OK, FAR Lawers we need your help!

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)

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.

"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.

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.

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

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.

"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.

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

"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.

"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.