OK, FAR Lawers we need your help!

[Mike Rapoport]

Recently the COE VOR was notamed OTS. Coincedent with this the KSZT LOC/DME
was notamed NA. The explanation given was that the COE VOR was nessasary to
fly the tranition (COE is the IAF) and the missed approach (the missed ends
with a hold at the COE VOR). I contend that GPS can substitute for the VOR
but I can't find it witten down anywhere. The KSZT LOC, DME and ADF are all
working properly. Our question is: Was the KSZT LOC/DME approach
improperly NOTAMed NA? Can you cite a source? Remember we are talking
about substituting GPS for the VOR to fly the transition, we are not talking
about substituting for the LOC.

Thanks

Mike
MU-2
(and a lot of other frustrated NW pilots)

[Newps]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
> Recently the COE VOR was notamed OTS. Coincedent with this the KSZT LOC/DME
> was notamed NA. The explanation given was that the COE VOR was nessasary to
> fly the tranition (COE is the IAF) and the missed approach (the missed ends
> with a hold at the COE VOR). I contend that GPS can substitute for the VOR
> but I can't find it witten down anywhere. The KSZT LOC, DME and ADF are all
> working properly. Our question is: Was the KSZT LOC/DME approach
> improperly NOTAMed NA? Can you cite a source? Remember we are talking
> about substituting GPS for the VOR to fly the transition, we are not talking
> about substituting for the LOC.


We deal with the same thing here at BIL. We have an ILS that requires
radar and DME. Whenever they take the DME out of service they notam the
whole approach OTS. Nobody can give me a good reason why the approach
can't be left in service and just have the notam state that DME is not
available. You can just chalk it up to the FAA being horribly behind
the times when it comes to GPS.

[john smith]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
> Recently the COE VOR was notamed OTS. Coincedent with this the KSZT LOC/DME
> was notamed NA. The explanation given was that the COE VOR was nessasary to
> fly the tranition (COE is the IAF) and the missed approach (the missed ends
> with a hold at the COE VOR). I contend that GPS can substitute for the VOR
> but I can't find it witten down anywhere. The KSZT LOC, DME and ADF are all
> working properly. Our question is: Was the KSZT LOC/DME approach
> improperly NOTAMed NA? Can you cite a source? Remember we are talking
> about substituting GPS for the VOR to fly the transition, we are not talking
> about substituting for the LOC.

Mike,
Google "FAA, sole source navigation, GPS"
There are many articles out there.
From what I skimmed, we are still in transition to becoming sole source.
Sole source is dependent upon other parts such as WAAS and LAAS becoming
accepted as operational.

[Stan Gosnell]

john smith > wrote in
:

> Google "FAA, sole source navigation, GPS"
> There are many articles out there.
> From what I skimmed, we are still in transition to becoming sole
> source.
> Sole source is dependent upon other parts such as WAAS and LAAS becoming
> accepted as operational.

But in this case, GPS is not being used as a sole source of navigation, just
for one part of one approach. Using the sole source logic, no GPS approach
would be legal.

--
Regards,

Stan

[SeeAndAvoid]

Don't ever call me a lawyer....but,
AIM 1-1-19(d)1(b) states..
"Aircraft using GPS navigation equipment under IFR must be equipped
with an approved and operational alternate means of navigation
appropriate to the flight."
and AIM 1-1-19(d)1(e)2 states..
"GPS domestic en route and terminal IFR operations can be conducted
as soon as proper avionics systems are installed, provided all general
requirements are met. The avionics necessary to receive all of the
ground-based facilities appropriate for the route to the destination
airport and any required alternate airport must be installed and
operational. Ground-based facilities necessary for these routes
must also be operational."
There is an (a) under it that starts talking about Alaska, but then
goes on...."Ground-based navigation equipment is not required to be
installed and operating for en route IFR RNAV operations when using GPS WAAS
navigation systems. All operators should ensure that an alternate means of
navigation is available in the unlikely event the GPS WAAS navigation system
becomes inoperative."
Is that still talking about just Alaska? Dont know. It doesnt reference an
FAR though. The AIM only says GPS can substitute for ADF or DME, never says
for a VOR.

I could have sworn this was brought up here, or in one of the trade
magazines lately - that you aren't even supposed to file over a VOR
that is OTS even if you're RNAV/GPS equipped.

