonville Municipal
> (California). There is a procedure turn that sits just before the
> 'entrance' into the localizer. How does one identify where it actually is
> (the beginning of the procedure turn, that is)? Does one simply fly up
the
> localizer and when the localizer signal is lost THAT is where the location
> of the procedure turn sits?
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> --
> --
> Good Flights!
>
> Cecil E. Chapman, Jr.
> PP-ASEL
>
> "We who fly do so for the love of flying.
> We are alive in the air with this miracle
> that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
>
> - Cecil Day Lewis-
>
> My personal adventures as a student pilot
> and after my PPL: www.bayareapilot.com
>
>

[Michael]

"Cecil E. Chapman" > wrote
> Anyway (I'm sorry, in advance, if I'm am asking something that should be
> obvious)

It should be but you're a student so it's OK :)

> I'm looking at the LOC Rwy 2 approach to Watsonville Municipal
> (California). There is a procedure turn that sits just before the
> 'entrance' into the localizer. How does one identify where it actually is
> (the beginning of the procedure turn, that is)? Does one simply fly up the
> localizer and when the localizer signal is lost THAT is where the location
> of the procedure turn sits?

Well, assuming you arrived at the IAF (NALLS intersection) along one
of the charted feeder routes (from SANTY intersection or SNS VOR) you
turn outbound (South) on the localizer, fly a minute or so (longer if
you have a headwind), and then do the procedure turn. The only
requirement is that you complete the course reversal (in whatever way
seems best to you and keeps you inside the protected area) and get
established inbound before crossing NALLS.

Now for the real question - why in the world is DME required for this
approach?

Michael

[Roger Halstead]

On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 17:26:01 GMT, "Cecil E. Chapman"
> wrote:

>I'm reviewing the approach plates for my Instrument lesson this coming
>Thursday (which I just realized is September 11, of all things..). I've
>found it useful to 'practice' approaches using OnTop flight sim before my
>lessons, seems to give me more 'bang for the buck'.
>
>Anyway (I'm sorry, in advance, if I'm am asking something that should be
>obvious), I'm looking at the LOC Rwy 2 approach to Watsonville Municipal
>(California). There is a procedure turn that sits just before the
>'entrance' into the localizer. How does one identify where it actually is
>(the beginning of the procedure turn, that is)? Does one simply fly up the
>localizer and when the localizer signal is lost THAT is where the location
>of the procedure turn sits?

I don't have that one available, but "in general" you fly past the IAF
for about 1 minute, make you 45, fly one minute, and turn back in to
intercept the inbound course.

The main requirements are to make the turn on the proper side in the
proper direction (indicated by the barb) and usually stay within 10
miles of some specified location. It will say where on the approach
chart and the distance will be given.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
>
>Thanks in advance!
>
>--

[Cecil E. Chapman]

Bob, sorry to ask another different question, but I saw your communication
software in my local airport shop and wanted to know if it covers IFR
communication practice as well as the VFR (which I already have)? If so, it
is quite a bargain, 'cause another software company charges separate price
for each version.

--
--
Good Flights!

Cecil E. Chapman, Jr.
PP-ASEL

"We who fly do so for the love of flying.
We are alive in the air with this miracle
that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"

- Cecil Day Lewis-

My personal adventures as a student pilot
and after my PPL: www.bayareapilot.com
"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
> Gotta go along with Dave. Don't fall into the trap of flying outbound a
> certain number of minutes...the changing wind makes that a poor choice. Go
> out until you are beneath the glideslope and, as Dave says, far enough so
> that you have time to get squared away (and get a handle on the wind at PT
> altitude...which is a clue, but not the answer, to the wind going
downhill).
>
> Bob Gardner
>
> "Cecil E. Chapman" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > I'm reviewing the approach plates for my Instrument lesson this coming
> > Thursday (which I just realized is September 11, of all things..). I've
> > found it useful to 'practice' approaches using OnTop flight sim before
my
> > lessons, seems to give me more 'bang for the buck'.
> >
> > Anyway (I'm sorry, in advance, if I'm am asking something that should be
> > obvious), I'm looking at the LOC Rwy 2 approach to Watsonville Municipal
> > (California). There is a procedure turn that sits just before the
> > 'entrance' into the localizer. How does one identify where it actually
is
> > (the beginning of the procedure turn, that is)? Does one simply fly up
> the
> > localizer and when the localizer signal is lost THAT is where the
location
> > of the procedure turn sits?
> >
> > Thanks in advance!
> >
> > --
> > --
> > Good Flights!
> >
> > Cecil E. Chapman, Jr.
> > PP-ASEL
> >
> > "We who fly do so for the love of flying.
> > We are alive in the air with this miracle
> > that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
> >
> > - Cecil Day Lewis-
> >
> > My personal adventures as a student pilot
> > and after my PPL: www.bayareapilot.com
> >
> >
>
>

[Brad Z]

"Cecil E. Chapman" > wrote in message
...
> If you look at the approach plate for KWVI/WVI LOC Rwy 2, there is no
> requirement for DME. All that's there is a localizer (without glide
slope -

Actually, there is Cecil, according to the "DME or RADAR required" note in
the top right of the chart..
The reason they want you on radar or to have DME is to keep you inside the
10NM ring for the missed approach. Just outside the ring is something just
over 4000 feet due north of the airport.



