durind
Well-Known Member
Wow thanks for that answer. That sounds pretty definitive to me. I might send AOPA an email about their chart quiz
IFR chart question
- Thread starter durind
- Start date
Wow thanks for that answer. That sounds pretty definitive to me. I might send AOPA an email about their chart quiz
Chief Captain
Well-Known Member
I disagree with AOPA. The ILS has 3 components. Guidance, visual and range. Without DME, you have no range information. Yes, you can identify the FAF and MAP without DME, but there is no way to cross check. Now if jugba had RADAR written underneath it, you'd be fine.
This is sort of like the stupid way FAA controllers say "cleared ILS approach, glide slope out of service". By definition, that is not an ILS approach, regardless of what the chart title says.
This is sort of like the stupid way FAA controllers say "cleared ILS approach, glide slope out of service". By definition, that is not an ILS approach, regardless of what the chart title says.
Chief Captain
Well-Known Member
Do you have a reference for that? I tend to agree, but it would be handy to have it in writing.
auw2fly
Goldmember
gotWXdagain
Polished Member
The final approach fix on a precision approach is identified by GS intercept.
Douglas
Old School KSUX
and?
gotWXdagain
Polished Member
gotWXdagain
Polished Member
You don't need a marker beacon to identify final approach fix. in fact, take a look at the IAP I posted above.
gotWXdagain
Polished Member
Which is nowhere near charted glideslope intercept. Has no MM. There are procedures that have neither, with no DME. Notice the lack of "or LOC" in the chart title. Problem is, everyone wants to see a comma, when actually there's a dash. Big difference between "ILS or LOC, DME" and "ILS or LOC/DME" to put it more simply, the approach in question is "[ILS] or [LOC/DME]" if DME was intended to be used even by aircraft flying the ILS, it wouldn't be called a LOC/DME approach, it would just say ILS or LOC, with a DME Required note on the planview.
CoffeeIcePapers
Well-Hung Member
So let's say you are doing the ILS with no DME/GPS, no operative marker beacon. What if the glideslope fails? How do you continue? How would you know when to go missed? Notice they didn't publish a FAF to MAP, but even if they did, you can't identify the FAF, so where would you even start your timing?
Chief Captain
Well-Known Member
Very interesting. Thank you for that. I will certainly look into how that approach fits into the general model. The only times I've seen approaches without LOC mins published are PRM and CAT2/3.
Off the top of my head, this approach doesn't add up. I'm betting this gets away because of 2 things I notice though:
1.The FAF @ CFLSK is actually a CNF. If I'm not mistaken, these can only be retrieved from a database as part of an airway/procedure. I'm guessing you would only see this waypoint if you selected the CUPEV transition.
2. You would still be able to get range information as you pass CUPEV, but it is inside the FAF, which is unusual.
Chief Captain
Well-Known Member
I just looked at the Jepp plate for this approach. The plan view shows a marker beacon at CUPEV only, and the profile view shows a beacon at CFLSK only.
gotWXdagain
Polished Member
I just looked at the Jepp plate for this approach. The plan view shows a marker beacon at CUPEV only, and the profile view shows a beacon at CFLSK only.
It's at CUPEV, at least according to our FTD database. On a possibly related note, the reason it is charted as faded grey instead of black, is because it isn't technically part of the procedure, at least according to the FAA legend.
z987k
Well-Known Member
Ya, it's actually at CUPEV. It's funny you should post this approach, as this is the first one that came to mind and me questioning all this in my post above. I've flown it so many times I can keep the jepps in the car and do it from memory, usually via whele coming from spokane.
Remember the FAF for an ILS is glideslope intercept, it isn't necessarily CFLSK, the OM is mearly a situational awareness/glideslope-altitude check. Aside from that you don't need it at all.
Also here's another example of an ILS with no LOC mins, although there is an entirely separate LOC procedure. - http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1301/00384I13R.PDF
Here's another example of an ILS only with the OM inside the normal glideslope intercept - http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1301/00465IZ27.PDF
Those are 3 in my neck of the woods that we go to a lot, so I'm sure there's lots more out there.
flyingbum
Needz Re-Edjamacayshun
I could be wrong but....
It looks to me like simultaneous reception of I-PAE and PAE/DME means:
Receive the LOC on I-PAE and you would need the DME from the PAE VOR/DME to Identify your FAF and MAP on the LOC/DME. I don't really see much complications in that.