Chris

--
Steve Bosell for President 2004
"Vote for me or I'll sue you"
www.philhendrieshow.com

[C J Campbell]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Recently the COE VOR was notamed OTS. Coincedent with this the KSZT
> LOC/DME
> was notamed NA. The explanation given was that the COE VOR was nessasary
> to
> fly the tranition (COE is the IAF) and the missed approach (the missed
> ends
> with a hold at the COE VOR). I contend that GPS can substitute for the
> VOR
> but I can't find it witten down anywhere. The KSZT LOC, DME and ADF are
> all
> working properly. Our question is: Was the KSZT LOC/DME approach
> improperly NOTAMed NA? Can you cite a source? Remember we are talking
> about substituting GPS for the VOR to fly the transition, we are not
> talking
> about substituting for the LOC.
>
AIM 1-1-19 says:
f. Use of GPS in lieu of ADF and DME

1. Subject to the restrictions below, operators in the U.S. NAS are
authorized to use GPS equipment certified for IFR operations in place of ADF
and/or DME equipment for en route and terminal operations. For some
operations there is no requirement for the aircraft to be equipped with an
ADF or DME receiver, see subparagraphs f6(g) and (h) below. The ground-based
NDB or DME facility may be temporarily out of service during these
operations. Charting will not change to support these operations.

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

There is no provision for GPS to be used in lieu of VOR. 1-1-20 addresses
the use of WAAS. WAAS eliminates the requirement for backup navigation
systems and may be used stand-alone. You may, of course, use GPS to navigate
to a location that happens to be a VOR, just as you may use GPS to navigate
to any other point, but if you have no VOR you cannot use it for an
approach. If you have WAAS you may use it for any approach authorized for
WAAS (these approaches are annotated as such) and need no ground radios at
all.

[C J Campbell]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>> Recently the COE VOR was notamed OTS. Coincedent with this the KSZT
>> LOC/DME
>> was notamed NA. The explanation given was that the COE VOR was nessasary
>> to
>> fly the tranition (COE is the IAF) and the missed approach (the missed
>> ends
>> with a hold at the COE VOR). I contend that GPS can substitute for the
>> VOR
>> but I can't find it witten down anywhere. The KSZT LOC, DME and ADF are
>> all
>> working properly. Our question is: Was the KSZT LOC/DME approach
>> improperly NOTAMed NA? Can you cite a source? Remember we are talking
>> about substituting GPS for the VOR to fly the transition, we are not
>> talking
>> about substituting for the LOC.
>
> Mike,
> Google "FAA, sole source navigation, GPS"
> There are many articles out there.
> From what I skimmed, we are still in transition to becoming sole source.
> Sole source is dependent upon other parts such as WAAS and LAAS becoming
> accepted as operational.
>

WAAS has already been accepted as operational. See AIM 1-1-20c.7.:

7. Unlike TSO-C129 avionics, which were certified as a supplement to other
means of navigation, WAAS avionics are evaluated without reliance on other
navigation systems. As such, installation of WAAS avionics does not require
the aircraft to have other equipment appropriate to the route to be flown.

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

The trouble with Google is that it will bring up a lot of outdated material.
The latest edition of AIM is dated 5 Aug 2004. There are already WAAS
certified systems and WAAS approaches out there.

[C J Campbell]

"SeeAndAvoid" > wrote in message
.net...
> There is an (a) under it that starts talking about Alaska, but then
> goes on...."Ground-based navigation equipment is not required to be
> installed and operating for en route IFR RNAV operations when using GPS
> WAAS
> navigation systems. All operators should ensure that an alternate means of
> navigation is available in the unlikely event the GPS WAAS navigation
> system
> becomes inoperative."
> Is that still talking about just Alaska? Dont know. It doesnt reference
> an
> FAR though. The AIM only says GPS can substitute for ADF or DME, never
> says
> for a VOR.
>

See AIM 1-1-20c.7. WAAS may be used as a stand-alone system anywhere in the
NAS.

GPS cannot substitute for a VOR.

The regulations refer to TSO numbers and say that the requirements of these
TSOs must be followed, effectively making the TSO a part of the regulation.

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
Mike Rapoport > wrote:
>Recently the COE VOR was notamed OTS. Coincedent with this the KSZT LOC/DME
>was notamed NA. The explanation given was that the COE VOR was nessasary to
>fly the tranition (COE is the IAF) and the missed approach (the missed ends
>with a hold at the COE VOR).

It looks like you're out of the woods on the missed when you cross
the SZT NDB. I wonder why they don't just NOTAM a hold at the NDB,
or on the localizer.