> making the approach non-precision) and a NDB which isn't even part of this
> approach procedure (there is a separate NDB approach for the same runway,
> though).
>
> Thanks for the clarification on the feeder route. By the way isn't this
> approach an example where the initial approach fix and the FAF are one and
> the same?
>
> --
> --
> Good Flights!
>
> Cecil E. Chapman, Jr.
> PP-ASEL
>
> "We who fly do so for the love of flying.
> We are alive in the air with this miracle
> that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
>
> - Cecil Day Lewis-
>
> My personal adventures as a student pilot
> and after my PPL: www.bayareapilot.com
> "Michael" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Cecil E. Chapman" > wrote
> > > Anyway (I'm sorry, in advance, if I'm am asking something that should
be
> > > obvious)
> >
> > It should be but you're a student so it's OK :)
> >
> > > I'm looking at the LOC Rwy 2 approach to Watsonville Municipal
> > > (California). There is a procedure turn that sits just before the
> > > 'entrance' into the localizer. How does one identify where it
actually
> is
> > > (the beginning of the procedure turn, that is)? Does one simply fly
up
> the
> > > localizer and when the localizer signal is lost THAT is where the
> location
> > > of the procedure turn sits?
> >
> > Well, assuming you arrived at the IAF (NALLS intersection) along one
> > of the charted feeder routes (from SANTY intersection or SNS VOR) you
> > turn outbound (South) on the localizer, fly a minute or so (longer if
> > you have a headwind), and then do the procedure turn. The only
> > requirement is that you complete the course reversal (in whatever way
> > seems best to you and keeps you inside the protected area) and get
> > established inbound before crossing NALLS.
> >
> > Now for the real question - why in the world is DME required for this
> > approach?
> >
> > Michael
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Brad Z" > wrote in message
news:baw7b.297942$cF.92189@rwcrnsc53...
>
> Actually, there is Cecil, according to the "DME or RADAR required" note in
> the top right of the chart..
> The reason they want you on radar or to have DME is to keep you inside the
> 10NM ring for the missed approach. Just outside the ring is something
just
> over 4000 feet due north of the airport.
>

But the missed approach procedure takes you outside the 10 mile ring.

[Tom Pappano]

Michael wrote:
> "Cecil E. Chapman" > wrote
>
>>Anyway (I'm sorry, in advance, if I'm am asking something that should be
>>obvious)
>
>
> It should be but you're a student so it's OK :)
>
>
>>I'm looking at the LOC Rwy 2 approach to Watsonville Municipal
>>(California). There is a procedure turn that sits just before the
>>'entrance' into the localizer. How does one identify where it actually is
>>(the beginning of the procedure turn, that is)? Does one simply fly up the
>>localizer and when the localizer signal is lost THAT is where the location
>>of the procedure turn sits?
>
>
> Well, assuming you arrived at the IAF (NALLS intersection) along one
> of the charted feeder routes (from SANTY intersection or SNS VOR) you
> turn outbound (South) on the localizer, fly a minute or so (longer if
> you have a headwind), and then do the procedure turn. The only
> requirement is that you complete the course reversal (in whatever way
> seems best to you and keeps you inside the protected area) and get
> established inbound before crossing NALLS.
>
> Now for the real question - why in the world is DME required for this
> approach?
>
> Michael

The July IFR magazine has an article featuring that approach. The
IFR staff couldn't figure out why DME was required so they called
the FAA. They didn't know either, and said they will fix the chart.

Tom Pappano, PP-ASEL-IA

[Cecil E. Chapman]

YIKES! I didn't see that... This leads to another question. I thought
that if an item of equipment was required that it appeared as part of the
approach plate description, such as; LOC DME 29 ????

--
--
Good Flights!

Cecil E. Chapman, Jr.
PP-ASEL

"We who fly do so for the love of flying.
We are alive in the air with this miracle
that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"

- Cecil Day Lewis-

My personal adventures as a student pilot
and after my PPL: www.bayareapilot.com
"Brad Z" > wrote in message
news:baw7b.297942$cF.92189@rwcrnsc53...
>
> "Cecil E. Chapman" > wrote in message
> ...
> > If you look at the approach plate for KWVI/WVI LOC Rwy 2, there is no
> > requirement for DME. All that's there is a localizer (without glide
> slope -
>
> Actually, there is Cecil, according to the "DME or RADAR required" note in
> the top right of the chart..
> The reason they want you on radar or to have DME is to keep you inside the
> 10NM ring for the missed approach. Just outside the ring is something
just
> over 4000 feet due north of the airport.
>
>
>
> > making the approach non-precision) and a NDB which isn't even part of
this
> > approach procedure (there is a separate NDB approach for the same
runway,
> > though).
> >
> > Thanks for the clarification on the feeder route. By the way isn't this
> > approach an example where the initial approach fix and the FAF are one
and
> > the same?
> >
> > --
> > --
> > Good Flights!
> >
> > Cecil E. Chapman, Jr.
> > PP-ASEL
> >
> > "We who fly do so for the love of flying.
> > We are alive in the air with this miracle
> > that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
> >
> > - Cecil Day Lewis-
> >
> > My personal adventures as a student pilot
> > and after my PPL: www.bayareapilot.com
> > "Michael" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Cecil E. Chapman" > wrote
> > > > Anyway (I'm sorry, in advance, if I'm am asking something that
should
> be
> > > > obvious)
> > >
> > > It should be but you're a student so it's OK :)
> > >
> > > > I'm looking at the LOC Rwy 2 approach to Watsonville Municipal
> > > > (California). There is a procedure turn that sits just before the
> > > > 'entrance' into the localizer. How does one identify where it
> actually
> > is
> > > > (the beginning of the procedure turn, that is)? Does one simply fly
> up
> > the
> > > > localizer and when the localizer signal is lost THAT is where the
> > location
> > > > of the procedure turn sits?
> > >
> > > Well, assuming you arrived at the IAF (NALLS intersection) along one
> > > of the charted feeder routes (from SANTY intersection or SNS VOR) you
> > > turn outbound (South) on the localizer, fly a minute or so (longer if
> > > you have a headwind), and then do the procedure turn. The only
> > > requirement is that you complete the course reversal (in whatever way
> > > seems best to you and keeps you inside the protected area) and get
> > > established inbound before crossing NALLS.
> > >
> > > Now for the real question - why in the world is DME required for this
> > > approach?
> > >
> > > Michael
> >
> >
>
>

[Cecil E. Chapman]

> The July IFR magazine has an article featuring that approach. The
> IFR staff couldn't figure out why DME was required so they called
> the FAA. They didn't know either, and said they will fix the chart.
>
> Tom Pappano, PP-ASEL-IA

Nor could I,,,, thanks for the clarification!!!!

--
--
Good Flights!

Cecil E. Chapman, Jr.
PP-ASEL

"We who fly do so for the love of flying.
We are alive in the air with this miracle
that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"

- Cecil Day Lewis-

My personal adventures as a student pilot
and after my PPL: www.bayareapilot.com

[Roy Smith]

"Cecil E. Chapman" > wrote:
> YIKES! I didn't see that... This leads to another question. I thought
> that if an item of equipment was required that it appeared as part of the
> approach plate description, such as; LOC DME 29 ????

