That's interesting, because the one time I recall getting a RAIM warning was on approach to that same runway. (I think it was ten or more years ago.)
Flying an ILS that requires ADF but not ADF (or IFR GPS) equipped
- Thread starter flyzone
- Start date
There's nothing but anecdotal evidence on my part either. I remember being told that the (now former) NDB approach at Oakland was iffy due to scalloping. I flew the former NDB approach at Stockton many times. It was an off-field NDB, and it always seemed like I ended up a quarter- or half-mile off the center line. And correcting for crosswind on an NDB approach was always a challenge if I hadn't practiced it recently.
After an Air Force plane carrying Ron Brown crashed in Croatia, I had to laugh at the conspiracy theorists who thought that assuming someone moved one of the NDBs was necessary in order to explain how someone could screw up an NDB approach!
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
I was wondering what approach you were talking about and saw in your post #37 the airport was KMYR so I assume it was the ILS or LOC RWY 36. That Approach has an Alternate Missed Approach. It goes to CRE, a VOR. Tell Approach you ain't got ADF and will need the Alternate Missed Approach. Have your pencil handy. It doesn't look like it will be to complicated.
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
You survived it, but the prudent thing to do was abandon the approach as soon as you found out, asking for vectors to the VOR. Continuing is really only the best option in a lost comms scenario, and even then only with ceilings well above minimums. It's not a comfortable situation to be on final when you HAVE to land.
You don't always get vectors on the missed, particularly if there is some weather and Approach is getting really busy with diversions and deviations.
flyzone
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2014
- Messages
- 111
- Display Name
Display name:
Flyzone
Wow, now that is an unforgivable oversight on my part. However, the plate still says "ADF required" however. Then that's not absolute? Anyway, you've given me a new way of "approaching" this kind of thing and I'm glad I brought it up. Yes, it wouldn't be complicated. Thanks.
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
If the plate says "ADF required," it's required.
flyzone
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2014
- Messages
- 111
- Display Name
Display name:
Flyzone
I'm not so sure. Along the way I've had several instances where a controller has "modified" approach altitudes (sometimes even lower than published) and other aspects of a published approach differing from the plate, for me to follow. So, unchangeable gospel it may not be.
My understanding is that since that restriction appears in the notes box instead of on the plan view, it only applies to the published missed approach procedure. So if you get the alternate missed approach instructions from ATC, the restriction no longer applies.
I posted a similar question about DME. In other words, if it says DME required notes box, can you ask for alternate missed instructions that doesn't require that equipment and legally fly the approach? One poster suggested it was ok, and another said it was not.
My understanding is yes, but only if there is an alternate missed approach fix that doesn't require DME depicted on the chart.
My recollection is that the information was posted by someone who is knowledgeable in such matters, but I don't remember specifically whom. If I find my source, I'll post it.
Last edited:
ZeroPapaGolf
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2011
- Messages
- 647
- Display Name
Display name:
ZeroPapaGolf
Thanks. Also, from AIM 5-4-5a3(b):
In some cases, other types of navigation
systems including radar may be required to execute
other portions of the approach or to navigate to the
IAF (e.g., an NDB procedure turn to an ILS, an NDB
in the missed approach, or radar required to join the
procedure or identify a fix). When radar or other
equipment is required for procedure entry from the
en route environment, a note will be charted in the
planview of the approach procedure chart
(e.g., RADAR REQUIRED or ADF REQUIRED).
When radar or other equipment is required on
portions of the procedure outside the final approach
segment, including the missed approach, a note will
be charted in the notes box of the pilot briefing
portion of the approach chart (e.g., RADAR
REQUIRED or DME REQUIRED). Notes are not
charted when VOR is required outside the final
approach segment. Pilots should ensure that the
aircraft is equipped with the required NAVAID(s) in
order to execute the approach, including the missed
approach.