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

[[email protected]]

Stan Gosnell wrote:

>
> But in this case, GPS is not being used as a sole source of navigation, just
> for one part of one approach. Using the sole source logic, no GPS approach
> would be legal.
>

Not exactly. The approach and departure phase of flight was approved for sole
source terminal operations pending implementation of WAAS. But, sole source en
route operations have yet to be approved. When you miss and go to the VOR you
are returning to the en route structure.

[[email protected]]

Mike Rapoport wrote:

> Recently the COE VOR was notamed OTS. Coincedent with this the KSZT LOC/DME
> was notamed NA. The explanation given was that the COE VOR was nessasary to
> fly the tranition (COE is the IAF) and the missed approach (the missed ends
> with a hold at the COE VOR). I contend that GPS can substitute for the VOR
> but I can't find it witten down anywhere. The KSZT LOC, DME and ADF are all
> working properly. Our question is: Was the KSZT LOC/DME approach
> improperly NOTAMed NA? Can you cite a source? Remember we are talking
> about substituting GPS for the VOR to fly the transition, we are not talking
> about substituting for the LOC.

There is no pro bono work for references, etc, available today. Why don't you
call AVN-100 in OKC on Monday and ask them: 405-954-3027. That's the main
number but they can transfer you to the right person.

[Mike Rapoport]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> > Recently the COE VOR was notamed OTS. Coincedent with this the KSZT
> > LOC/DME
> > was notamed NA. The explanation given was that the COE VOR was
nessasary
> > to
> > fly the tranition (COE is the IAF) and the missed approach (the missed
> > ends
> > with a hold at the COE VOR). I contend that GPS can substitute for the
> > VOR
> > but I can't find it witten down anywhere. The KSZT LOC, DME and ADF are
> > all
> > working properly. Our question is: Was the KSZT LOC/DME approach
> > improperly NOTAMed NA? Can you cite a source? Remember we are talking
> > about substituting GPS for the VOR to fly the transition, we are not
> > talking
> > about substituting for the LOC.
> >
> AIM 1-1-19 says:
> f. Use of GPS in lieu of ADF and DME
>
> 1. Subject to the restrictions below, operators in the U.S. NAS are
> authorized to use GPS equipment certified for IFR operations in place of
ADF
> and/or DME equipment for en route and terminal operations. For some
> operations there is no requirement for the aircraft to be equipped with an
> ADF or DME receiver, see subparagraphs f6(g) and (h) below. The
ground-based
> NDB or DME facility may be temporarily out of service during these
> operations. Charting will not change to support these operations.
>
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> There is no provision for GPS to be used in lieu of VOR. 1-1-20
addresses
> the use of WAAS. WAAS eliminates the requirement for backup navigation
> systems and may be used stand-alone. You may, of course, use GPS to
navigate
> to a location that happens to be a VOR, just as you may use GPS to
navigate
> to any other point, but if you have no VOR you cannot use it for an
> approach. If you have WAAS you may use it for any approach authorized for
> WAAS (these approaches are annotated as such) and need no ground radios at
> all.
>
>

So, if I had WAAS and nothing else, I could fly the transition but the VOR
has to be operational even though I don't have a VOR reciever onboard?

Mike
MU-2

[C J Campbell]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
k.net...
>>
>
> So, if I had WAAS and nothing else, I could fly the transition but the VOR
> has to be operational even though I don't have a VOR reciever onboard?
>

No. You can't fly the VOR unless you have VOR on board and the VOR on the
ground is operational. You may substitute WAAS for the VOR if the approach
has been approved for WAAS.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> We deal with the same thing here at BIL. We have an ILS that requires
> radar and DME. Whenever they take the DME out of service they notam the
> whole approach OTS. Nobody can give me a good reason why the approach
> can't be left in service and just have the notam state that DME is not
> available.
>

DME is needed to determine the MAP for the ILS RWY 28R when flown to
localizer minimums.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> See AIM 1-1-20c.7. WAAS may be used as a stand-alone
> system anywhere in the NAS.
>
> GPS cannot substitute for a VOR.
>

Odd, then, that FAAO 7110.65 allows controllers to issue airways routing to
GPS-equipped aircraft when the navaids defining those airways are not in
service.


