Legal or not?

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?

Rick



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

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?

No, unless you have a IFR certified GPS receiver(TSO C129 or TSO
C145/146a). "ADF Required" is written on chart, so you must have a
means of navigating to the NDB. If you were practicing the procedure
under VFR, then yes you were legal.

http://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/20...ils_rwy_28.pdf

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

No XM on board, so it does serve minimal enroute entertainment value.
Not many NDB's or procedures left where I fly.

Brad wrote:
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?


No, unless you have a IFR certified GPS receiver(TSO C129 or TSO
C145/146a). "ADF Required" is written on chart, so you must have a
means of navigating to the NDB. If you were practicing the procedure
under VFR, then yes you were legal.


http://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/20...ils_rwy_28.pdf

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


No XM on board, so it does serve minimal enroute entertainment value.
Not many NDB's or procedures left where I fly.

Does anyone besides me think the note should read "ADF OR RADAR REQUIRED"?

Dave Butler wrote:

Does anyone besides me think the note should read "ADF OR RADAR REQUIRED"?

If MKP was a Radar Fix, they could.

Brad wrote:
Dave Butler wrote:


Does anyone besides me think the note should read "ADF OR RADAR REQUIRED"?


If MKP was a Radar Fix, they could.

I don't follow.

The only need to identify MKP is as an IAF. There's no step-down, no turn, it's
not required for flying the missed. If you have either ADF (for the full
approach) or RADAR (receiving vectors to final) you should able to safely fly
the approach.

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

If MKP was a Radar Fix, they could.


Radar fix? What purpose does MKP serve if you're vectored to the localizer?

Dave Butler wrote:
Brad wrote:

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?



No, unless you have a IFR certified GPS receiver(TSO C129 or TSO
C145/146a). "ADF Required" is written on chart, so you must have a
means of navigating to the NDB. If you were practicing the procedure
under VFR, then yes you were legal.


http://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/20...ils_rwy_28.pdf

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



No XM on board, so it does serve minimal enroute entertainment value.
Not many NDB's or procedures left where I fly.


Does anyone besides me think the note should read "ADF OR RADAR REQUIRED"?

It appears that would be an appropriate note since there is an approach
control identified on the plate. Presumably they could provide vectors,
but may not have good enough radar coverage in that area, not have the
necessary depictions on the video map, or the minimum vectoring altitude
is too high.

JPH

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.

In answering your second question, no, I don't have an ADF in my aircraft.

-- Dane

In article ,
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?

Rick



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Dane and Brad,

Does the 076 degree radial from AGC not accomplish the same thing? Or, is
this just a feeder route to get one from the VOR to the IAP? Either way, it
marks the position of the station while on the localizer at 3000. By the
way, I do agree that this approach is NA without ADF or a reliable signal
from the station.
"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.

In answering your second question, no, I don't have an ADF in my aircraft.

-- Dane

In article ,
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?

Rick



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Rick McPherson wrote:
Dane and Brad,

Does the 076 degree radial from AGC not accomplish the same thing? Or, is
this just a feeder route to get one from the VOR to the IAP? Either way, it
marks the position of the station while on the localizer at 3000. By the
way, I do agree that this approach is NA without ADF or a reliable signal
from the station.


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.