A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Why is ADF or Radar Required on MFD ILS RWY 32 Approach Plate?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 29th 04, 02:57 PM
S. Ramirez
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why is ADF or Radar Required on MFD ILS RWY 32 Approach Plate?

Does anyone know why the Mansfield OH MFD ILS RWY 32 approach plate has ADF
or Radar Required written on it?

There is speculation on another forum that ADF is required to establish the
FAF for the localizer approach, but I argued that it is not required for the
ILS approach, since intercept of the glideslope is the "FAF" for the ILS
approach. The approaches we have in FL are similar but do not have ADF or
Radar Required written on them.

I can understand that without radar vectors, setting up for the ILS approach
would require ADF so that one overflies the NDB outbound, stays within ten
miles, and then comes back to intercept the glideslope; therefore, radar
vectors or ADF would be required for this approach. But this is obvious on
other approach plates without spelling it out. Why is this verbiage written
on this approach plate?

Thanks.

Simon Ramirez


  #2  
Old March 29th 04, 06:25 PM
Ray Andraka
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Simon,

It may be for the missed, or it may be required to provide a fix where the
altimeter can be checked. In the case of my home 'drome, DME is required
because there are no VORs positioned sufficiently to provide a crossing radial
for that identification. You need that ID to fly the localizer only, as well as
to cross check the altimeter and glideslope when on the ILS. A marker beacon
will also suffice, but recently the FAA has been changing the ILS approaches so
that the intercepts are at even thousands of feet, and so the marker beacons are
no longer in the right place.

"S. Ramirez" wrote:

Does anyone know why the Mansfield OH MFD ILS RWY 32 approach plate has ADF
or Radar Required written on it?

There is speculation on another forum that ADF is required to establish the
FAF for the localizer approach, but I argued that it is not required for the
ILS approach, since intercept of the glideslope is the "FAF" for the ILS
approach. The approaches we have in FL are similar but do not have ADF or
Radar Required written on them.

I can understand that without radar vectors, setting up for the ILS approach
would require ADF so that one overflies the NDB outbound, stays within ten
miles, and then comes back to intercept the glideslope; therefore, radar
vectors or ADF would be required for this approach. But this is obvious on
other approach plates without spelling it out. Why is this verbiage written
on this approach plate?

Thanks.

Simon Ramirez


--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759


  #3  
Old March 29th 04, 06:38 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"S. Ramirez" wrote in message
m...

Does anyone know why the Mansfield OH MFD ILS RWY 32
approach plate has ADF or Radar Required written on it?


Sure. It's because the person procedure that developed or reviewed the
procedure believed ADF or approach radar was required to fly the approach.



I can understand that without radar vectors, setting up for the ILS
approach would require ADF so that one overflies the NDB outbound, stays

within ten miles, and then comes back to intercept the glideslope;
therefore, radar vectors or ADF would be required for this approach.


You don't need ADF or radar to fly this approach. There's a feeder route
from MFD and the marker beacon works just as well as the NDB to identify
MANNS.



But this is obvious on other approach plates without spelling it
out. Why is this verbiage written
on this approach plate?


It's an error.


  #4  
Old March 29th 04, 06:41 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

Sure. It's because the person procedure that developed or reviewed
the procedure believed ADF or approach radar was required to fly the
approach.


Oops. That should have been, "It's because the person that developed or
reviewed the procedure believed ADF or approach radar was required to fly
the approach."


  #5  
Old March 29th 04, 07:38 PM
Greg Esres
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

There's a feeder route from MFD and the marker beacon works just as
well

There are some vague suggestions in FAA literature that marker beacons
should only be used to determine a fix when flying the course they're
associated with, such as the localizer.


  #6  
Old March 29th 04, 10:39 PM
Andrew Sarangan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In a nonradar environment you will need to start the approach at the
IAF, which in this case is the NDB station. I suspect that in your
other examples you may have multiple IAF's. If one of the IAF's is not
an NDB, then you would not need an ADF.





"S. Ramirez" wrote in message om...
Does anyone know why the Mansfield OH MFD ILS RWY 32 approach plate has ADF
or Radar Required written on it?

There is speculation on another forum that ADF is required to establish the
FAF for the localizer approach, but I argued that it is not required for the
ILS approach, since intercept of the glideslope is the "FAF" for the ILS
approach. The approaches we have in FL are similar but do not have ADF or
Radar Required written on them.