FAA Order 7110.65P Air Traffic Control

Chapter 4. IFR

Section 4. Route Assignment

4-4-4. ALTERNATIVE ROUTES

When any part of an airway or route is unusable because of NAVAID status,
clear aircraft other than /E, /F, /G, or /R, via one of the following
alternative routes:

a. A route depicted on current U.S. Government charts/publications. Use
the word "substitute" immediately preceding the alternative route in issuing
the clearance.

b. A route defined by specifying NAVAID radials, courses, or azimuths.

c. A route defined as direct to or between NAVAIDs.

d. Vectors.

NOTE-
Inform area navigation aircraft that will proceed to the NAVAID location
of the NAVAID outage.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 08:21:21 -0700, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

>No. You can't fly the VOR unless you have VOR on board and the VOR on the
>ground is operational. You may substitute WAAS for the VOR if the approach
>has been approved for WAAS.

That is directly contrary to what is in the AIM with regard to overlay
approaches, whether or not WAAS is mentioned.

" h. GPS Approach Procedures

.... During these GPS approaches [referring to overlay approaches],
underlying ground-based NAVAIDs are not required to be operational and
associated aircraft avionics need not be installed, operational, turned on
or monitored "


--ron

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 22:57:15 -0700, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:


> There is no provision for GPS to be used in lieu of VOR.

There is for approaches. See 1-1-19 h.

"As the production of stand-alone GPS approaches has progressed, many of
the original overlay approaches have been replaced with stand-alone
procedures specifically designed for use by GPS systems. The title of the
remaining GPS overlay procedures has been revised on the approach chart to
"or GPS" (e.g., VOR or GPS RWY 24). Therefore, all the approaches that can
be used by GPS now contain "GPS" in the title (e.g., "VOR or GPS RWY 24,"
"GPS RWY 24," or "RNAV (GPS) RWY 24"). During these GPS approaches,
underlying ground-based NAVAIDs are not required to be operational and
associated aircraft avionics need not be installed, operational, turned on
or monitored (monitoring of the underlying approach is suggested when
equipment is available and functional). Existing overlay approaches may be
requested using the GPS title, such as "GPS RWY 24" for the VOR or GPS RWY
24".


--ron

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 08:21:21 -0700, "C J Campbell"
> > wrote:
>
> >No. You can't fly the VOR unless you have VOR on board and the VOR on the
> >ground is operational. You may substitute WAAS for the VOR if the
approach
> >has been approved for WAAS.
>
> That is directly contrary to what is in the AIM with regard to overlay
> approaches, whether or not WAAS is mentioned.
>
> " h. GPS Approach Procedures
>
> ... During these GPS approaches [referring to overlay approaches],
> underlying ground-based NAVAIDs are not required to be operational and
> associated aircraft avionics need not be installed, operational, turned on
> or monitored "
>

That's an overlay approach, a "VOR or GPS RWY 24" approach, for example.
For an approach like that you don't need a VOR, but you would for a "VOR RWY
24" approach.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 22:57:15 -0700, "C J Campbell"
> > wrote:
>
>
> > There is no provision for GPS to be used in lieu of VOR.
>
> There is for approaches. See 1-1-19 h.
>
> "As the production of stand-alone GPS approaches has progressed, many of
> the original overlay approaches have been replaced with stand-alone
> procedures specifically designed for use by GPS systems. The title of the
> remaining GPS overlay procedures has been revised on the approach chart to
> "or GPS" (e.g., VOR or GPS RWY 24). Therefore, all the approaches that can
> be used by GPS now contain "GPS" in the title (e.g., "VOR or GPS RWY 24,"
> "GPS RWY 24," or "RNAV (GPS) RWY 24"). During these GPS approaches,
> underlying ground-based NAVAIDs are not required to be operational and
> associated aircraft avionics need not be installed, operational, turned on
> or monitored (monitoring of the underlying approach is suggested when
> equipment is available and functional). Existing overlay approaches may be
> requested using the GPS title, such as "GPS RWY 24" for the VOR or GPS RWY
> 24".
>

If you're using GPS to fly a "VOR or GPS RWY 24" you're not substituting GPS
for the VOR. The approach can be flown with either one.

[Doug]

If it is NOTAMED out of service then I don't think you can legally use
it, regardless of what is actually not working. I don't think ATC is
supposed to clear you for an approach that is NOTAMED OTS. Numerous
reasons. So you will get no clearance for the approach. How can you
fly it without a clearance in IMC?

It does seem that they could NOTAM it that you MUST have IFR approach
terminal and enroute GPS, or even WAAS GPS if the VOR is out. But
thats not what they did.

