Instrument approach question

S

Screaming_Emu

Well-Known Member
So i was looking at this approach at KOXB http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0508/05284L14.PDF and saw that it says that ADF is required. So here's my question, if you didn't have an ADF, but had a GPS that had that ADF in the DB, could you use that? I asked ESF and he seemed to think no because you can't shoot a standalone NDB approach with a GPS unless it says NDB/GPS (for example). But by the same token you can substitute a GPS for DME....

things that make you go hmmmm
 
[ QUOTE ]
So i was looking at this approach at KOXB http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0508/05284L14.PDF and saw that it says that ADF is required. So here's my question, if you didn't have an ADF, but had a GPS that had that ADF in the DB, could you use that? I asked ESF and he seemed to think no because you can't shoot a standalone NDB approach with a GPS unless it says NDB/GPS (for example). But by the same token you can substitute a GPS for DME....

things that make you go hmmmm

[/ QUOTE ]

AIM 1-1-19 (f)(a)
 
[ QUOTE ]
as I'm about 1,000 miles from my AIM, can somebody please enlighten me? Thanks for doin the research :-)

[/ QUOTE ]
You're much closer than 1,000 miles. It's as close as your keyboard.
grin.gif


AIM online
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
as I'm about 1,000 miles from my AIM, can somebody please enlighten me? Thanks for doin the research :-)

[/ QUOTE ]
You're much closer than 1,000 miles. It's as close as your keyboard.
grin.gif


AIM online

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the link, Steve. My AIM is actually about two feet away from me but I'm in a comfortable position right now and lack the motivation to pick it up.
smile.gif
 
I've had this same discussion with several FAA employees and D.E's and the consensus with them is that even though you have GPS the approach plate specifically states that you must have ADF so you have to have it and therefore cannot shoot the approach without it....legally.

I can't find any logic behind it and from everything i've seen with approaches like this there is generally no other way to navigate to the hold point or IAF other than GPS/ADF. I believe these will slowly be changed as more and more people get IFR certified GPS's.
 
What you really need is an FAA procedures expert to give you a thorough answer on this one. Someone from a Flight Procedures Office or from Oklahoma City AFS-400.

This has more to do with TERPs guidelines, which the AIM will translate for Pilots. I am no expert on these, but I deal with these on a regular basis in my day job.

The issue with this approach is that the ADF is the only means to identify the FAF on the inbound course. Note the localizer is NOT a localizer DME. Although SBY and ATR VORs provide a feeder its purpose is only to get you to Landy for the outbound course. ADF is required because of (1) the reason that I just stated and (2) because of the 391 foot obstacle immediately beyond Landy. The VORs don't provide accurate position in space to identify Landy.

Now to answer your question if you have LANDY NDB in your GPS database, your equipment is approved for Instrument approaches, and you have an RMI or some means of knowing that you have crossed Landy (eyeing it on a GPS display is not acceptable, remember the 391ft obstacle), then yes you should be able to fly the approach legally.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Now to answer your question if you have LANDY NDB in your GPS database, your equipment is approved for Instrument approaches, and you have an RMI or some means of knowing that you have crossed Landy (eyeing it on a GPS display is not acceptable, remember the 391ft obstacle), then yes you should be able to fly the approach legally.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, "eyeing" LANDY on the GPS is acceptable and legal. Passage over Landy is achieved when the GPS indicates it and sequences you to the next point on the approach. To quote AIM 1-1-19f(b)
[ QUOTE ]
6) Charted requirements for ADF and/or DME can be met using the GPS system, except for use as the principal instrument approach navigation source. (Meaning you cannot shoot an NDB-only approach with the GPS)


[/ QUOTE ]
...and then there was 1-1-19f(c)(4)
[ QUOTE ]
4) To determine the aircraft position over an NDB/compass locator:

(a) Verify aircraft GPS system integrity monitoring is functioning properly and indicates satisfactory integrity.

(b) Select the NDB/compass locator facility from the airborne database as the active WP.

NOTE-
When using an NDB/compass locator, that facility must be charted and be in the airborne database. If this facility is not in your airborne database, you are not authorized to use a facility WP for this operation.

(c) You are over the NDB/compass locator when the GPS system indicates you are at the active WP.



[/ QUOTE ]
 
I know thats what the book says but I was just tellin you guys what the guys in OKC told me. Take it for what its worth. I know our old DE and a few from the city would ask that same question on a checkride and from what I remember more than one person failed because of it.
 