I can understand that without radar vectors, setting up for the ILS approach
would require ADF so that one overflies the NDB outbound, stays within ten
miles, and then comes back to intercept the glideslope; therefore, radar
vectors or ADF would be required for this approach. But this is obvious on
other approach plates without spelling it out. Why is this verbiage written
on this approach plate?

Thanks.

Simon Ramirez

  #7  
Old March 29th 04, 11:08 PM
Ross Richardson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I went through the same thing when my local airport had a brand new ILS
commissioned. It came out with ADF required and other airports in the
area with ILSs didn't. I wrote to the FAA and explained that the FAF
could be defined by the combination of any two, localizer, cross radial,
and marker beacon. The marker beacon is colocated with the NDB. At first
the FAA thought they didn't optimize the approach correctly and
submitted a change. They had you go missed approach to a VOR 20+ miles
away and hold. It required almost 60 miles of flying. I said disregard
my message. The current ILS has a ADF required. I cannot remember the
exact answer from the FAA, but the ADF was simpler than using the
localizer and the VOR cross radial. Go figure. I have a IFR approved
GPS, so I quit complaining. And I apologized to the airport manager for
almost screwing up his new approach.

Ross

"S. Ramirez" wrote:

Does anyone know why the Mansfield OH MFD ILS RWY 32 approach plate has ADF
or Radar Required written on it?

There is speculation on another forum that ADF is required to establish the
FAF for the localizer approach, but I argued that it is not required for the
ILS approach, since intercept of the glideslope is the "FAF" for the ILS
approach. The approaches we have in FL are similar but do not have ADF or
Radar Required written on them.

I can understand that without radar vectors, setting up for the ILS approach
would require ADF so that one overflies the NDB outbound, stays within ten
miles, and then comes back to intercept the glideslope; therefore, radar
vectors or ADF would be required for this approach. But this is obvious on
other approach plates without spelling it out. Why is this verbiage written
on this approach plate?

Thanks.

Simon Ramirez



"S. Ramirez" wrote:

Does anyone know why the Mansfield OH MFD ILS RWY 32 approach plate has ADF
or Radar Required written on it?

There is speculation on another forum that ADF is required to establish the
FAF for the localizer approach, but I argued that it is not required for the
ILS approach, since intercept of the glideslope is the "FAF" for the ILS
approach. The approaches we have in FL are similar but do not have ADF or
Radar Required written on them.

I can understand that without radar vectors, setting up for the ILS approach
would require ADF so that one overflies the NDB outbound, stays within ten
miles, and then comes back to intercept the glideslope; therefore, radar
vectors or ADF would be required for this approach. But this is obvious on
other approach plates without spelling it out. Why is this verbiage written
on this approach plate?

Thanks.

Simon Ramirez

  #8  
Old March 29th 04, 11:09 PM
Ross Richardson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

See my previous message, it is not necessarily an error. It is part of
the developed procedure. It was in my case.

Ross

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:



But this is obvious on other approach plates without spelling it
out. Why is this verbiage written
on this approach plate?


It's an error.

  #9  
Old March 29th 04, 11:36 PM
Greg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

My guess would be because the only IAF is the NDB.

"S. Ramirez" wrote in message om...
Does anyone know why the Mansfield OH MFD ILS RWY 32 approach plate has ADF
or Radar Required written on it?

Thanks.

Simon Ramirez

  #10  
Old March 29th 04, 11:38 PM
Greg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I'd guess because the only IAF is the NDB.

-greg

"S. Ramirez" wrote in message om...
Does anyone know why the Mansfield OH MFD ILS RWY 32 approach plate has ADF
or Radar Required written on it?

Thanks.

Simon Ramirez

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Victor Airways on Approach Control Radar? Andrew Sarangan Instrument Flight Rules 2 February 26th 04 03:23 PM
Lost comms after radar vector Mike Ciholas Instrument Flight Rules 119 February 1st 04 12:39 AM
Ham sandwich navigation and radar failure David Brooks Instrument Flight Rules 47 December 31st 03 01:15 AM
Marine Radar in a plane? Jay Honeck Home Built 31 August 13th 03 06:56 PM
Why is ADF required on ILS approach? Rich Raine Instrument Flight Rules 27 August 1st 03 05:14 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2023 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.