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message >...
> Recently the COE VOR was notamed OTS. Coincedent with this the KSZT LOC/DME
> was notamed NA. The explanation given was that the COE VOR was nessasary to
> fly the tranition (COE is the IAF) and the missed approach (the missed ends
> with a hold at the COE VOR). I contend that GPS can substitute for the VOR
> but I can't find it witten down anywhere. The KSZT LOC, DME and ADF are all
> working properly. Our question is: Was the KSZT LOC/DME approach
> improperly NOTAMed NA? Can you cite a source? Remember we are talking
> about substituting GPS for the VOR to fly the transition, we are not talking
> about substituting for the LOC.
>
> Thanks
>
> Mike
> MU-2
> (and a lot of other frustrated NW pilots)

[Newps]

Doug wrote:
> If it is NOTAMED out of service then I don't think you can legally use
> it, regardless of what is actually not working.


Yes, of course, but that is also the problem with the FAA. When our DME
required ILS goes OTS because just the DME is out there is no reason to
notam the approach OTS. Anybody with a terminal or approach approved
GPS will shoot the approach without DME anyways. All the fixes and the
missed approach point for the LOC only part of the approach can all be
determined with GPS. Just like on most VOR approaches nowadays, they
list a distance that you can use in lieu of timing. This is a
fundamental flaw with the FAA not fully understanding how people are flying.


I don't think ATC is
> supposed to clear you for an approach that is NOTAMED OTS.

Right, although if the navaids are working you can shoot it as a VFR
practice approach.



> It does seem that they could NOTAM it that you MUST have IFR approach
> terminal and enroute GPS, or even WAAS GPS if the VOR is out. But
> thats not what they did.

But they should. Just tell people what is not working and let them
figure out how it affects their situation. They do this when a VOR goes
OTS and all of a sudden a number of airways cease to exist.

[Mike Rapoport]

OK, now it gets interesting! The VOR is still NOTAMed OTS but the KSZT
LOC/DME approach isn't!

Any thoughts?

Mike
MU-2

[C J Campbell]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 22:57:15 -0700, "C J Campbell"
> > wrote:
>
>
>> There is no provision for GPS to be used in lieu of VOR.
>
> There is for approaches. See 1-1-19 h.
>

With an overlay approach you are not using GPS in lieu of VOR. You are
simply flying a GPS approach. If there is no GPS overlay then you may not
substitute GPS for VOR.

[C J Campbell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> See AIM 1-1-20c.7. WAAS may be used as a stand-alone
>> system anywhere in the NAS.
>>
>> GPS cannot substitute for a VOR.
>>
>
> Odd, then, that FAAO 7110.65 allows controllers to issue airways routing
> to
> GPS-equipped aircraft when the navaids defining those airways are not in
> service.

Yeah, I noticed that contradiction, too. I regularly use McCord VOR as a
waypoint for airway routing even though the thing has been OPTS for years.

[J Haggerty]

FAAH 8260.19C Para 224 d (5) only allows using GPS to substitute for an
NDB or DME outage, it doesn't include VOR's.
http://av-info.faa.gov/terps/Directives_files/8260.19C%20CHG3.pdf
(page 20 of 201)

JPH

Mike Rapoport wrote:

> Recently the COE VOR was notamed OTS. Coincedent with this the KSZT LOC/DME
> was notamed NA. The explanation given was that the COE VOR was nessasary to
> fly the tranition (COE is the IAF) and the missed approach (the missed ends
> with a hold at the COE VOR). I contend that GPS can substitute for the VOR
> but I can't find it witten down anywhere. The KSZT LOC, DME and ADF are all
> working properly. Our question is: Was the KSZT LOC/DME approach
> improperly NOTAMed NA? Can you cite a source? Remember we are talking
> about substituting GPS for the VOR to fly the transition, we are not talking
> about substituting for the LOC.
>
> Thanks
>
> Mike
> MU-2
> (and a lot of other frustrated NW pilots)
>
>

[J Haggerty]

If it's just the DME OTS, then the NOTAM should be worded as shown in
FAAH 7110.65C para 284 d (5). They have examples there. Unfortunately, I
don't think everyone is aware to prepare the NOTAM that way. It doesn't
help that this paragraph is located under the NOTAM D section, and
procedural NOTAMS are not NOTAM D's. So many specialists don't even keep
up with that section, because they don't normally prepare NOTAM D's.
http://av-info.faa.gov/terps/Directives_files/8260.19C%20CHG3.pdf
It's on page 19/20 of 201)
JPH