I believe it only gets into the approach title if it's required as the
primary navaid (i.e. something you need to fly the final approach
course). So, a LOC 29 would only be called a LOC DME 29 if you needed
DME to locate the FAF or MAP. If you can fly the approach itself
without DME, and only need DME to fly the missed, then it gets a "DME
required" note. I may be messing up a few details, but that's the gist
of it.

As far as your "YIKES! I didn't see that..." comment, that's the reason
why it's a bad idea to ad-lib approaches. Often times there will be a
note or restriction on an approach plate that appears to make no sense,
and it's very temping to just ignore it. Sometimes, you won't figure
out what the reason was until it's too late to do much about it.

[Javier Henderson]

(Michael) writes:

> Now for the real question - why in the world is DME required for this
> approach?

To positively identify NALLS. You get false LOC lobes coming from
the south.

-jav

[Michael]

"Cecil E. Chapman" > wrote
> If you look at the approach plate for KWVI/WVI LOC Rwy 2, there is no
> requirement for DME.

Yes, there is. There is a note right across it that says "DME or RADAR required."

> All that's there is a localizer (without glide slope -
> making the approach non-precision) and a NDB which isn't even part of this
> approach procedure (there is a separate NDB approach for the same runway,
> though).

Right. So why the note? Makes no sense to me.

> Thanks for the clarification on the feeder route. By the way isn't this
> approach an example where the initial approach fix and the FAF are one and
> the same?

Yep.

Michael

[Ron Natalie]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message ...
> If you can fly the approach itself
> without DME, and only need DME to fly the missed, then it gets a "DME
> required" note. I may be messing up a few details, but that's the gist
> of it.
>
That's fine, but there isn't a single DME fix on there (not even the missed).
That's the mystery.
..

[Ron Natalie]

"Javier Henderson" > wrote in message ...
> (Michael) writes:
>
> > Now for the real question - why in the world is DME required for this
> > approach?
>
> To positively identify NALLS. You get false LOC lobes coming from
> the south.
>
Then isn't NALLS is charted wrong.

[Greg Esres]

<<That's not the answer I got when I called the SJC FSDO a few years
back. See my other post on this subject regarding false LOC lobes
coming from the south.
>>

You should never ask FSDO anything technical.

Very often, DME is required in feeder routes intercepting a localizer
for the reason you say; however, this approach doesn't have DME
authorized in that context.

That said, according to AirNav, the fix NALLS can be identified using
DME off of SNS. I'd guess a charting error.

So maybe FSDO and IFRR were both right.

[Greg Esres]

<<I believe it only gets into the approach title if it's required as
the primary navaid (i.e. something you need to fly the final approach
course).>>

Yes. But the FAA has some tricky definitions of what's required to fly
final. If there's a stepdown fix you need that's determined by DME
prior to the FAF, you'd still get DME in the title. (That's why you
might have ILS DME).

I don't really approve of that, but they didn't ask me. ;-)

[[email protected]]

Bob Gardner wrote:

> Gotta go along with Dave. Don't fall into the trap of flying outbound a
> certain number of minutes...the changing wind makes that a poor choice. Go
> out until you are beneath the glideslope and, as Dave says, far enough so
> that you have time to get squared away (and get a handle on the wind at PT
> altitude...which is a clue, but not the answer, to the wind going downhill).
>

By now every serious instrument pilot should have GPS on-board. If not an IFR
unit, then at least a good hand-held. With that a consistant *distance* from
the PT fix outbound at which to begin the turn brings it all into the 21st
Century.

And, of course, RNAV(GPS) procedures themselves never have a procedure turn. If
a course-reversal initial approach segment is required in the design, it will
always be a holding pattern reversal.

With the proper use of modern avionics timing of any phase of an instrument
procedure should be a thing of the past.

[Ron Natalie]

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Ron Natalie wrote:
>
> > "Roy Smith" > wrote in message ...
> > > If you can fly the approach itself
> > > without DME, and only need DME to fly the missed, then it gets a "DME
> > > required" note. I may be messing up a few details, but that's the gist
> > > of it.
> > >
> > That's fine, but there isn't a single DME fix on there (not even the missed).
> > That's the mystery.
> > .
>
> There is a DME fix for the SNS feeder route. There is also another note about simul reception of
> both the SNS DME and LOC. Could be that the notes are the result of flight inspection comments.
>
Actually it says "Simoultaneous reception of I-AYN and SNS VORTAC required."
..

[Bob Gardner]

Yes, it does.

Bob

"Cecil E. Chapman" > wrote in message
m...
> Bob, sorry to ask another different question, but I saw your communication
> software in my local airport shop and wanted to know if it covers IFR
> communication practice as well as the VFR (which I already have)? If so,
it
> is quite a bargain, 'cause another software company charges separate price
> for each version.
>
> --
> --
> Good Flights!
>
> Cecil E. Chapman, Jr.
> PP-ASEL
>
> "We who fly do so for the love of flying.
> We are alive in the air with this miracle
> that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
>
> - Cecil Day Lewis-
>
> My personal adventures as a student pilot
> and after my PPL: www.bayareapilot.com
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Gotta go along with Dave. Don't fall into the trap of flying outbound a
> > certain number of minutes...the changing wind makes that a poor choice.
Go
> > out until you are beneath the glideslope and, as Dave says, far enough
so
> > that you have time to get squared away (and get a handle on the wind at
PT
> > altitude...which is a clue, but not the answer, to the wind going
> downhill).
> >
> > Bob Gardner
> >
> > "Cecil E. Chapman" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > > I'm reviewing the approach plates for my Instrument lesson this coming
> > > Thursday (which I just realized is September 11, of all things..).
I've
> > > found it useful to 'practice' approaches using OnTop flight sim
before
> my
> > > lessons, seems to give me more 'bang for the buck'.
> > >
> > > Anyway (I'm sorry, in advance, if I'm am asking something that should
be
> > > obvious), I'm looking at the LOC Rwy 2 approach to Watsonville
Municipal
> > > (California). There is a procedure turn that sits just before the
> > > 'entrance' into the localizer. How does one identify where it
actually
> is
> > > (the beginning of the procedure turn, that is)? Does one simply fly
up
> > the
> > > localizer and when the localizer signal is lost THAT is where the
> location
> > > of the procedure turn sits?
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance!
> > >
> > > --
> > > --
> > > Good Flights!
> > >
> > > Cecil E. Chapman, Jr.
> > > PP-ASEL
> > >
> > > "We who fly do so for the love of flying.
> > > We are alive in the air with this miracle
> > > that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
> > >
> > > - Cecil Day Lewis-
> > >
> > > My personal adventures as a student pilot
> > > and after my PPL: www.bayareapilot.com
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Ron Natalie]

> wrote in message ...