NOTE−
Some military (i.e., U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy)
IAPs have these “additional equipment required”
notes charted only in the planview of the approach
procedure and do not conform to the same application
standards used by the FAA.
systems including radar may be required to execute
other portions of the approach or to navigate to the
IAF (e.g., an NDB procedure turn to an ILS, an NDB
in the missed approach, or radar required to join the
procedure or identify a fix). When radar or other
equipment is required for procedure entry from the
en route environment, a note will be charted in the
planview of the approach procedure chart
(e.g., RADAR REQUIRED or ADF REQUIRED).
When radar or other equipment is required on
portions of the procedure outside the final approach
segment, including the missed approach, a note will
be charted in the notes box of the pilot briefing
portion of the approach chart (e.g., RADAR
REQUIRED or DME REQUIRED). Notes are not
charted when VOR is required outside the final
approach segment. Pilots should ensure that the
aircraft is equipped with the required NAVAID(s) in
order to execute the approach, including the missed
approach.
NOTE−
Some military (i.e., U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy)
IAPs have these “additional equipment required”
notes charted only in the planview of the approach
procedure and do not conform to the same application
standards used by the FAA.
For AOPA members, this thread discusses the subject of alternate missed approach instructions:
http://forums.aopa.org/showthread.php?p=1576702#post1576702
http://forums.aopa.org/showthread.php?p=1576702#post1576702
I'm hardly one of the religious about much of anything. And I have very little doubt a 10 year old obsolete handheld GPS will get you to that NDB waypoint more accurately than an ADF receiver. I'll even go as far as to say, if I had both and the two tracks disagreed, I'd follow the GPS unless they were so different as to indicate something was very wrong.
But I see what you are describing as being willing to forego following an official procedure as designed (which includes a requirement for certain equipment) in exchange for some minor convenience and guessing it will probably be ok. And yes, it's a matter of degree rather than kind, but to continue the driving analogy, I see this more as deciding it will be ok to go the wrong way down a one way street than 7 mph over the speed limit.
flyzone
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2014
- Messages
- 111
- Display Name
Display name:
Flyzone
OK, I can live (or not) with your characterization of what I'm doing and understand its seriousness. Perhaps I will rethink this. However "luvflyin" has given me a way to do nearly the same thing using an alternate miss that I believe turns that one way sign around.
On a minor technical point my Garmin 250XL VFR GPS is an in-panel unit with visual display and an external antenna, a current Jepp database and a unit I never had any signaling problems (or any other problem) with in 20 years of use. I guess it is why all the rest of my panel is now Garmin saving one lonely very obsolete but usable Narco VOR. But I know that's not the point.
Thanks.
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
It's "Cimb to 500 then climbing right turn to 3000 direct CRE VORTAC and hold". That's the Alternate Missed Approach published on the Approach Data Worksheet. Ya never know for sure if the controller is going to get creative and make something up even though their not supposed to, but that's what you can expect to get.
Basically in VMC, no harm done. If you have a chart and an iPad, just do it. Real IMC? 'Fess up so the controller doesn't have to watch you wander about while you get organized - tell 'em you need help or vectors, or lie, and tell 'em your ADF just died while doing the missed.
It's along shot, but it can happen - protect yourself, do the right thing. . .
It's along shot, but it can happen - protect yourself, do the right thing. . .
There is a theory floating around that certain "required" notations are waivable, especiallybwhere radar coverage is widespread. And the alternative missed kind of fits into it.
There are indications that the charting workgroup is at least considering a change to the way requirements are noted. In addition to making the reason for "required" cleared, perhaps it will also lead to a change to the current position that "required" means "required" regardless of the reason for it.
denverpilot
Tied Down
There was a discussion about the accident here long ago that included the interesting info that the Russians built a lot of dual-ADF approaches that required two ADFs to line up two beacons that were off of the approach and departure ends of the runway.
Seemed like a smart solution to not have to install much more expensive to maintain ILS gear at both ends. Simple transmitters, simple vertical antennas, provided exact runway orientation by overlaying two lines of navigation simultaneously, and on an HSI or similar, it could be on the same instrument with two ADFs feeding the needles.