Newps wrote:


>
> Yes, of course, but that is also the problem with the FAA. When our DME
> required ILS goes OTS because just the DME is out there is no reason to
> notam the approach OTS. Anybody with a terminal or approach approved
> GPS will shoot the approach without DME anyways. All the fixes and the
> missed approach point for the LOC only part of the approach can all be
> determined with GPS. Just like on most VOR approaches nowadays, they
> list a distance that you can use in lieu of timing. This is a
> fundamental flaw with the FAA not fully understanding how people are
> flying.
>

>> It does seem that they could NOTAM it that you MUST have IFR approach
>> terminal and enroute GPS, or even WAAS GPS if the VOR is out. But
>> thats not what they did.
>
>
> But they should. Just tell people what is not working and let them
> figure out how it affects their situation. They do this when a VOR goes
> OTS and all of a sudden a number of airways cease to exist.
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"J Haggerty" > wrote in message
news:3_cYc.64401$wo.11137@okepread06...
>
> If it's just the DME OTS, then the NOTAM should be worded as shown in
> FAAH 7110.65C para 284 d (5).
>

Wrong book.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 18:33:56 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>If you're using GPS to fly a "VOR or GPS RWY 24" you're not substituting GPS
>for the VOR. The approach can be flown with either one.

Exactly the point.
--ron

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > If you're using GPS to fly a "VOR or GPS RWY 24" you're not
> > substituting GPS for the VOR. The approach can be flown with
> > either one.
> >
>
> Exactly the point.
>

?

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 18:33:26 -0700, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

>With an overlay approach you are not using GPS in lieu of VOR. You are
>simply flying a GPS approach. If there is no GPS overlay then you may not
>substitute GPS for VOR.

Exactly. In the case of an overlay approach, the FAA has sanctioned the
use of GPS in place of VOR.

I think we are getting into one of these nit-picky discussions which are
common in this group.

With my CNX80, I can legally fly the Victor airways with no functioning VOR
in my aircraft or on the ground. I call that substituting GPS for VOR. If
you wish to call it something else, you may, since there is no FAA guidance
to that point.


--ron

[john smith]

Consider this:

Lateral error limits for an ILS approach are +/- 60 feet.
This is 0.01 degrees (1 degree=6000 feet, 0.1 degree=600 feet)
Granted, most of us only see +/- 15 feet with our GPS's, but WAAS/LAAS
are suppose to guarantee the tolerance.

[[email protected]]

john smith wrote:

> Consider this:
>
> Lateral error limits for an ILS approach are +/- 60 feet.
> This is 0.01 degrees (1 degree=6000 feet, 0.1 degree=600 feet)
> Granted, most of us only see +/- 15 feet with our GPS's, but WAAS/LAAS
> are suppose to guarantee the tolerance.

Where did you come up with that?

[john smith]

wrote:
>
> john smith wrote:
>
>
>>Consider this:
>>
>>Lateral error limits for an ILS approach are +/- 60 feet.
>>This is 0.01 degrees (1 degree=6000 feet, 0.1 degree=600 feet)
>>Granted, most of us only see +/- 15 feet with our GPS's, but WAAS/LAAS
>>are suppose to guarantee the tolerance.
>
>
> Where did you come up with that?

An FAA rep at a conference on LORAN approaches in 1985.

[[email protected]]

john smith wrote:

> An FAA rep at a conference on LORAN approaches in 1985.

Well, he was full of it. Check the AIM for the LOC sensitivity and check
the TERPS chapter for ILS for the protected airspace.

[john smith]

wrote:
>>An FAA rep at a conference on LORAN approaches in 1985.

> Well, he was full of it. Check the AIM for the LOC sensitivity and check
> the TERPS chapter for ILS for the protected airspace.

Okay, I just took the dog for a walk and was pondering the subject.
To clarify...
An ILS is an "angled" approach, that is, each dot represents 2-degrees
of angle from the centerline. This is a converging cone.
A GPS approach (or LORAN) is a "parallel" approach. Each dot on the
display represents a line parallel to the centerline.
For example, a Garmin 430...
Outside 30 nm from the destination, the sensitivity is 5 nm per dot.
Inside 30 nm from the destination, the sensitivity changes to 1 nm per dot.
Two miles from the final approach fix in the approach mode, the
sensitivity changes to 0.3 nm per dot. This is 1800 feet, hence the
reason the approach is a non-precision approach. This is also the
minimum runway separation for parallel approachs on ILS's at many
airports. (I believe this has been increased to 2400 feet.) See the problem?
I probably should have said +/-60 feet for an ILS equivalent approach.
The discussion at that time was about how many decimal places a box need
to have and charts need to have printed.
I apologize for leaving out "details", you have to think about the
equipment and how it works.