>
> "It" being the NACO chart, I presume. The Jeppesen chart reads "DME" not "VORTAC."
>
Yep....how does Jepp depict the NALLS intersection? (My Jepps are at home, questions
about plates at work send me to aeroplanner or AOPA to look them up: NACO).

[Gary L. Drescher]

"Cecil E. Chapman" > wrote in message
.. .
> YIKES! I didn't see that... This leads to another question. I thought
> that if an item of equipment was required that it appeared as part of the
> approach plate description, such as; LOC DME 29 ????

Here's a similar surprise to watch for: it's common for ILS approaches to
say "ADF required", when the missed-approach hold is at an NDB.

--Gary

>
> --
> --
> Good Flights!
>
> Cecil E. Chapman, Jr.
> PP-ASEL
>
> "We who fly do so for the love of flying.
> We are alive in the air with this miracle
> that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
>
> - Cecil Day Lewis-
>
> My personal adventures as a student pilot
> and after my PPL: www.bayareapilot.com
> "Brad Z" > wrote in message
> news:baw7b.297942$cF.92189@rwcrnsc53...
> >
> > "Cecil E. Chapman" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > If you look at the approach plate for KWVI/WVI LOC Rwy 2, there is no
> > > requirement for DME. All that's there is a localizer (without glide
> > slope -
> >
> > Actually, there is Cecil, according to the "DME or RADAR required" note
in
> > the top right of the chart..
> > The reason they want you on radar or to have DME is to keep you inside
the
> > 10NM ring for the missed approach. Just outside the ring is something
> just
> > over 4000 feet due north of the airport.
> >
> >
> >
> > > making the approach non-precision) and a NDB which isn't even part of
> this
> > > approach procedure (there is a separate NDB approach for the same
> runway,
> > > though).
> > >
> > > Thanks for the clarification on the feeder route. By the way isn't
this
> > > approach an example where the initial approach fix and the FAF are one
> and
> > > the same?
> > >
> > > --
> > > --
> > > Good Flights!
> > >
> > > Cecil E. Chapman, Jr.
> > > PP-ASEL
> > >
> > > "We who fly do so for the love of flying.
> > > We are alive in the air with this miracle
> > > that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
> > >
> > > - Cecil Day Lewis-
> > >
> > > My personal adventures as a student pilot
> > > and after my PPL: www.bayareapilot.com
> > > "Michael" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > "Cecil E. Chapman" > wrote
> > > > > Anyway (I'm sorry, in advance, if I'm am asking something that
> should
> > be
> > > > > obvious)
> > > >
> > > > It should be but you're a student so it's OK :)
> > > >
> > > > > I'm looking at the LOC Rwy 2 approach to Watsonville Municipal
> > > > > (California). There is a procedure turn that sits just before the
> > > > > 'entrance' into the localizer. How does one identify where it
> > actually
> > > is
> > > > > (the beginning of the procedure turn, that is)? Does one simply
fly
> > up
> > > the
> > > > > localizer and when the localizer signal is lost THAT is where the
> > > location
> > > > > of the procedure turn sits?
> > > >
> > > > Well, assuming you arrived at the IAF (NALLS intersection) along one
> > > > of the charted feeder routes (from SANTY intersection or SNS VOR)
you
> > > > turn outbound (South) on the localizer, fly a minute or so (longer
if
> > > > you have a headwind), and then do the procedure turn. The only
> > > > requirement is that you complete the course reversal (in whatever
way
> > > > seems best to you and keeps you inside the protected area) and get
> > > > established inbound before crossing NALLS.
> > > >
> > > > Now for the real question - why in the world is DME required for
this
> > > > approach?
> > > >
> > > > Michael
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Hilton]

wrote:
>
>
> Ron Natalie wrote:
>
> > wrote:

> > >
> > > "It" being the NACO chart, I presume. The Jeppesen chart reads "DME"
not "VORTAC."
> > >
> > Yep....how does Jepp depict the NALLS intersection? (My Jepps are at
home, questions
> > about plates at work send me to aeroplanner or AOPA to look them up:
NACO).
>
> The LOC course and *either* the SNS R-293 or SND 16.5 DME.

This is definitely not correct. NALLS is identified *only* by the Salinas
(SNS) 293 radial. If you think that while flying inbound on the localizer,
you can identify NALLS by the SNS DME 16.5, you are incorrect. In fact, if
you are inbound on the LOC, you will get a SNS 16.5 DME reading 4.46 nm
*before* NALLS and again at NALLS.

For those without the chart, the SNS VOR is almost 90 degrees to the
localizer.

Hilton

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 15:53:17 GMT, Greg Esres > wrote:

><<I believe it only gets into the approach title if it's required as
>the primary navaid (i.e. something you need to fly the final approach
>course).>>
>
>Yes. But the FAA has some tricky definitions of what's required to fly
>final. If there's a stepdown fix you need that's determined by DME
>prior to the FAF, you'd still get DME in the title. (That's why you
>might have ILS DME).
>

TERPS paragraph 161 seems to contradict that statement. Are there other
paragraphs that would apply?\




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

[Greg Esres]

<<TERPS paragraph 161 seems to contradict that statement. Are there
other paragraphs that would apply?>>

So it would seem. However, the interpretation offered by others is
that since you can't get to final approach without DME, you therefore
need DME to fly final approach.