[ QUOTE ]

Yes, "eyeing" LANDY on the GPS is acceptable and legal. Passage over Landy is achieved when the GPS indicates it and sequences you to the next point on the approach. To quote AIM 1-1-19f(b)


[/ QUOTE ]


I think that we are acutally in agreement here, but no sure. If your GPS states that your over Landy by some verifiable means ie you're linked to the RMI needle, or your database has this procedure and will transition you throught the various segments, fine! But by no means looking at the little airplane figure on the display and eyeing that your over Landy, because it looks like you are, is an acceptable means of meeting RNP requirements.
 
[ QUOTE ]

I think that we are acutally in agreement here, but no sure. If your GPS states that your over Landy by some verifiable means ie you're linked to the RMI needle, or your database has this procedure and will transition you throught the various segments, fine! But by no means looking at the little airplane figure on the display and eyeing that your over Landy, because it looks like you are, is an acceptable means of meeting RNP requirements.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some people would have been confused when you wrote "and a RMI or some other way to identify crossing LANDY." I wanted to emphasize the fact that you don't have to have an ADF installed in your aircraft to shoot this approach. Using a GPS unit such as the GNS 430 to identify LANDY is perfectly acceptable.

I think by "eyeing LANDY" you're referring to having the approach loaded but not activated and simply following the lines on the GPS screen. I'm talking about "eyeing LANDY" in the sense that you have activated the approach and are watching the DME reading on the GPS to LANDY count down to zero. Then the GPS sequences you to the next fix and you can start descending down to MDA.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think that we are acutally in agreement here, but no sure. If your GPS states that your over Landy by some verifiable means ie you're linked to the RMI needle, or your database has this procedure and will transition you throught the various segments, fine! But by no means looking at the little airplane figure on the display and eyeing that your over Landy, because it looks like you are, is an acceptable means of meeting RNP requirements.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some people would have been confused when you wrote "and a RMI or some other way to identify crossing LANDY." I wanted to emphasize the fact that you don't have to have an ADF installed in your aircraft to shoot this approach. Using a GPS unit such as the GNS 430 to identify LANDY is perfectly acceptable.

I think by "eyeing LANDY" you're referring to having the approach loaded but not activated and simply following the lines on the GPS screen. I'm talking about "eyeing LANDY" in the sense that you have activated the approach and are watching the DME reading on the GPS to LANDY count down to zero. Then the GPS sequences you to the next fix and you can start descending down to MDA.

[/ QUOTE ]

To expand on that, you don't even have to have the approach loaded. It's perfectly legal to set a Direct To the NDB, and use that as your means of identifying passage. And per discussions I've had with the local FSDO, it's perfectly legal to shoot any approach that states "ADF Required", w/o an ADF in the plane, if you have an approach certified GPS.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I know our old DE and a few from the city would ask that same question on a checkride and from what I remember more than one person failed because of it.

[/ QUOTE ]Goes in the category of "Find out what answer the DPE wants and, whether he's right or wrong, give it to him."
 
[ QUOTE ]
So, does this mean I'm gonna shoot this approach when you're my safety pirate?
grin.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

if that's where we go, maybe ;-).
 
[ QUOTE ]
Goes in the category of "Find out what answer the DPE wants and, whether he's right or wrong, give it to him."

[/ QUOTE ]

We've got a DE that is pretty set in his ways and likes to get people to do something in the Seminole that doesn't make any sense. Some people refuse to do it, and he fails them. I've heard instructors complaining about him failing them for that, but they KNOW he's failed people for it in the past. Personally, I feel it's the instructor's fault for not telling the student "Look, he's gonna tell you to do this. Just do it and move on with the checkride. You'll never do it in a real situation, though." No sense in the student busting b/c neither the DE nor the CFI will budge.
 
[ QUOTE ]


We've got a DE that is pretty set in his ways and likes to get people to do something in the Seminole that doesn't make any sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

That piques my curiousity. Do tell?
smile.gif
 
Cross feed with both engines running. The POH says to do it in single engine ops, but it doesn't say anything about with two engines running. We've racked our brains trying to figure out WHY you would crossfeed with both engines running. About the only thing I can think of is a punctured fuel tank or contaminants in a tank, but both of those are questionable.

We even had one guy tell the DE that "well, it says single engine operations in the POH," and the DE's response was "Yes. The POH is written incorrectly." WTF?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top