Legal or not?

"Brad" wrote in message
ups.com...

Nope, you're correct, its just a feeder route to the IAF. If MKP was
an intersection, you'd see MKP INT on the profile and plan view. The
076 line and arrow would extend all the way to the fix, rather than
just pointing towards the fix as the feeder route does. Distance and
angle did not meet the terps requirement to serve as a radial to
identify it as a intersection fix.


Why would the feeder route need to do any more than that? All the ADF does
on this approach is allow the pilot to navigate to the localizer. The
feeder route does that and so does a radar vector.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Brad" wrote in message
ups.com...

Nope, you're correct, its just a feeder route to the IAF. If MKP was
an intersection, you'd see MKP INT on the profile and plan view. The
076 line and arrow would extend all the way to the fix, rather than
just pointing towards the fix as the feeder route does. Distance and
angle did not meet the terps requirement to serve as a radial to
identify it as a intersection fix.



Why would the feeder route need to do any more than that? All the ADF does
on this approach is allow the pilot to navigate to the localizer. The
feeder route does that and so does a radar vector.


The feeder route from AGC takes the aircraft to the localizer, but the
intersection of that feeder route and loc does not provide enough
divergence to meet criteria for holding in lieu of PT (minimum 45
degrees divergence), so you can't do a course reversal without the NDB
(or suitable substitute) being operational. The feeder from NESTO is NA
without the NDB. It does appear that the planview note should read
"RADAR or DME required" since radar vectors from approach control to
intercept the final would work as long as they had coverage at suitable
altitudes.

JPH

"Dane Spearing" wrote in message
...

The use of an approach certified GPS in lieu of an ADF is addressed in
AIM 1-1-19f. See:

http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/AIM/Chap1/aim0101.html#1-1-19

In a nutshell, yes, you can use your IFR approach certified GPS in lieu
of an ADF for identifying the OM on an ILS approach, and/or for
identifying
a missed approach fix.


Use of GPS in lieu of ADF and DME is covered in that paragraph, but I see no
mention of use of GPS in lieu of a marker beacon receiver. While an ADF can
certainly identify an LOM, it won't identify an OM.

-----Original Message-----
From: Steven P. McNicoll ]
Posted At: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 6:06 PM
Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
Conversation: Legal or not?
Subject: Legal or not?


....
certainly identify an LOM, it won't identify an OM.

Ok, it's getting late and I haven't asked enough stupid questions today
so here goes: what is the difference between an Outer Marker and a
Locator Outer Marker? Aren't they the same frequency, same audio pattern
and tone?

"Jim Carter" wrote in message news:002f01c6cc9a$0e276310$4001a8c0@omnibook6100.. .

...
certainly identify an LOM, it won't identify an OM.

Ok, it's getting late and I haven't asked enough stupid questions today
so here goes: what is the difference between an Outer Marker and a
Locator Outer Marker? Aren't they the same frequency, same audio pattern
and tone?

Must be late. :-) You'll probably wake up tomorrow and remember...
LOM = LF/MF Compass Locator Beacon at the Outer Marker (used by ADFs).
OM = 75-MHz Fan-shaped or Bone-shaped Beacon, with a pulsing 400-Hz modulation.

"Jim Carter" wrote in message
news:002f01c6cc9a$0e276310$4001a8c0@omnibook6100.. .

Ok, it's getting late and I haven't asked enough stupid questions today
so here goes: what is the difference between an Outer Marker and a
Locator Outer Marker? Aren't they the same frequency, same audio pattern
and tone?


An LOM is a collocated Compass Locator, an NDB, and an Outer Marker. You
receive the Compass Locator with an ADF and the Outer Marker with a marker
beacon receiver.

In article et,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Dane Spearing" wrote in message
...

The use of an approach certified GPS in lieu of an ADF is addressed in
AIM 1-1-19f. See:

http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/AIM/Chap1/aim0101.html#1-1-19

In a nutshell, yes, you can use your IFR approach certified GPS in lieu
of an ADF for identifying the OM on an ILS approach, and/or for
identifying
a missed approach fix.


Use of GPS in lieu of ADF and DME is covered in that paragraph, but I see no
mention of use of GPS in lieu of a marker beacon receiver. While an ADF can
certainly identify an LOM, it won't identify an OM.

You are, of course, correct. I meant to type "LOM" not "OM". Must be old
age getting to me....

-- Dane

Rick McPherson wrote:
On Aug 28 I was practicing approaches at KAGC (FEW 008 BKN 012 OVR 025 4SM
BR). My preflight brief indicated that the McKeesport NDB is out of service.
Yet, the ATIS identified runway 28 as active and we were given the ILS 28
approach for practice (upon request). Is this approach legal without the
beacon?
http://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/20...ils_rwy_28.pdf

As a side note, is the equipment that you fly still using ADF?

Since it was a practice approach (VFR I assume) it would be legal even
if the loc was out of service.
However, even as an acutal IFR approach it can still be given assuming
you can identify the ADF on your GPS.

-Robert, CFII

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...

Since it was a practice approach (VFR I assume) it would be legal even
if the loc was out of service.
However, even as an acutal IFR approach it can still be given assuming
you can identify the ADF on your GPS.


Why would you need to identify the ADF?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...

Since it was a practice approach (VFR I assume) it would be legal even
if the loc was out of service.
However, even as an acutal IFR approach it can still be given assuming
you can identify the ADF on your GPS.


Why would you need to identify the ADF?

Well, in the case of the ILS SAC its because the course from the outer
marker is one degree off the localizer.

-Robert