I don't recall if that sort of approach was actually in the Brown accident, but I recall it being discussed as at least a side thread in that one.
You really would have to move one of the transmitters to sabotage that sort of ADF approach.
Or approved substitute.
e.g., IFR certified GPS.
flyzone
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2014
- Messages
- 111
- Display Name
Display name:
Flyzone
My plate that I access via Airnav doesn't show that alternate missed approach procedure, just the missed approach point. Where are the approach worksheets you mention? It the logical procedure but I just see the standard miss procedure.
azure
Final Approach
To my knowledge, whether you get asked that question has nothing to do with "trust" (unless the controller knows you personally and your qualifications). They're not acting out of suspicion that someone is breaking the law when they ask it; they want to know if they need to be handling the situation as an emergency. Unless the controller knows you, from what controllers have told me s/he is supposed to ask the question any time a pilot finds themselves in deteriorating conditions while operating VFR and the controller suspects the pilot may be a VFR-only getting in over their head and trying to bluff their way out of declaring. Again, not to bust them, but to give them priority handling if it's appropriate.
That said, generally I agree with you. I don't have a lot of sympathy for pilots that bust regs and get into trouble because of it. That does give GA a bad name and is one reason I would never advise someone to break a law. The fact is, though, that people do, and usually get away with it, and as long as they don't endanger anyone in the process (themselves included), I tend to look the other way.
azure
Final Approach
RAIM is not an issue as long as WAAS is available. If integrity limits for WAAS are exceeded, or is not available because of gov't testing or something, you have to revert to relying on RAIM even if your unit is WAAS-capable. So you should definitely know how to do a RAIM check.
I just read in IFR magazine that an additional line was going to be added just below the current header that includes what equipment is required. I think this is a good idea rather than scattering the info around on the plate. Based on what I have read here and elsewhere, scattering the information around is confusing to a lot of pilots.
RotorDude
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2014
- Messages
- 2,321
- Display Name
Display name:
GliderDude
Azure, your experience (or information) is different from mine regarding being asked about qualifications. Normally when I ask for popup IFR it has nothing to do with "deteriorating conditions", or being in a bind. What normally happens is that I try to get from A to B in the most efficient (and safe) manner, so when IFR routing is circuitous, I go VFR direct wherever possible, and switch to IFR (and back to VFR) when conditions dictate. In general, when asking for IFR I can continue VFR indefinitely, though perhaps not to my original destination.
So when asking for the popup I am not stressed, just eager to fly straight and not start circling or weaving around clouds, change altitude, or turn back. I am generally already on Flight Following, so switching to IFR is not much more than a formality. ATC in that situation sometimes comes back with the "are you qualified" question, though quite rarely. I have noticed that in Canada they do that much more than here, perhaps because I am a "foreigner" with that N number (and no "Eh?"
). So I don't see it as an issue of being under duress, it seems to depend on the specific controller.Regarding busting regs, I would say it depends. If you drive a bit faster than the speed limit under good road and visibility conditions, I'd consider that "normal". If you go, as Mark said above, wrong way down a one way street because it's more convenient, I'd consider that bad form. In general, if you lie or cheat authorities regarding safety, or otherwise circumvent safety related laws or regs for convenience, I'd consider that anti-social behavior. Flying IFR without the proper qualifications or equipment would be in the latter category IMO.
I know. I was just expanding a little on Mark's statement. Sorry for sort of hijacking the thread.
azure
Final Approach
Yeah, I don't know what the SOP for asking the question is for Canadian controllers. For all I know, Canadian controllers are always supposed to ask the question when a pilot asks for a pop-up. But it isn't a matter of my experience, at least not so much. My information comes from controllers working in the US. (I could be misremembering, but I think Steven was one. It was a couple years ago at least.) My only point is that you haven't really given any evidence that it's a matter of "trust" that would be intact if so many pilots didn't break the rules.Azure, your experience (or information) is different from mine regarding being asked about qualifications. Normally when I ask for popup IFR it has nothing to do with "deteriorating conditions", or being in a bind. What normally happens is that I try to get from A to B in the most efficient (and safe) manner, so when IFR routing is circuitous, I go VFR direct wherever possible, and switch to IFR (and back to VFR) when conditions dictate. In general, when asking for IFR I can continue VFR indefinitely, though perhaps not to my original destination.