I don't care for the logic, but there it is. I've seen your name in
threads where it was explained by Wally Roberts, so don't act like
this is news to you. <g>

[Greg Esres]

<<This is definitely not correct. >>

Good catch. I didn't read his statement carefully. Also good catch
to see that there are two locations where the 16.5 DME would occur.
Eyeballing didn't do it for me; I has to use a piece of string. ;-)

However, it would never have occured to me to use DME from a navaid
off to the side like that, anyway.

[Mark Mallory]

Ron Natalie wrote:
>
> "Javier Henderson" > wrote
>
(Michael) writes:
>>>Now for the real question - why in the world is DME required for this
>>>approach?
>>
>>To positively identify NALLS. You get false LOC lobes coming from
>>the south.
>>
>>
> Then isn't NALLS is charted wrong.

Must be a case of PWI (posting while intoxicated :)

Perhaps you meant: 'Then NALLS is charted wrong.' If this is in fact what you
meant, how *should* NALLS be charted?

[Greg Esres]

<<if DME was required on an ILS (and that would be, of course, prior
to the final approach fix), that it would be shown as a "DME required"
note, rather than as part of the name of the procedure.>>

That's the way it's becoming, but, according to Wally, that's only in
order to conform to ICAO standards.

There ARE some ILS DME approaches out there (or were). Can you
explain how DME would ever be needed to fly final approach on an ILS?

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 05:33:02 GMT, Greg Esres > wrote:

>There ARE some ILS DME approaches out there (or were). Can you
>explain how DME would ever be needed to fly final approach on an ILS?

According to TERPS it is not ever required. And I suspect the ILS DME
approaches that may be charted will eventually be renamed to conform to the
para 161.


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

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
Greg Esres > wrote:
>
>There ARE some ILS DME approaches out there (or were).

Aren't those approaches refering to DME for stepdowns for the GS-out LOC
approach?

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Ron Natalie]

"Ben Jackson" > wrote in message news:PAm9b.464249$o%2.205992@sccrnsc02...
> In article >,
> Greg Esres > wrote:
> >
> >There ARE some ILS DME approaches out there (or were).
>
> Aren't those approaches refering to DME for stepdowns for the GS-out LOC
> approach?
>
I went to find an ILS DME but can't find one. The one we had locally (IAD ILS 1L)
doesn't have DME in the title anymore, but it does say DME required on the plate.

[Greg Esres]

<<This was my point before. NALLS is not a DME fix. It's not
charted as one either.>>

It's still charted incorrectly. You can identify the fix using the
radial AND DME, but not the localizer and DME off of SNS.

[Greg Esres]

<<And I suspect the ILS DME approaches that may be charted will
eventually be renamed to conform to the para 161.>>

They are being renamed, but it's in order to conform to ICAO
standards. The FAA apparently doesn't have an issue with the concept
itself.

Your objection to this naming convention, and mine, are not the reason
for the change, if you consider Wally Roberts to be a reliable source.
I'll quote the relevant sections from the thread, when I have more
time.

(BTW, the reference to TERPS is meaningless in this context, because
they're redefining what "necessary" means. So the naming convention
conforms to TERPS.)

[Greg Esres]

<<Aren't those approaches refering to DME for stepdowns for the GS-out
LOC approach?>>

No, those approaches would have a note "DME Required" or "DME Required
for LOC minimums". (Or should.)

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 17:23:59 GMT, (Ben Jackson) wrote:

>Aren't those approaches refering to DME for stepdowns for the GS-out LOC
>approach?

Again, according to TERPS para 161, those approaches will be named ILS.
The DME required will be in the notes. (This is not the same as a straight
LOC DME approach -- you specifically said GS-out so I infer that the
underlying approach is still an ILS).


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

[Greg Esres]

<<I went to find an ILS DME but can't find one. >>

I don't have the current plates, but maybe someone can check the
Durango, CO, La Plata, ILS DME Rwy 2, or the ILS DME 34 at Denver
International.

[Ray Andraka]

Providence RI has an ILS DME 34 approach. There is no outer marker, and
the localizer only
FAF is identified only by a DME fix. If you were to fly it localizer
only, you'd need the DME.
The DME fix also provides the altitude reference on the glide slope so
that you can confirm
your altimeter's operation (you do do that, right?). As I understand it,
it is the lack of any other
way to identify that fix (it is over water) that makes the approach an ILS
DME. Of course if you
have a GPS with that intersection in the database....

Greg Esres wrote:

> <<if DME was required on an ILS (and that would be, of course, prior
> to the final approach fix), that it would be shown as a "DME required"
> note, rather than as part of the name of the procedure.>>
>
> That's the way it's becoming, but, according to Wally, that's only in
> order to conform to ICAO standards.
>
> There ARE some ILS DME approaches out there (or were). Can you
> explain how DME would ever be needed to fly final approach on an ILS?

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

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

[Ray Andraka]

Looking at the latest Providence plates, they renamed the ILS DME 34
to ILS34 with a note saying DME required. I also note that the ILS23
and ILS 5 are also now DME required and that the LOM's are no longer
charted (they are still operational, but I suspect on the verge of
decommissioning since they are not charted). I understand it is legal
to use an IFR GPS for DME intersections if they are in the database,
but what about a VFR GPS? Does this charting change now make it
illegal to fly any of the ILS's into Providence without a DME or IFR
GPS on board? Does this mean I need to either install a DME or pony
up for an IFR GPS? Kind of sucks to have to put out $1000's to fly
into an airport I've called home for 10 years.

Greg Esres wrote:

> <<I went to find an ILS DME but can't find one. >>
>
> I don't have the current plates, but maybe someone can check the
> Durango, CO, La Plata, ILS DME Rwy 2, or the ILS DME 34 at Denver
> International.

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

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

[Ray Andraka]

Never mind, that has been renamed ILS 34 with a DME required note. The
ILSDME34 had a DME *or* radar required note. Now no option shown for radar.