Looking at that Jepp chart, I don't see anywhere where DME would be used on the ILS. It can't be used to identify your FAF and it can't be used to Identify your MAP which is really DA. I don't really see an issue with the approach missing markers either, a lot of approaches don't have them. That ILS looks /U to me
I'd like to see something in writing from the FAA saying DME required on an ILS with the "or" language.
It looks to me like simultaneous reception of I-PAE and PAE/DME means:
Receive the LOC on I-PAE and you would need the DME from the PAE VOR/DME to Identify your FAF and MAP on the LOC/DME. I don't really see much complications in that.
Looking at that Jepp chart, I don't see anywhere where DME would be used on the ILS. It can't be used to identify your FAF and it can't be used to Identify your MAP which is really DA. I don't really see an issue with the approach missing markers either, a lot of approaches don't have them. That ILS looks /U to me
I'd like to see something in writing from the FAA saying DME required on an ILS with the "or" language.
z987k
Well-Known Member
It's not. We know that. What is being debated is all the items an ILS consists of and what can be used in lieu of. Of note, it also says that a middle marker is part of the components, but there are very few ILS with middle markers anymore or any way to identify where they used/could have been. In the PAE case, in order to comply with 91.175k definition, I would think it would at least say radar required given the lack of a OM. DME required cannot be implied by the need of local knowledge.
Although, just thinking of this, there are the "published" NOTAMS... the ones that are in a book somewhere that no one actually has. They tend to have been out FOREVER, but the chart changes still don't get made. Anyone know what I'm talking about, or am I mixing two things up here?
Granted, I'm a young PPL guy... But as an FE in a heavy, I've never heard of markers or DME being utilized during an ILS approach. With an aircraft having marker beacon receiver troubles, we still shoot ILS's.
I get that everyone is discussing the FAA's definition of ILS components... However, it says "the basic ground components of an ILS are..." No where in any of the reading I've done have I ever seen that any of these basic components are REQUIRED. Guess this is what I'm stuck on.
Just trying to learn from everyone's posts... Thanks for the discussion.
I get that everyone is discussing the FAA's definition of ILS components... However, it says "the basic ground components of an ILS are..." No where in any of the reading I've done have I ever seen that any of these basic components are REQUIRED. Guess this is what I'm stuck on.
Just trying to learn from everyone's posts... Thanks for the discussion.
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
I like the wink. "Definitive from SOGTI"Wow thanks for that answer. That sounds pretty definitive to me. I might send AOPA an email about their chart quiz
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
From the TERPS manual:
==============================
ILS procedures do not require DME to fly the final approach, even if a DME fix has been substituted for one of the marker beacons, therefore, ILS procedures shall not be named ILS/DME. If a procedure requires DME to fly the final approach, the suffix “DME” shall be added; e.g., LOC/DME RWY (number). A chart shall be noted to indicate RADAR is required for approach minima. When a LOC procedure is published on an ILS chart, it is a combined procedure. When procedures are combined, the word “or” shall indicate either type of equipment may be be used to execute the final approach; e.g., ILS or LOC/DME, ILS or TACAN, VOR/DME or TACAN,
==============================
That does not mean there will never be an ILS approach that requires DME. There could always be something special that needs to be done to tweak a particular approach. Just that the typical ILS does not and the "DME" in an "ILS or LOC/DME" approach refers only to the LOC-only approach, not the ILS.
==============================
ILS procedures do not require DME to fly the final approach, even if a DME fix has been substituted for one of the marker beacons, therefore, ILS procedures shall not be named ILS/DME. If a procedure requires DME to fly the final approach, the suffix “DME” shall be added; e.g., LOC/DME RWY (number). A chart shall be noted to indicate RADAR is required for approach minima. When a LOC procedure is published on an ILS chart, it is a combined procedure. When procedures are combined, the word “or” shall indicate either type of equipment may be be used to execute the final approach; e.g., ILS or LOC/DME, ILS or TACAN, VOR/DME or TACAN,
==============================
That does not mean there will never be an ILS approach that requires DME. There could always be something special that needs to be done to tweak a particular approach. Just that the typical ILS does not and the "DME" in an "ILS or LOC/DME" approach refers only to the LOC-only approach, not the ILS.