So when asking for the popup I am not stressed, just eager to fly straight and not start circling or weaving around clouds, change altitude, or turn back. I am generally already on Flight Following, so switching to IFR is not much more than a formality. ATC in that situation sometimes comes back with the "are you qualified" question, though quite rarely. I have noticed that in Canada they do that much more than here, perhaps because I am a "foreigner" with that N number (and no "Eh?"
I think we agree for the most part. I'd only add filing IFR without the necessary paper qualifications in CAVU weather to the list of activities I wouldn't get too upset about, as long as someone has had the training and is close to their checkride. (Which is not to say that *I* would do it, as I wouldn't. Just that I'd look the other way if someone 'fessed to having done that, under those circumstances.) I'd be a lot more upset if it was someone with no instrument training to speak of, and would, if I thought it could make any difference, try to have a Come To Jesus talk with them.
If you object to that, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
RotorDude
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2014
- Messages
- 2,321
- Display Name
Display name:
GliderDude
denverpilot
Tied Down
Very astute. Most people don't realize there's a difference, but part of that is that the GPS manufacturer may still call the annunciation that somehing is wrong, a "RAIM" indication on the screen, even if it's the WAAS data that the receiver used to determine something was amiss in the time signals being received. And the nomenclature in some of the manuals is even worse, or more mixed.
There's a pretty big hole in Non-Precision Approach airspace without barometric aiding in the SE US right now.
Radar Contact
Pattern Altitude
In a radar environment ATC can, and routinely will, give you lower (down to the MVA in the area) than is published in the plate given that you maintain that altitude until you are established on segment of the approach.
What you said here is correct. While the controller is usually generally aware of the wx in their area of control, they are stuck in a dark room many miles away. If a VFR pilot on FF or not asks for a pop-up many controllers think its for deteriorating wx (and usually is). Below is from the .65
10−2−8. RADAR ASSISTANCE TO VFR
AIRCRAFT IN WEATHER DIFFICULTY
a. If a VFR aircraft requests radar assistance when
it encounters or is about to encounter IFR weather
conditions, ask the pilot if he/she is qualified for and
capable of conducting IFR flight.
b. If the pilot states he/she is qualified for and
capable of IFR flight, request him/her to file an IFR
flight plan and then issue clearance to destination
airport, as appropriate.
c. If the pilot states he/she is not qualified for or not
capable of conducting IFR flight, or if he/she refuses
to file an IFR flight plan, take whichever of the
following actions is appropriate......
Radar Contact
Pattern Altitude
It may be because of the way you ask, (i.e. like to pick back up my IFR, etc) or it may be the area of the country you are in (rare IMC). If a controller does ask you the capable/qualified question it isn't a lack of trust. Unfortunately we live in a CYA world where if anything happens we are under a microscope.
RotorDude
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2014
- Messages
- 2,321
- Display Name
Display name:
GliderDude
I've never had that question (that I recall) when trying to pick up an IFR flight plan already in the system, which I would not call "popup" anyway. For me popup IFR is when there is no filed IFR flight plan at all, just you asking for a clearance out of the blue (or gray
). Of course, in many cases, since I am normally on FF, there might already be a computer record for the FF, but that's VFR only.And when they do (very rarely) ask that question, I think it's because they want to be sure you are qualified and equipped. If there are incidents of unqualified pilots (or improperly equipped aircraft) flying the system, it affects their mindset, as does unprofessional sounding communication.