[Mike Rapoport]

What does this have to do with the discussion at hand?

Mike
MU-2

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
> >>An FAA rep at a conference on LORAN approaches in 1985.
>
> > Well, he was full of it. Check the AIM for the LOC sensitivity and
check
> > the TERPS chapter for ILS for the protected airspace.
>
> Okay, I just took the dog for a walk and was pondering the subject.
> To clarify...
> An ILS is an "angled" approach, that is, each dot represents 2-degrees
> of angle from the centerline. This is a converging cone.
> A GPS approach (or LORAN) is a "parallel" approach. Each dot on the
> display represents a line parallel to the centerline.
> For example, a Garmin 430...
> Outside 30 nm from the destination, the sensitivity is 5 nm per dot.
> Inside 30 nm from the destination, the sensitivity changes to 1 nm per
dot.
> Two miles from the final approach fix in the approach mode, the
> sensitivity changes to 0.3 nm per dot. This is 1800 feet, hence the
> reason the approach is a non-precision approach. This is also the
> minimum runway separation for parallel approachs on ILS's at many
> airports. (I believe this has been increased to 2400 feet.) See the
problem?
> I probably should have said +/-60 feet for an ILS equivalent approach.
> The discussion at that time was about how many decimal places a box need
> to have and charts need to have printed.
> I apologize for leaving out "details", you have to think about the
> equipment and how it works.
>

[Bob Noel]

In article >, john smith
> wrote:

> I probably should have said +/-60 feet for an ILS equivalent approach.

the +/-60 feet is approximately the tolerance for the ILS ground
system at the threshold. It would not include the tolerance for
the avionics nor the FTE.

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

[john smith]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
> What does this have to do with the discussion at hand?

It's just a twist it took based on a previous comment. :-)

[john smith]

Bob Noel wrote:
>>I probably should have said +/-60 feet for an ILS equivalent approach.

> the +/-60 feet is approximately the tolerance for the ILS ground
> system at the threshold. It would not include the tolerance for
> the avionics nor the FTE.

What is FTE?
(The only other usage I have seen for that acronym is Full Time Employee.)

[John R. Copeland]

"john smith" > wrote in message =
...
>=20
>=20
> For example, a Garmin 430...
> Outside 30 nm from the destination, the sensitivity is 5 nm per dot.
> Inside 30 nm from the destination, the sensitivity changes to 1 nm per =
dot.
> Two miles from the final approach fix in the approach mode, the=20
> sensitivity changes to 0.3 nm per dot.=20
>

You must have confused full-scale sensitivity with "per dot" =
sensitivity.
Your numbers are wildly excessive, compared to my CNX80.
I could pull up the Garmin Simulator to check the 430, but so could you.
Let us know if the 430 really has that rotten sensitivity you mentioned.
---JRC---

[Mike Rapoport]

Thanks.

Mike
MU-2

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > What does this have to do with the discussion at hand?
>
> It's just a twist it took based on a previous comment. :-)
>
>

[Bob Noel]

In article >, john smith
> wrote:

> Bob Noel wrote:
> >>I probably should have said +/-60 feet for an ILS equivalent approach.
>
> > the +/-60 feet is approximately the tolerance for the ILS ground
> > system at the threshold. It would not include the tolerance for
> > the avionics nor the FTE.
>
> What is FTE?
> (The only other usage I have seen for that acronym is Full Time Employee.)
>

Flight Technical Error (iow - pilots oops)

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

[J Haggerty]

Oops,
FAAO 8260.19C para 284 d (5)

JPH

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "J Haggerty" > wrote in message
> news:3_cYc.64401$wo.11137@okepread06...
>
>>If it's just the DME OTS, then the NOTAM should be worded as shown in
>>FAAH 7110.65C para 284 d (5).
>>
>
>
> Wrong book.
>
>

[Hamish Reid]

In article >,
john smith > wrote:

> wrote:
> >>An FAA rep at a conference on LORAN approaches in 1985.
>
> > Well, he was full of it. Check the AIM for the LOC sensitivity and check
> > the TERPS chapter for ILS for the protected airspace.
>
[...]
> For example, a Garmin 430...
> Outside 30 nm from the destination, the sensitivity is 5 nm per dot.
> Inside 30 nm from the destination, the sensitivity changes to 1 nm per dot.
> Two miles from the final approach fix in the approach mode, the
> sensitivity changes to 0.3 nm per dot. This is 1800 feet, hence the
> reason the approach is a non-precision approach.

