IFR approaches

[Dugie8]

Wouldn't it be correct to say that if the approach was labeled ILS/DME then DME would be required. However if it said ILS or LOC/DME, DME would only be required for the loc (unless speciffically stated in the notes)?

Wel, short answer yes. Reference AIM 5-4-5 paragraph 3. But here is a little room for debate. The ILS is made up of 3 (or 4 depending how far you wanna take it) components. THE LOC, GS and the OM (compass locator). You can subsititute DME, cross radial, or radar of for the compass locator. If all the approach has is DME to ID the GSIA (glide slope intercept altitude) I would argue you must have DME, or GPS.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Wel, short answer yes. Reference AIM 5-4-5 paragraph 3. But here is a little room for debate. The ILS is made up of 3 (or 4 depending how far you wanna take it) components. THE LOC, GS and the OM (compass locator). You can subsititute DME, cross radial, or radar of for the compass locator. If all the approach has is DME to ID the GSIA (glide slope intercept altitude) I would argue you must have DME, or GPS.

My initial thought also. But as fish pointed out (this is a very shortened version), loss of localizer and loss of glideslope information are the only things that make an ILS unusable. Loss (or absence) of the markers do not. You can even see this in the standard "Inoperative Components Table" - you won't even find the markers mentioned. (See also AIM 1-1-19.j.)

There appears to be nothing precluding the designing of an ILS with no markers or other method of identifying GSIA.

That's probably what we have here.

 

[Dugie8]

My initial thought also. But as fish pointed out (this is a very shortened version), loss of localizer and loss of glideslope information are the only things that make an ILS unusable. Loss (or absence) of the markers do not. You can even see this in the standard "Inoperative Components Table" - you won't even find the markers mentioned. (See also AIM 1-1-19.j.)

There appears to be nothing precluding the designing of an ILS with no markers or other method of identifying GSIA.

That's probably what we have here.

I'm no TERPS expert, but I'm kind of treating the OM like an MEL, if its not listed you must have it. Inop components tend to deal with lighting and such, thus raising the VIS minimums. The only reason I bring this up is because the instrument flying handbook mentions the OM and it's approved subsitutes as part of the ILS system.

I could be wrong though.

 

[Maximilian_Jenius]

Just use your Garmin 430 as your DME!

Yea...I was just about to ask that. Because I believe that I read somewhere that you can use GPS as a susitute for DME since GPS has distance measuring available.

 

[mastermags]

Yea...I was just about to ask that. Because I believe that I read somewhere that you can use GPS as a susitute for DME since GPS has distance measuring available.

Instrument Flying Handbook 7-22

 

[PhotoPilot]

Instrument Flying Handbook 7-22

Take two: AIM, Section 1, Table 1-1-6!!!

 

[sayagain]

Granted this was mostly already said. Title seemed a bit confusing at first, but I'm thinking it's ILS or LOC, whether using either one, DME required. If you can't ident HITOB how do you know your glideslope altitude checks for the ILS (FAF for the LOC is the simpler one to see)? If someone were to fly the ILS without identifying HITOB they'd be hoping or guessing or both.

 

[PanJet]

I'll throw my .02 in on this, not that it matters. I think you have to have DME. Section 5-4-5 paragraph 3 of the AIM spells it out (as posted above). There is a naming standard change for approaches going on now (specifically ILS and LOC approaches on the same plate). I read it as, if DME is in the title of the approach you must have DME to fly the approach (speaking to ILS and LOC approaches). So ILS or LOC/DME 17R, I read as ILS/DME or LOC/DME 17R. I very well could be wrong though. I've looked and looked and can not find an example of a ILS or LOC/DME approach plate that has a note requiring DME for the ILS.

"I take it back" http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0603/00226ILD17R.PDF

DME required but still named ILS or LOC/DME 17R

I don't believe that ILS or LOC/DME means you need DME for the ILS unless, as in the approach you linked, it says DME required. DME is required for the LOC approach in both cases because it is used to identify the FAF and the MAP for the whereas the MAP on the ILS is DA, and the FAF for the ILS is glide slope intercept. The approach you linked that lists DME being required appears to be that way because the IAF's are points on a DME arc no matter if you are on the ILS or LOC.