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
In the world of the FAA's avionics experts who hold the certification of IFR avionics, the issue is integrity. The ADF has an identifier. That provides the required integrity. A VFR GPS has accuracy, but lacks integrity and has unknown continuity.
roncachamp
Final Approach
When an alternate missed approach procedure is created the missed approach holding pattern is depicted on the plate but the procedure is not published to avoid confusion. When the alternate procedure is to be used it will appear in a NOTAM or be issued by ATC.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Small nitpick. IDs are removed by automated monitors like VSWR monitors at the transmitter. It's transmitter integrity.
In the NDB / ADF integrity relationship ONLY the transmitter has "integrity". The integrity check on the receiver working properly is the pilot in the cockpit noticing if the needle is pointing the right way.
Only GPS has receiver integrity. NDB/ADF and VOR/ILS have none. They have transmitter integrity only -- provided by monitoring devices.
The ID itself doesn't technically provide any integrity. It provides an indication to the pilot that the ground based monitors aren't in alarm, as long as it is present. Even then, not always guaranteed.
"Not monitored" is a common FDC NOTAM issued on ground based gear, especially rural in mountainous terrain when the telecom circuit to the site fails in the dead of winter, but that is usually on enroute gear and not allowed on all pieces of an ILS approach. (The LOM being unmonitored I've seen quite a bit, I think.) And those transmitters have their IDs unless the local monitoring on site fails.
I'd have to look and see if there's any unmonitored NDBs in use for ADF approaches anywhere. I suspect not, but it wouldn't surprise me as NDBs die. Bunches of VORs that have that NOTAM issued against them.
Noticing an "unmonitored" NOTAM in the spew of FDC NOTAMs for nearly any XC these days, is a serious eyeball test unless you used software to help categorize the hundred or so that'll spit out for any particular flight plan.
labbadabba
Pattern Altitude
Okay, so what about this. ILS 19 KMKC, ADF or DME required. No ADF and my G430 has an exp DB. The ADF is used as the FAF at KENZY which also has a LOM. I don't have an ADF, nor do I have a updated G430, but I do have a beacon. Since I can identify the FAF using the beacon, am I legal?
flyzone
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2014
- Messages
- 111
- Display Name
Display name:
Flyzone
I doubt it with an expired database.
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
IF you verify the lat/lon for the NDB (as well as all the other points on the approach) are correct, yes, that's legal. Rather labor intensive and not worth it IMO, but legal. Much easier to update the database....
If that airplane is a rental, squawk the expired database with a note "IFR not recommended" and that will get their attention. If it's not a rental, that's why you get DB subscriptions.
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
All well and good. To keep it in pilot-speak "ADF Required" is FAR Part 97. The protected airspace for a conventional missed approach is quite large. ADF is lousy; it has no science behind it whatsoever. Nonetheless, hearing the identifier satisfies the FAA. Making sure the needle is pointed generally where it should is the pilot's responsibility, as you stated.Small nitpick. IDs are removed by automated monitors like VSWR monitors at the transmitter. It's transmitter integrity.
In the NDB / ADF integrity relationship ONLY the transmitter has "integrity". The integrity check on the receiver working properly is the pilot in the cockpit noticing if the needle is pointing the right way.
Only GPS has receiver integrity. NDB/ADF and VOR/ILS have none. They have transmitter integrity only -- provided by monitoring devices.
The ID itself doesn't technically provide any integrity. It provides an indication to the pilot that the ground based monitors aren't in alarm, as long as it is present. Even then, not always guaranteed.
"Not monitored" is a common FDC NOTAM issued on ground based gear, especially rural in mountainous terrain when the telecom circuit to the site fails in the dead of winter, but that is usually on enroute gear and not allowed on all pieces of an ILS approach. (The LOM being unmonitored I've seen quite a bit, I think.) And those transmitters have their IDs unless the local monitoring on site fails.
I'd have to look and see if there's any unmonitored NDBs in use for ADF approaches anywhere. I suspect not, but it wouldn't surprise me as NDBs die. Bunches of VORs that have that NOTAM issued against them.
Noticing an "unmonitored" NOTAM in the spew of FDC NOTAMs for nearly any XC these days, is a serious eyeball test unless you used software to help categorize the hundred or so that'll spit out for any particular flight plan.