Outer Marker

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 14:31:34 +0000 (UTC), (Paul
Tomblin) wrote:

In a previous article, "Barry" said:
When doing an ILS approach, with the glideslope, is it a requirement to be
able to identify the outer marker or a substitute? FAR 91.175(k) lists the

"or a substitute" is the operative phrase. If the FAF is identified by an
intersection, LOM, or DME, that's an acceptable substitute for a locator
beacon.

In my experience, it has been most unusual for an OM to be located at the
FAF for an ILS approach. They try to get them close, but they rarely are
(at least here in the NorthEast).


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

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 14:31:34 +0000 (UTC), (Paul
Tomblin) wrote:

In a previous article, "Barry" said:
When doing an ILS approach, with the glideslope, is it a requirement to
be
able to identify the outer marker or a substitute? FAR 91.175(k) lists
the

"or a substitute" is the operative phrase. If the FAF is identified by
an
intersection, LOM, or DME, that's an acceptable substitute for a locator
beacon.

In my experience, it has been most unusual for an OM to be located at the
FAF for an ILS approach. They try to get them close, but they rarely are
(at least here in the NorthEast).

I wondered about that. It *is* at the marker at my home field (PAE), thanks
to a remarkably well-located spit of land north of the bay, and I made the
appropriate mistake on my oral. After a snack break, I looked it up and came
back to the examiner with the right answer (GS intercept).

-- David Brooks