The 430 -- like the 530 -- approach mode is 0.3 nm *full-scale
deflection*. Which is at least five times as sensitive as you seem to
think it is...

Hamish

[[email protected]]

john smith wrote:

> wrote:
> >>An FAA rep at a conference on LORAN approaches in 1985.
>
> > Well, he was full of it. Check the AIM for the LOC sensitivity and check
> > the TERPS chapter for ILS for the protected airspace.
>
> Okay, I just took the dog for a walk and was pondering the subject.
> To clarify...
> An ILS is an "angled" approach, that is, each dot represents 2-degrees
> of angle from the centerline. This is a converging cone.
> A GPS approach (or LORAN) is a "parallel" approach. Each dot on the
> display represents a line parallel to the centerline.

The term of art is "linear."

>
> For example, a Garmin 430...
> Outside 30 nm from the destination, the sensitivity is 5 nm per dot.
> Inside 30 nm from the destination, the sensitivity changes to 1 nm per dot.
> Two miles from the final approach fix in the approach mode, the
> sensitivity changes to 0.3 nm per dot. This is 1800 feet, hence the
> reason the approach is a non-precision approach.

Not exactly. There are RNAV (GPS) approaches with VNAV/LNAV minimums, which use
the DA concept (rather than MDA) and are, thus, precision approaches. They just
don't qualify as unrestricted Category I precision approaches.

> This is also the
> minimum runway separation for parallel approachs on ILS's at many
> airports. (I believe this has been increased to 2400 feet.)

It is 4500 for simultaneous, independent parallel ILS approaches. 2500 (not
2400) is the value for simultaneous, dependant parallel ILS approaches.

> See the problem?

Not exactly.

>
> I probably should have said +/-60 feet for an ILS equivalent approach.
> The discussion at that time was about how many decimal places a box need
> to have and charts need to have printed.
> I apologize for leaving out "details", you have to think about the
> equipment and how it works.

ILS is tailored to be 700 feet wide at the threshold (AIM 1-1-9 b 2) But, that
is the full-scale sensitivity. The protected airspace is the same for every
ILS, with the W X and Y areas (lateral) and surfaces (glideslope obstacle
clearance surfaces).

[[email protected]]

> It is 4500 for simultaneous, independent parallel ILS approaches. 2500 (not
> 2400) is the value for simultaneous, dependant parallel ILS approaches.
>

4300, not 4500.

[Jay Smith]

John R. Copeland wrote:
>>For example, a Garmin 430...
>>Outside 30 nm from the destination, the sensitivity is 5 nm per dot.
>>Inside 30 nm from the destination, the sensitivity changes to 1 nm per dot.
>>Two miles from the final approach fix in the approach mode, the
>>sensitivity changes to 0.3 nm per dot.

> You must have confused full-scale sensitivity with "per dot" sensitivity.
> Your numbers are wildly excessive, compared to my CNX80.
> I could pull up the Garmin Simulator to check the 430, but so could you.
> Let us know if the 430 really has that rotten sensitivity you mentioned.

Your right, I misread it.

[john smith]

I knew I would get in trouble for not reviewing TERPS before posting.
This is what happens when you try to work from memory. :-))

[[email protected]]

john smith wrote:

> I knew I would get in trouble for not reviewing TERPS before posting.
> This is what happens when you try to work from memory. :-))

No one who works with TERPS works with memory.

[[email protected]]

Hamish Reid wrote:

> The 430 -- like the 530 -- approach mode is 0.3 nm *full-scale
> deflection*. Which is at least five times as sensitive as you seem to
> think it is...
>

As are all TSO-C129 CDIs, regardless of manufacturer.

[John R. Copeland]

> wrote in message =
...
>=20
> Hamish Reid wrote:
>=20
>> The 430 -- like the 530 -- approach mode is 0.3 nm *full-scale
>> deflection*. Which is at least five times as sensitive as you seem to
>> think it is...
>=20
> As are all TSO-C129 CDIs, regardless of manufacturer.
>
The same is true for my TSO-C146a equipment, of course.
---JRC---