Flying an ILS that requires ADF but not ADF (or IFR GPS) equipped

MAKG1 said:
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....
Click to expand...
I think that whether that's legal depends on the wording of the flight manual supplement for the specific GPS receiver.
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

But if the purpose for the ADF is to identify the FAF and you can still identify the FAF at the LOM due to the blinking blue light and the steady beeping tones would that approach still be legal?
 
labbadabba said:
But if the purpose for the ADF is to identify the FAF and you can still identify the FAF at the LOM due to the blinking blue light and the steady beeping tones would that approach still be legal?
Click to expand...

No, the purpose of the ADF on that approach is to find the IAF. That it happens to be coincident with the FAF (for the LOC) is fairly common coincidence.

Note that ILS (or LPV) approaches don't even have labelled FAFs. They have glideslope/glidepath interception points. Usually, they are coincident with LOC or LNAV approaches, and those have the FAF (maltese cross). Sometimes, they are separate. Like KSNS ILS 31 or KRHV RNAV Z 31R.
 
flyzone said:
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.
Click to expand...

They started putting the fix on charts a number of years ago which shortened the spiel the controller had to say and you had to copy. The whole procedure is on an FAA Form 8260 which has the entire details of the approach. You can find them at faa.gov, follow the links to aeronav and a thing called Approach information gateway or something like that. Or just try googling myr ils or loc rwy36 and it may get you right there. I'll get the direct link when I can
 
labbadabba said:
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?
Click to expand...

I think you can use an expired database provide you verify that the data for the fix you are using hasn't changed
 
labbadabba said:
But if the purpose for the ADF is to identify the FAF and you can still identify the FAF at the LOM due to the blinking blue light and the steady beeping tones would that approach still be legal?
Click to expand...

I dunno. But I have seen approachs where ADF was required even though there was also a marker beacon there. I think the point is that "needle reversal" is more reliable. The marker beacon is only so wide, you could get off to the side and miss it
 
luvflyin said:
I dunno. But I have seen approachs where ADF was required even though there was also a marker beacon there. I think the point is that "needle reversal" is more reliable. The marker beacon is only so wide, you could get off to the side and miss it
Click to expand...

Usually if you look carefully at those, the NDB is used for navigation... the marker beacon can only tell you if you're on a course as you fly over it... you can't navigate to it from anything it provides. :)
 
denverpilot said:
Usually if you look carefully at those, the NDB is used for navigation... the marker beacon can only tell you if you're on a course as you fly over it... you can't navigate to it from anything it provides. :)
Click to expand...

Yeah. That's usually the case. There have been, maybe still might be, LMM's that were there to identify the Missed Approach Point. One I knew of was at BUR. Because of some pretty serious terrain out east in the Missed Approach area the NDB was there to identify the Missed Approach Point on the Localizer approach. There was no use of it for the final approach course or any other segements of the approach. Now that the beacon is gone, time is used. The minimums are higher now.
 
luvflyin said:
Yeah. That's usually the case. There have been, maybe still might be, LMM's that were there to identify the Missed Approach Point. One I knew of was at BUR. Because of some pretty serious terrain out east in the Missed Approach area the NDB was there to identify the Missed Approach Point on the Localizer approach. There was no use of it for the final approach course or any other segements of the approach. Now that the beacon is gone, time is used. The minimums are higher now.
Click to expand...
Depends whether you use the Burbank "Y" or "Z" ILS Runway 8. Another problem that ILS has is that the localizer transmitter is on the approach end of the runway.
 
aterpster said:
Depends whether you use the Burbank "Y" or "Z" ILS Runway 8. Another problem that ILS has is that the localizer transmitter is on the approach end of the runway.
Click to expand...

Another problem it has is a steady stream of 737s, which means you're flying that localizer as fast as you can.

BTDT, in Santa Anas. Not pleasant.
 
MAKG1 said:
Another problem it has is a steady stream of 737s, which means you're flying that localizer as fast as you can.

BTDT, in Santa Anas. Not pleasant.
Click to expand...
No doubt SWA "owns" the airport. Sort of sad.
 
Request an alternate missed.

It's not rocket science. We do it all the time.
 
luvflyin said:
There ya go. And now that the Alternate Fix is on the chart, you know that an Alternate Missed Approach Procedure exists.
Click to expand...
And even if it's not.... they can give you "radar vectors".

True story: My first jet type rating the PTS required a published missed. My examiner didn't want to go through the bother. The pre checkride brief had a notam that said published missed unavailable. Expect radar vectors.
We complied with the *now* published missed and flew runway heading.

Can't make it up.
 
aterpster said:
Depends whether you use the Burbank "Y" or "Z" ILS Runway 8. Another problem that ILS has is that the localizer transmitter is on the approach end of the runway.
Click to expand...

Yeah. The big difference between the Y and Z is the minimum climb required during the Missed Approach. Back when the NDB was still there, there was an ILS RWY 7, which did have Localizer only (no glideslope) minimums. If you couldn't meet that climb requirement it said to use the LOC RWY7 approach. The point was that because of high terrain to the east in the Missed Approach area a higher MDA was needed and positive indication of the Missed Approach Point was important. Needle reversal on the ADF was more reliable than the Marker Beacon.
 
Kritchlow said:
And even if it's not.... they can give you "radar vectors".

True story: My first jet type rating the PTS required a published missed. My examiner didn't want to go through the bother. The pre checkride brief had a notam that said published missed unavailable. Expect radar vectors.
We complied with the *now* published missed and flew runway heading.

Can't make it up.
Click to expand...