Ray Andraka wrote:

> Providence RI has an ILS DME 34 approach. There is no outer marker, and
> the localizer only
> FAF is identified only by a DME fix. If you were to fly it localizer
> only, you'd need the DME.
> The DME fix also provides the altitude reference on the glide slope so
> that you can confirm
> your altimeter's operation (you do do that, right?). As I understand it,
> it is the lack of any other
> way to identify that fix (it is over water) that makes the approach an ILS
> DME. Of course if you
> have a GPS with that intersection in the database....
>
> Greg Esres wrote:
>
> > <<if DME was required on an ILS (and that would be, of course, prior
> > to the final approach fix), that it would be shown as a "DME required"
> > note, rather than as part of the name of the procedure.>>
> >
> > That's the way it's becoming, but, according to Wally, that's only in
> > order to conform to ICAO standards.
> >
> > There ARE some ILS DME approaches out there (or were). Can you
> > explain how DME would ever be needed to fly final approach on an ILS?
>
> --
> --Ray Andraka, P.E.
> President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
> 401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
> email
> http://www.andraka.com
>
> "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
> temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> -Benjamin Franklin, 1759

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

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

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 20:34:57 GMT, Greg Esres > wrote:

>Ok, I became motivated to find the thread. (BTW, turns out you weren't
>in the thread at all, so you're not getting senile.<g>)

I will gladly accept your judgement regarding my lack of senility! <g>

>
>The thread concerns the BTV ILS/DME 33
>-----------------------
>From: Wally Roberts
>Date: 09/26/2001

As of 8/1/2003, the name remains ILS DME RWY 33

By the way, I don't have a dog in this race. I don't care one way or the
other whether they put DME in the title of the procedure, or have a note
requiring DME down below. I always look in both places.




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

[Greg Esres]

<<I don't care one way or the other whether they put DME in the title
of the procedure>>

Well, I do. I like finding little nuggets of truth like you found in
TERPs, so it irks me to find out sometimes that the nuggets aren't
pure gold. Makes it difficult to give simple answers to simple
questions.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 17:27:35 -0400, Ray Andraka > wrote:

> I understand it is legal
>to use an IFR GPS for DME intersections if they are in the database,
>but what about a VFR GPS?

According to the AIM, you need to have an IFR approved GPS for that
purpose.


>Does this charting change now make it
>illegal to fly any of the ILS's into Providence without a DME or IFR
>GPS on board? Does this mean I need to either install a DME or pony
>up for an IFR GPS?

It sure looks that way. And it looks as if one of the ILS's requires DME
and ADF.

> Kind of sucks to have to put out $1000's to fly
>into an airport I've called home for 10 years.

Progress <ng>.



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

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 01:24:21 GMT, Greg Esres > wrote:

> Makes it difficult to give simple answers to simple
>questions.

Perhaps the question isn't so simple?

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and
wrong." ~ H.L. Mencken



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

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 22:02:45 -0400, Ray Andraka > wrote:

>Worst part is the LOMs are still there (and in fact ARMIN is still charted,
>but not as an FAF on ILS23). Can radar substitute? I think it can, but
>since that depends on communication, availability of the radar and controller
>workload....
>

I find this in the AIM:

i. Pilots should not rely on radar to identify a fix unless the fix is
indicated as "RADAR" on the IAP. Pilots may request radar identification of
an OM, but the controller may not be able to provide the service due either
to workload or not having the fix on the video map.


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

[Ray Andraka]

I'll be taking this one up with AOPA today. The change obligates any pilots based

there to spending at least $3-4K if they don't have the equipment installed
already,
and as far as I can see, there is no change in the status of the LOMs that would
make such a change necessary.

They do have the FAF's on the map, as they give you your position relative to the
fix
when giving the clearance for the approach, however I am quite aware that I can't
depend on getting a readout of the fix from ATC. Looks like there is no way out
other
than installing either DME or IFR certified GPS or getting the FAA to reinstate
the old
approaches.

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 22:02:45 -0400, Ray Andraka > wrote:
>
> >Worst part is the LOMs are still there (and in fact ARMIN is still charted,
> >but not as an FAF on ILS23). Can radar substitute? I think it can, but
> >since that depends on communication, availability of the radar and controller
> >workload....
> >
>
> I find this in the AIM:
>
> i. Pilots should not rely on radar to identify a fix unless the fix is
> indicated as "RADAR" on the IAP. Pilots may request radar identification of
> an OM, but the controller may not be able to provide the service due either
> to workload or not having the fix on the video map.
>
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

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

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

[Mark Mallory]

Greg Esres wrote:
>
> <<This was my point before. NALLS is not a DME fix. It's not
> charted as one either.>>
>
> It's still charted incorrectly. You can identify the fix using the
> radial AND DME, but not the localizer and DME off of SNS.


Part of the confusion here is that NALLS is *both* an IAF and FAF.

While on either transition, NALLS is defined as a *IAF* by the RADIAL and DME
(or radar). You can't use the LOC in lieu of DME for this purpose, due to the
possibility of encountering a false lobe.

When established inbound, NALLS is defined as the *FAF* by the LOC and the
RADIAL. You can't use DME in lieu of the radial for this purpose, due to the
geometry (as was pointed out in a previous post.)

[Greg Esres]

<<Part of the confusion here is that NALLS is *both* an IAF and FAF.>>

Irrelevant. The fix definition doesn't change by how you're using it.

<<You can't use the LOC in lieu of DME for this purpose, due to the
possibility of encountering a false lobe.>>

This was speculation. Nothing on the approach says that this is true.
I spoke with someone with Flight Procedures today about another
approach, and mentioned the possibility of "false lobes" on a
transition. He indicated that a transition is flight checked for
false lobes and if found, would not be approved. I'm sure there are
exceptions. He mentioned some procedures at Grand Junction that
contain lots of warnings about the possibility.

[Ray Andraka]

AOPA was useless. Thay basically directed me to the charting office phone number in
the front of the TERPs. The charting office referred me to the two people in OK city
who take care of the RI approach plates, but so far haven't been able to reach them. I
also talked to approach control here, they said that they can in fact call out the FAF
for aircraft not equipped with DME if you let them know you are not equipped (and said
that it is legal). They didn't know why the change was made however. I'll confirm
that policy with the folks at OK city when I get in touch with them.





Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 07:57:37 -0400, Ray Andraka > wrote:
>
> >I'll be taking this one up with AOPA today. The change obligates any pilots based
> >
> >there to spending at least $3-4K if they don't have the equipment installed
> >already,
> >and as far as I can see, there is no change in the status of the LOMs that would
> >make such a change necessary.
> >
> >They do have the FAF's on the map, as they give you your position relative to the
> >fix
> >when giving the clearance for the approach, however I am quite aware that I can't
> >depend on getting a readout of the fix from ATC. Looks like there is no way out
> >other
> >than installing either DME or IFR certified GPS or getting the FAA to reinstate
> >the old
> >approaches.
> >
>
> Keep us posted of the results.
>
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

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

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

[Ray Andraka]

Another follow up. I spoke to the guy in OK city that updated the Providence approach
plates, and the news is downright bad. If you are not DME or GPS equipped, this is going
to affect you no matter where you fly:

The reason for the change is to comply with an initiative to prepare the ILS approaches for
RNAV. Part of that initiative requires the location of the glideslope to be at an a 100'
interval. Most OM's are not, and it is too expensive to move them, so new intersections
are being added. If, as is the case for Providence, there are no local navaids that have a
radial crossing the approach course close to perpendicular (I think he said +/-30 degrees),
then they are forced to use DME fixes. These changes are being done to the busiest
airports first and will trickle down to the smallest in time. Bottom line, is you are
going to need equipment to identify these new intersections. In a clarification, he did
tell me that the DME is only required for a localizer only approach, although I'm not sure
how you could cross check your altimeter without it. IF you find this initiative as costly
as I do, it is past time to bitch about it to your regional Flight Procedures Office. It
also wouldn't hurt to have lots of people bitch to AOPA so that maybe they'd pay attention
to this issue. In my hangar alone, this corresponds to a virtually mandated equipment
upgrade of collectively over $25,000. The local avionics shops are no doubt savoring the
pending business.

So, if you are not GPS or DME equipped, you better get on the horn or line up to shell out
$ on equipment.


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

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

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 16:07:34 -0400, Ray Andraka > wrote:

>The reason for the change is to comply with an initiative to prepare the ILS approaches for
>RNAV. Part of that initiative requires the location of the glideslope to be at an a 100'
>interval. Most OM's are not,

A few comments because I don't understand what you say they told you.

First of all, the GS altitude varies, so what does it mean for it to be at
an a 100' interval?

Second, the OM doesn't have a whole lot to do with an ILS. It's a place
where you can check your altitude, but it's not the FAF.

In any event, for whatever reason, it sounds as if having ADF/DME and/or
GPS will be a good thing to fly these approaches, and expensive if you
don't have them.


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

[David Megginson]

Ron Rosenfeld > writes:

> A few comments because I don't understand what you say they told
> you.
>
> First of all, the GS altitude varies, so what does it mean for it to
> be at an a 100' interval?
>
> Second, the OM doesn't have a whole lot to do with an ILS. It's a
> place where you can check your altitude, but it's not the FAF.

He clarified later in his posting that it applied to the LOC-only
approaches, where the outer marker is (probably) the FAF. The first
part of the posting was confusing, because he did seem to be
discussing ILS approaches.

Personally, I'd be pretty nervous flying an ILS approach below
non-precision minima if I didn't have some identifiable location that
I could check my altimeter on the glidepath, but I don't know if
there's any regulation requiring that either in Canada or the U.S.
Then again, I don't claim to be speaking from extensive experience --
my rating is very new, and I've never done an approach with a ceiling
below 400 ft.


All the best,


David

[Ray Andraka]

Looks like I left out a word or two. What they were saying is they want the ILS FAF to overlay
the Loc only and RNAV FAFs instead of being offset the way they had been. In order to do that
they need the (loc or RNAV) FAF altitude to be the same as the charted glideslope intercept.
The glideslope intercept has to be at an integer multiple of 100' (part of the rules for making
the chardts), therefore the intersection marking the FAF (which previously was the OM loacation)
also has to be moved to make that happen.

The OM serves (generally) serves a couple of purposes: 1) it provides a place to check your
altimeter, 2) it is a reporting point, and 3) it serves as the FAF for a localizer only
approach. ADF is only required on one of the approaches, and that is for the missed. DME is
now required on all precision approaches into PVD, which is my beef: previously there were two
ILSs without a requirement for DME. Of the 9 airplanes hangared with mine (at PVD), only 2 have
the required equipment to fly the new approach. Of the two, one just installed a Garmin 530,
the other has a DME.

Tracon said today they would work with us by calling out the fixes as long as we asked for it
before starting the approach. Several of the controllers are pilots, and are well aware of the
equipment issues. An interesting note is that the controllers were in a meeting about this last
week, and AOPA was present. AOPA did us a grave disservice by stating that 80% of GA aircraft
have advanced RNAV capability, and as such these new approaches should not be a significant
problem. I don't know where they pulled that number from, but based on the light aircraft I am
familiar with, I think the truth is closer to 20% have it. Maybe Phil Boyer needs to give up
flying around in the CJ and get back to flying a 182 with only basic IFR gear.

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 16:07:34 -0400, Ray Andraka > wrote:
>
> >The reason for the change is to comply with an initiative to prepare the ILS approaches for
> >RNAV. Part of that initiative requires the location of the glideslope to be at an a 100'
> >interval. Most OM's are not,
>
> A few comments because I don't understand what you say they told you.
>
> First of all, the GS altitude varies, so what does it mean for it to be at
> an a 100' interval?
>
> Second, the OM doesn't have a whole lot to do with an ILS. It's a place
> where you can check your altitude, but it's not the FAF.
>
> In any event, for whatever reason, it sounds as if having ADF/DME and/or
> GPS will be a good thing to fly these approaches, and expensive if you
> don't have them.
>
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

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

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

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
Ray Andraka > wrote:
>The reason for the change is to comply with an initiative to prepare the
>ILS approaches for
>RNAV. Part of that initiative requires the location of the glideslope
>to be at an a 100'
>interval. Most OM's are not, and it is too expensive to move them, so

Ohhhh, this must explain why HIO ILS 12 no longer uses ABATE LOM.
I had assumed that the few hundred feet they tacked onto 12/30 had
made it too close to the threshold (though that was obviously a
stretch!).

