Question about ILS approach plate

comstsa

comstsa

Well-Known Member
The TERPs manual says that the Maltese Cross is the symbol for the final approach fix of a non-precision approach. My question is why does the ILS Z RWY 28 at MGM even have the Maltese Cross depicted at TEBOC if there are no LOC minimums even published for this approach? Is it showing where the final approach fix is located for the ILS Y or LOC RWY 28 and if so why does it matter? or is it a mistake?
 

Attachments

comstsa said:
so to officially find out or to report an error in the chart, who should I contact?
Click to expand...

I don't have one in front of me, but there should be a number printed on the cover of the plates that's something like "to report errors contact..." I called them one time, took a few minutes, but they next cycle, the chart was fixed.
 
Did the chart you posted come from a DOD publication? If so, it might be the reason...maybe the LOC approach isn't apporved for all DOD operations. Just guessing here.
 
My guess would be that the LOC hasn't been approved yet but they plan on adding it or what Dugie said.

Is there any other example of just an ILS and no LOC?
 
dustoff17 said:
Did the chart you posted come from a DOD publication? If so, it might be the reason...maybe the LOC approach isn't apporved for all DOD operations. Just guessing here.
Click to expand...

There's no ILS Z 28 in the DOD Flip for this aiport.
 
That's an odd looking approach to begin with. I've never seen the GPS REQUIRED remark for an ILS before. I looks like you'd need to to identify the miss approach hold (HEGAP). Also, I don't fly with DOD charts so I'm not as familiar with the symbol and layout, but is it normal to have minimum sector altitudes broken down by fixes on the ILS like that? It looks much more like a GPS approach with the TAA notations. Does anybody have a copy of the Jepp version of this approach? I'd be interested to see what that looks like.
 
BobDDuck said:
That's an odd looking approach to begin with. I've never seen the GPS REQUIRED remark for an ILS before. I looks like you'd need to to identify the miss approach hold (HEGAP). Also, I don't fly with DOD charts so I'm not as familiar with the symbol and layout, but is it normal to have minimum sector altitudes broken down by fixes on the ILS like that? It looks much more like a GPS approach with the TAA notations. Does anybody have a copy of the Jepp version of this approach? I'd be interested to see what that looks like.
Click to expand...

It's not normal, but it's not THAT abnormal either. Those definitely are TAAs depicted on it. It's essentially a combo of GPS and ILS - GPS to get you to the IAF and the ILS to get you down.
 
Ian J said:
It's not normal, but it's not THAT abnormal either. Those definitely are TAAs depicted on it. It's essentially a combo of GPS and ILS - GPS to get you to the IAF and the ILS to get you down.
Click to expand...

I've never seen a combo approach like that before. But then again, my jepp binder has 6 airports in it now so I'm kind of out of touch.
 
That is interesting. All of the fixes on the approach, including the MAP holding point, are RNAV waypoints. I've never seen GPS required for an ILS. The GSIA coincides with the "FAF" waypoint - wonder if they simply included the maltese so that it's also a cue to verify your position since there's no markers or other info to verify the FAF GS alt.
 
comstsa said:
The TERPs manual says that the Maltese Cross is the symbol for the final approach fix of a non-precision approach. My question is why does the ILS Z RWY 28 at MGM even have the Maltese Cross depicted at TEBOC if there are no LOC minimums even published for this approach? Is it showing where the final approach fix is located for the ILS Y or LOC RWY 28 and if so why does it matter? or is it a mistake?
Click to expand...

Because ICOTE is a GPS waypoint.
 
Might also be there to allow someone to identify the location of the GS intercept point. After all, if it weren't there, you could conceivably fly past point TEBOC without picking up the glideslope (perhaps because you didn't notice the glideslope or perhaps because it was momentarily out of service or something) and then intercept a false glideslope later.
 
fish314 said:
Might also be there to allow someone to identify the location of the GS intercept point. After all, if it weren't there, you could conceivably fly past point TEBOC without picking up the glideslope (perhaps because you didn't notice the glideslope or perhaps because it was momentarily out of service or something) and then intercept a false glideslope later.
Click to expand...


That's what the lightning bolt is for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top