Yup. And between the time you abandoned the Approach, at which time you had no Procedure to follow, and until the time you started to actually get those vectors you were told to "expect" you're on your own. It's good that we always know where and how high the rocks are and where and how high we are. I know you didn't make it up. It doesn't surprise me that it made it to the point where that NOTAM was actually cut. The letter of the law is clear though. An aircraft can be vectored once it commences a missed approach. In this case it had no Missed Approach Procedure to "commence."
 
Last edited:
luvflyin said:
Yup. And between the time you abandoned the Approach, at which time you had no Procedure to follow, and until the time you started to actually get those vectors you were told to "expect" you're on your own. It's good that we always know where and how high the rocks are and where and how high we are. I know you didn't make it up. It doesn't surprise me that it made it to the point where that NOTAM was actually cut. The letter of the law is clear though. An aircraft can be vectored once it commences a missed approach. In this case it had no Missed Approach Procedure to "commence."
Click to expand...
Oh my..... slow down a bit. Wtf are you talking about?
I read your post twice and still can't get my arms around it.
 
Kritchlow said:
Oh my..... slow down a bit. Wtf are you talking about?
I read your post twice and still can't get my arms around it.
Click to expand...
I think he's just missing a piece of that alternate, vectored, missed instruction. The part where they say something like, "on the missed, fly runway heading, climb and maintain..." same as they might in a departure instruction. Maybe never heard one so he's picturing it in a way that is different from reality.
 
MAKG1 said:
Note that ILS (or LPV) approaches don't even have labelled FAFs. They have glideslope/glidepath interception points.
Click to expand...
The glide slope interception point at the published intercept altitude is the FAF. It's denoted with the little lightning bolt. Sometimes there are alternate intercept altitudes which aren't "graphically" depicted but are noted on the chart.
 
flyingron said:
The glide slope interception point at the published intercept altitude is the FAF. It's denoted with the little lightning bolt. Sometimes there are alternate intercept altitudes which aren't "graphically" depicted but are noted on the chart.
Click to expand...
...or as FAR 1.1 defines it, the final approach fix is simply the point where the final approach segment begins.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I think he's just missing a piece of that alternate, vectored, missed instruction. The part where they say something like, "on the missed, fly runway heading, climb and maintain..." same as they might in a departure instruction. Maybe never heard one so he's picturing it in a way that is different from reality.
Click to expand...

That's how I was reading it. That they didn't give him a missed approach procedure prior to starting the approach. That they were literally just "expecting radar vectors."
 
midlifeflyer said:
...or as FAR 1.1 defines it, the final approach fix is simply the point where the final approach segment begins.
Click to expand...
True, but not very informative. We have FAF for NPAs and VGAs, PFAF for ILS, and FAP for RNP AR IAPs.
 
luvflyin said:
That's how I was reading it. That they didn't give him a missed approach procedure prior to starting the approach. That they were literally just "expecting radar vectors."
Click to expand...
Having received them a number of times, I read it quite differently.
 
luvflyin said:
That's how I was reading it. That they didn't give him a missed approach procedure prior to starting the approach. That they were literally just "expecting radar vectors."
Click to expand...

That's not kosher. What happens if your radio fails on final? Or your PTT sticks when you report going missed?

All clearances need to have a lost comms procedure, somehow.
 
Well, I've certainly received a lot of good info from this post. Thanks to all. However, it now looks like my options are fewer at KMYR since they just shut down the VOR for 8 mos. and that alternate miss using the VOR wouldn't available. So, for me I couldn't get in there if I wanted to on (my) instruments with the opposite direction ILS also now affected as well with an NDB required, and, of course, the last available to me, the VOR/DME approach is gone too. Maybe for an alternate miss they could plant me on one of the ILS's at a DME point as an alternate but we'd all be scrambling. Sooner or later I will have to get on board with RNAV but for now I'll be looking at alternate routing with KFLO (Florence) looking like the best fuel stop on my route to Clearwater, FL.
 
flyzone said:
Well, I've certainly received a lot of good info from this post. Thanks to all. However, it now looks like my options are fewer at KMYR since they just shut down the VOR for 8 mos. and that alternate miss using the VOR wouldn't available. So, for me I couldn't get in there if I wanted to on (my) instruments with the opposite direction ILS also now affected as well with an NDB required, and, of course, the last available to me, the VOR/DME approach is gone too. Maybe for an alternate miss they could plant me on one of the ILS's at a DME point as an alternate but we'd all be scrambling. Sooner or later I will have to get on board with RNAV but for now I'll be looking at alternate routing with KFLO (Florence) looking like the best fuel stop on my route to Clearwater, FL.
Click to expand...

Request a surveillance approach. Used to be available.
 
mscard88 said:
Request a surveillance approach. Used to be available.
Click to expand...

Now that's at least a nice last resort or emergency solution I've completely forgotten about but I never thought to use it as an alternative approach but with the VOR out it seems justified. I wonder if the controllers require special training for that and if it would generally be viewed as radio hoarding.
 
flyzone said:
Now that's at least a nice last resort or emergency solution I've completely forgotten about but I never thought to use it as an alternative approach but with the VOR out it seems justified. I wonder if the controllers require special training for that and if it would generally be viewed as radio hoarding.
Click to expand...

They should be trained for it. It's not a difficult task from a controller perspective. Basically it's a PAR without a glide path, azimuth guidance only. Also won't get you down low like an ILS either. I'm not sure if it's FAA controllers there or contract controllers, but I'm pretty sure MYR has an approach control, so they should be FAA. Could be DOD controllers but doubtful at MYR. So, just ask the folks in the tower or approach control if surveillance approaches apply at MYR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top