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 02:03:57 GMT, David Megginson >
wrote:

>Personally, I'd be pretty nervous flying an ILS approach below
>non-precision minima if I didn't have some identifiable location that
>I could check my altimeter on the glidepath, but I don't know if
>there's any regulation requiring that either in Canada or the U.S.
>Then again, I don't claim to be speaking from extensive experience --
>my rating is very new, and I've never done an approach with a ceiling
>below 400 ft.

There's no regulation to that effect in the US. I don't know about Canada.


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

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 23:31:24 -0400, Ray Andraka > wrote:

>Looks like I left out a word or two. What they were saying is they want the ILS FAF to overlay
>the Loc only and RNAV FAFs instead of being offset the way they had been. In order to do that
>they need the (loc or RNAV) FAF altitude to be the same as the charted glideslope intercept.
>The glideslope intercept has to be at an integer multiple of 100' (part of the rules for making
>the chardts), therefore the intersection marking the FAF (which previously was the OM loacation)
>also has to be moved to make that happen.

OK, that makes sense. TERP's actually says that, *if possible*, the LOC
and ILS FAF's should be at the same point. However, I don't know that I've
seen one with an OM where that is actually the case!

>
>The OM serves (generally) serves a couple of purposes:

>1) it provides a place to check your altimeter,

That's not a regulatory requirement, although it is good practice. I
suppose if your altimeter failed enroute and you didn't notice it, that
might be helpful; or if you might be on a false GP.

>2) it is a reporting point, and

Yeah but you could report passing the so-and-so radial. Sheesh, they've
got pretty good radar around PVD.

>3) it serves as the FAF for a localizer only
>approach. ADF is only required on one of the approaches, and that is for the missed. DME is
>now required on all precision approaches into PVD, which is my beef: previously there were two
>ILSs without a requirement for DME. Of the 9 airplanes hangared with mine (at PVD), only 2 have
>the required equipment to fly the new approach. Of the two, one just installed a Garmin 530,
>the other has a DME.
>
>Tracon said today they would work with us by calling out the fixes as long as we asked for it
>before starting the approach. Several of the controllers are pilots, and are well aware of the
>equipment issues.

That enables you to fly the approach, but it ain't legal if the chart calls
for that equipment.

> An interesting note is that the controllers were in a meeting about this last
>week, and AOPA was present. AOPA did us a grave disservice by stating that 80% of GA aircraft
>have advanced RNAV capability, and as such these new approaches should not be a significant
>problem. I don't know where they pulled that number from, but based on the light aircraft I am
>familiar with, I think the truth is closer to 20% have it. Maybe Phil Boyer needs to give up
>flying around in the CJ and get back to flying a 182 with only basic IFR gear.
>

I would have thought that at a big airport like PVD, the percentage would
have been higher than 20%, too. Have you written him directly?

I must say, that I've never flown IFR without DME and ADF. However, I've
had the same a/c for 25+ years, and it came that way. And right now I'm
based at an airport where the only approaches are ADF and GPS (and I don't
have anything other than a VFR handheld GPS).



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

[Ray Andraka]

The new RAPT (I think that was the name, although it could just as well been "RAPED")
initiative calls for all ILSs to get adjusted to line everything up, wiping out that "if possible"
Seems like an extraordinary expenditure of money for the FAA as well as for the people like
me that have file /Unfortunate. The issue at Providence is that there are no crossing radials
that come close to perpendicular to the approach course, which is why they have DME fixes,
not crossing radials. They do have good radar coverage, that is when the tower is open. The
tower is closed between 0000 and 0600 local time however, and at those times Boston Center
handles approaches. I don't think the center radar coverage is very good on the approach.

I do have ADF in my airplane, but it isn't the issue. I don't have DME. The airplane didn't have it
when I bought it 8 years ago, but did have it once, as it still has the antenna. Not much room left
in
the panel any more, at least not on the left side where I could see it. Of the dozen or so airplanes
I've
flown, only one had DME. I have not written Phil Boyer, however I am in contact with AOPA over this
issue. The guy I talked to this morning also seemed surprised that so few had DME.



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

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

[Ray Andraka]

How are the intersections it now uses identified? DME or a crossing radial?

Ben Jackson wrote:

> In article >,
> Ray Andraka > wrote:
> >The reason for the change is to comply with an initiative to prepare the
> >ILS approaches for
> >RNAV. Part of that initiative requires the location of the glideslope
> >to be at an a 100'
> >interval. Most OM's are not, and it is too expensive to move them, so
>
> Ohhhh, this must explain why HIO ILS 12 no longer uses ABATE LOM.
> I had assumed that the few hundred feet they tacked onto 12/30 had
> made it too close to the threshold (though that was obviously a
> stretch!).
>
> --
> Ben Jackson
> >
> http://www.ben.com/

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

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

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
Ray Andraka > wrote:
>Ben Jackson wrote:
>> Ohhhh, this must explain why HIO ILS 12 no longer uses ABATE LOM.
>
>How are the intersections it now uses identified? DME or a crossing radial?

If you google it you can see a thread I started about that very thing
a few weeks ago. I think the new intersection is COUVE (coo-vee) and
it's on the localizer and it's identified by radials off of UBG and BTG,
both more than 30 degrees away from perpendicular. There's also a DME
distance from UBG.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Ray Andraka]

THe guy who designed the new charts for Providence, Bob Llewellyn, told me
that crossing radials are used if they meet the criteria. I thought he said 30
degrees,
but it might have been an angle greater than 30 degrees to the course. The only
navaids
here that might work are Norwich (ORW), and Putnam (PUT). I think there may be a

distance limitation as well, which probably rules out PUT and possibly ORW as
well.

Ben Jackson wrote:

> In article >,
> Ray Andraka > wrote:
> >Ben Jackson wrote:
> >> Ohhhh, this must explain why HIO ILS 12 no longer uses ABATE LOM.
> >
> >How are the intersections it now uses identified? DME or a crossing radial?
>
> If you google it you can see a thread I started about that very thing
> a few weeks ago. I think the new intersection is COUVE (coo-vee) and
> it's on the localizer and it's identified by radials off of UBG and BTG,
> both more than 30 degrees away from perpendicular. There's also a DME
> distance from UBG.
>
> --
> Ben Jackson
> >
> http://www.ben.com/

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

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