ADF and GPS equip %

In article ,
Peter wrote:

a) existing receivers will not be able to receive the signal, and the
US one is free and works

The Europeans and the US have always had different ideas about charging for
navigation services. Back in the 60s (50s?), while the US was building
Loran (free for anybody to use), the Europeans were building DECCA
(available for a fee). In the US, anybody can reprint government charts.
In the UK (for example), charts carry a Crown Copyright. It's not
surprising the same pattern has been followed for GPS.

You can't list an alternate that requires ADF or DME, whether for the
approach or to identify fixes.

In article ,
says...


FWIW, you couldn't be more wrong about Munich - it is the place with the
least GA traffic in all of Germany.


All I said was that there is GA traffic there, and a GA terminal.
Both statements are true. For the other airports, not having been there, I
said I didn't know. GF

My point to the FAA was that this was a brand new commisioned ILS and
why require the need for the ADF. As I explained the hold point at the
outer marker could be defined 3 different ways. The response was that of
pilot work load. When the new procedure was proposed, the missed
approach routing took you about 35 miles to complete the missed, go to
the holding point and then return. I withdrew the request. Actually, it
was never a request; I was just asking why they required the ADF on a
newly commisioned ILS. The published procedure requires ADF. I have a
IFR GPS so it really isn't an issue to me.

Jose wrote:

I withdrew my letter.


What does this mean? Why did you do it?

Jose

Yes, but what started this was that the FAA published a brand new ILS
approach REQUIRING an ADF. I was asking the FAA, why as there were other
ways to identify the holding point with out an ADF. I have a GPS do just
that.

Ross

rps wrote:

Ross Richardson wrote:

I am puzzled also. Even some newly commisioned ILS approaches require
ADFs to locate the outermarker for hold. We had one at a local airport


You can hold over an NDB using GPS -- no ADF required. See AIM 1-1-19
or a prior thread started by me last month relating to legal use of GPS
as a substitute for NDB and DME.

In article ,
says...



Greg Farris wrote:

I think you would be in some trouble trying to tell EUROCONTROL people that
their system requires an American GPS! ;-)

Actually that *is* the case.

Is not the case, because of your later statement : "Airliners meet BRNAV using
INS".
The Eurocontrol people writing the B-RNAV/P-RNAV requirements are only thinking
of airliners. They do not even think for a second that there may be GA users of
the system, and if they do they think that all that traffic will be below FL115
(or 095, depending on the country).


concerned with smaller airports, which often do have NDB approaches, with
or without GPS overlay.

Not sure what you mean. Airliners meet BRNAV using INS. GA could do
that too - would affect the W&B of a typical SEP somewhat though


All I meant was that there are still many approaches that can ONLY be legally
flown with a real ADF. The system evolution isn't paying much attention to
these, because airliners are not using these airports, so it's as though they
don't exist.



Probably because of the landing fees. You can fly VFR or IFR GA to any
major European airport if you really want to (with restrictions e.g.
LEMG: no VFR on certain days of the week).


EDDM publishes a minimum requirement "IFR aircraft with a maximum takeoff weight
of over two tons may use the airport". The Paris airports are, of course, in
Class A airspace, so no VFR is possible at any time, and I doubt that any price
would get your PA28 into LFPG or LFPO. Le Bourget is off-limits to VFR at all
times as well, but you can get in IFR if you pay the fee.


They don't have landing
fees in the USA, generally.

They do at the larger airports - and quite prohibitive too at JFK or Logan, I
believe.
That's why, when I see a 182 at one of these airports I assume it might be an
"angel" flight, because they get the fees waived.

GF

In article ,
says...


Is not the case, because of your later statement : "Airliners meet BRNAV
using
INS".

In the GA context it is the case though.

To the people designing the system, there is no "GA context".
If they thought for one second theywere writing rules that required anyone to
use American GPS, they would write them differently.




All I meant was that there are still many approaches that can ONLY be legally
flown with a real ADF. The system evolution isn't paying much attention to
these, because airliners are not using these airports, so it's as though they
don't exist.

Actually, a lot of the cheap airlines (e.g. Ryanair) do fly to such
airports.

Nah - we're talking about yet another category of airport.
Are you aware of low-costs scheduling service into airports without an ILS?



The Paris airports are, of course, in
Class A airspace, so no VFR is possible at any time,

Surely you can do SVFR? That's how one flies VFR into EGJJ for
example.


SVFR in Class A? Please do explain. :-)

GF

Greg,

The Eurocontrol people writing the B-RNAV/P-RNAV requirements are only thinking
of airliners. They do not even think for a second that there may be GA users of
the system, and if they do they think that all that traffic will be below FL115
(or 095, depending on the country).


Ok, so tell us again your experience with and relation to flying in Europe?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

In article ,
says...



Ok, so tell us again your experience with and relation to flying in Europe?

--

I have the pleasure and frustration of flying the systems in the US and Europe,
and seeing how one regulatory system takes full consideration of the needs and
uses of GA, while the other, often accused of trying to squeeze out GA,
actually operates in complete non-recognition of it.

I may be wrong. Surely you believe the RNAV rules in Europe are really
developed with the GA user in mind? Surely you believe GPS random routes with
uplink weather and WAAS precision approaches are only weeks away throughout
Europe.

GF

In article ,
says...

Nah - we're talking about yet another category of airport.
Are you aware of low-costs scheduling service into airports without an ILS?

La Rochelle in France is on example. Trieste (Italy) is another.
Ryanair and Easyjet. There must be loads of them.


Both have ILS approaches. I'm not trying to be argumentative about it,
perhaps you'll find one and I'll stand corrected, but I do think there are a
lot of airports that are more or les "forgotten" because they are not really
adequate for air carrier use, and some of them just have an NDB approach,
requiring a real ADF (which was the origin of this thread, a long time ago).
Look at Besancon, in France - Many GA pilots may want to fly in there (and do)
but the only published instrument approach is an NDB, with no GPS overlay.



SVFR in Class A? Please do explain. :-)

Do I need to?


Nope - N/A
Really - you *cannot* fly a small plane into the major French airports, unless
you're interested in visiting the slimy side of a major French penal
establishment!


I would suggest they were developed in the knowledge that that (very
small) part of GA, very small because of the tiny population of pilots
with a full IR, is able to look after themselves.

Obviously I agree the document writers know that IFR/GA exists. I don't
seriously pretend otherwise. But having to fend for themselves when there are
few or inadequate specific provisions to do so is a bit unwelcoming. I honestly
do believe there is a bit of "let'em cool their heels" attitude while waiting
for Galileo to come on line. That's why I keep saying I don't think they would
explicitly or implicitly "mandate" US-based GPS for any application. When
Galileo is up and running, and a fee system to pour money into a few
"sweetheart" companies, then the system will begin to develop for GA as well,
and there will be a whole host of new services, new requirements, and new
opportunities to get rid of some spare cash.


GF