OK, FAR Lawers we need your help!

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. :-)

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.

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.

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

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).

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


4300, not 4500.

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.

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

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.

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.