If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
ILS or LOC approach?
I just noticed an approach to Frederick, MD (FDK) entitled "ILS OR LOC RWY
23". I thought every ILS could be flown as a non-precision LOC approach so why not just call this one the "ILS RWY 23"? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Dan Wegman" wrote in message ink.net... I just noticed an approach to Frederick, MD (FDK) entitled "ILS OR LOC RWY 23". I thought every ILS could be flown as a non-precision LOC approach so why not just call this one the "ILS RWY 23"? It used to be called that. I vaguely recall reading about a planned change in the naming convention along these lines. It appears it's now being implemented. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
There are actually a few ILS procedures that do not have LOC minima.
That would normally be caused by very high obstacles that would keep the LOC MDA too high, but are not high enough to penetrate the precision obstacle clearance slope. Also, about 2 years ago, the naming convention for ILS procedures in the TERPS manual was changed, so all procedures that have both precision ILS and non-precision LOC minima will be called "ILS or LOC", or "ILS or LOC/DME", etc. These changes take place as the procedures get routine amendments. I've heard rumors that there's talk about placing ILS and LOC minima on separate plates in the future, but can't verify that. JPH Dan Wegman wrote: I just noticed an approach to Frederick, MD (FDK) entitled "ILS OR LOC RWY 23". I thought every ILS could be flown as a non-precision LOC approach so why not just call this one the "ILS RWY 23"? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
J Haggerty wrote: There are actually a few ILS procedures that do not have LOC minima. That would normally be caused by very high obstacles that would keep the LOC MDA too high, but are not high enough to penetrate the precision obstacle clearance slope. Also, about 2 years ago, the naming convention for ILS procedures in the TERPS manual was changed, so all procedures that have both precision ILS and non-precision LOC minima will be called "ILS or LOC", or "ILS or LOC/DME", etc. These changes take place as the procedures get routine amendments. I've heard rumors that there's talk about placing ILS and LOC minima on separate plates in the future, but can't verify that. JPH You're correct on all counts except there is no plan to have separate charts. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
J Haggerty wrote: I've heard rumors that there's talk about placing ILS and LOC minima on separate plates in the future, but can't verify that. JPH Actually, at SJC, they combined what used to be a separate ILS and LOC/DME plates onto one "ILS or LOC/DME" so it seems they may going the other way. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Can you give us some examples?
Stan On Tue, 03 May 2005 20:04:24 -0500, J Haggerty wrote: There are actually a few ILS procedures that do not have LOC minima. That would normally be caused by very high obstacles that would keep the LOC MDA too high, but are not high enough to penetrate the precision obstacle clearance slope. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
I'm trying to remember where I saw one of these. I believe that it was
in either UT or CA, but can't recall which airport. In the meantime, the instructions to procedure developers indicate what note to place on the procedure when this situation occurs, and can be read at the following website; http://av-info.faa.gov/terps/Directi...19C%20CHG3.pdf (page 107 of 201) Para 854 m(6)(e) states (e) When terrain, obstacles, descent gradient, etc., do not allow the use of a LOC procedure associated with the ILS when the GS is not used, place NA in the visibility column for each LOC category affected. If, in such an instance, another procedure must be used instead, enter the following in the NOTES section: "Chart planview note: When GS not used, use LOC RWY 26 procedure." When circling is authorized, but the LOC procedure associated with the ILS is "NA," enter the following in the NOTES section: "Chart note: Circling requires descent on GS to MDA." JPH wrote: Can you give us some examples? Stan On Tue, 03 May 2005 20:04:24 -0500, J Haggerty wrote: There are actually a few ILS procedures that do not have LOC minima. That would normally be caused by very high obstacles that would keep the LOC MDA too high, but are not high enough to penetrate the precision obstacle clearance slope. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Found one.
ILS Rwy 16R, Reno, NV (KRNO) LOC and circling minimums NA. This isn't the one I was thinking of. The one I was thinking of had ILS and circling minima, but LOC minima was NA. I'll post that one if I run across it. Plate can be viewed at this site; http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0504/00346I16R.PDF wrote: Can you give us some examples? Stan On Tue, 03 May 2005 20:04:24 -0500, J Haggerty wrote: There are actually a few ILS procedures that do not have LOC minima. That would normally be caused by very high obstacles that would keep the LOC MDA too high, but are not high enough to penetrate the precision obstacle clearance slope. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Here's an ILS with ILS and Circling minima, but LOC is NA.
This one has the note on the procedure that states "Circling requires descent on GS to MDA". http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0504/00388ID32.PDF For May 12th effective date, the link is; http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0505/00388ID32.PDF Sheridan, WY (KSHR) ILS/DME Rwy 32 JPH wrote: Can you give us some examples? Stan On Tue, 03 May 2005 20:04:24 -0500, J Haggerty wrote: There are actually a few ILS procedures that do not have LOC minima. That would normally be caused by very high obstacles that would keep the LOC MDA too high, but are not high enough to penetrate the precision obstacle clearance slope. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
YKM (Yakama, Washington) RWY 27
BFI (Boeing Field, Seattle) RWY 13R ACV (Arcata, California) RWY 32 J Haggerty wrote: Here's an ILS with ILS and Circling minima, but LOC is NA. This one has the note on the procedure that states "Circling requires descent on GS to MDA". http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0504/00388ID32.PDF For May 12th effective date, the link is; http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0505/00388ID32.PDF Sheridan, WY (KSHR) ILS/DME Rwy 32 JPH wrote: Can you give us some examples? Stan On Tue, 03 May 2005 20:04:24 -0500, J Haggerty wrote: There are actually a few ILS procedures that do not have LOC minima. That would normally be caused by very high obstacles that would keep the LOC MDA too high, but are not high enough to penetrate the precision obstacle clearance slope. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GPS approach question | Matt Whiting | Instrument Flight Rules | 30 | August 29th 08 03:54 AM |
VOR/DME Approach Question | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 47 | August 29th 04 05:03 AM |
Why is ADF or Radar Required on MFD ILS RWY 32 Approach Plate? | S. Ramirez | Instrument Flight Rules | 17 | April 2nd 04 11:13 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
IR checkride story! | Guy Elden Jr. | Instrument Flight Rules | 16 | August 1st 03 09:03 PM |