ILS at KVPZ LOM NDB out of Service question?

[Chicago Bearhawk]

So I am posting 2 questions in the same week strange. Normally I just lurk.

Ok, yesterday I wanted to get some Actual IMC. So I grabbed a flight instructor because it was looking more iffy than I wanted, and we filed and left. The controllers at KSBN were so busy we had to wait 15 mins to get released (that might play into this question.. not sure)

Coming back into kvpz we asked for the ILS 27, the controller said no can't do that due to NOTAM :

VPZ 'VP' Navigation SEDLY LOM NDB Out of Service. Expiration estimated

Effective Jul 22 2021, 7:49 AM CDT
Expires Jan 22 2022, 3:11 PM CST
​

The controller gave us RNAV 27 (basically the same approach give or take 100 feet) So the cfi did not want to argue we just executed the RNAV, and completed the landing.
But he indicated that, that should not prevent assignment of the ILS approach.

Today I happed to be talking to an DPE (with a lot of experience) and he indicated that the controller was correct because on the procedure the NDB is needed to get back to the HOLD if you go missed and being able to complete the missed is the 4th segment of an approach and must be executable to allow the procedure?

Thoughts?

 

[MauleSkinner]

You need to be able to fly he full procedure, including the missed approach, but with an IFR GPS you can still navigate to the hold. Since you flew a GPS approach, I assume you had the equipment to do the ILS.

 

[Radar Contact]

The approach does indicate ADF required. Obviously for SEDLY. While the controller can issue an alternate missed instruction if the ADF was purely for the missed, considering it was to determine the FAF , I’m guessing they were technically correct.

False glideslopes and all?

One of the many reasons I opt for the LPV over ILS.

Edit: after thinking for a min, not the ILS FAF but the LOC FAF.

 

[Chicago Bearhawk]

The approach does indicate ADF required. Obviously for SEDLY. While the controller can issue an alternate missed instruction if the ADF was purely for the missed, considering it was to determine the FAF , I’m guessing they were technically correct.

I always wondered why this said ADF required and never asked. and I have flown it simulated/hood many times without the ADF.

Editing to add:
BTW the OM works. I hear the tone when I fly over it. So if I was on Localizer only I could easily identify it via the OM tone. Just then NDB is broken, and no ADF in my cockpit.

for ref here is the plate: https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2108/05460I27.PDF

 

[Clip4]

https://www.ifr-magazine.com/charts-plates/overlay-approaches/

 

[luvflyin]

I always wondered why this said ADF required and never asked. and I have flown it simulated/hood many times without the ADF.

Editing to add:
BTW the OM works. I hear the tone when I fly over it. So if I was on Localizer only I could easily identify it via the OM tone. Just then NDB is broken, and no ADF in my cockpit.

for ref here is the plate: https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2108/05460I27.PDF

It would be for the Missed Approach. The FAF is an Intersection, so needing the NDB there for that is not the issue. The Controller was wrong saying he couldn’t give you the Approach because the LOM was Out of Service. Compliance with Notes on the Approach Chart is solely the responsibility of the Pilot. The Controllers responsibility is to separate you from other traffic.

 

[Jim Carpenter]

Yeah, kind of sounds like the controller wasn't up to speed on GPS usage (but, of course, airborne on the radio isn't the time to get into a discussion). Maybe the controllers just decided to simplify things and not issue ILS clearance to anyone. There doesn't appear to be any NOTAM stating the ILS procedure NA, so you would be able to fly the approach using your GPS to identify the position of the (out of service) LOM. No different than if you were flying with the LOM operable, but don't have an ADF in your plane, the GPS is a legal substitute. Here at home, a nearby airport (KRIW) ILS uses the VOR for missed approach, and whenever it's OTS, the NOTAM will list the ILS as NA 'except for aircraft equipped with suitable RNAV'.

 

[steingar]

Seems like a lot of the radio stuff at airports is busted these days. Every flight I do I seem to see reams of NOTAMs.

 

[luvflyin]

So I am posting 2 questions in the same week strange. Normally I just lurk.

Ok, yesterday I wanted to get some Actual IMC. So I grabbed a flight instructor because it was looking more iffy than I wanted, and we filed and left. The controllers at KSBN were so busy we had to wait 15 mins to get released (that might play into this question.. not sure)

Coming back into kvpz we asked for the ILS 27, the controller said no can't do that due to NOTAM :

VPZ 'VP' Navigation SEDLY LOM NDB Out of Service. Expiration estimated

Effective Jul 22 2021, 7:49 AM CDT
Expires Jan 22 2022, 3:11 PM CST
​

The controller gave us RNAV 27 (basically the same approach give or take 100 feet) So the cfi did not want to argue we just executed the RNAV, and completed the landing.
But he indicated that, that should not prevent assignment of the ILS approach.

Today I happed to be talking to an DPE (with a lot of experience) and he indicated that the controller was correct because on the procedure the NDB is needed to get back to the HOLD if you go missed and being able to complete the missed is the 4th segment of an approach and must be executable to allow the procedure?

Thoughts?

Have you considered filing an ASRS on this? It wouldn’t be a get out of jail free card thing, you did nothing wrong. It would be about identifying a problem in the system. It could go something like this. The NASA guy calls someone at the FAA Headquarters and says look at this. The guy at Headquarters calls the Head Honcho at South Bend Approach and says what’s going on there. He may say NDB is out so we can’t give Approach Clearances. Headquarters guy explains the facts of life to Honcho, problem resolved. Or Honcho says are my Controllers doing that again? Honcho tells the Controllers to quit doing that, problem resolved.

 

[luvflyin]

The approach does indicate ADF required. Obviously for SEDLY. While the controller can issue an alternate missed instruction if the ADF was purely for the missed, considering it was to determine the FAF , I’m guessing they were technically correct.

False glideslopes and all?

One of the many reasons I opt for the LPV over ILS.

Edit: after thinking for a min, not the ILS FAF but the LOC FAF.

It doesn't seem to have an Alternate Missed Approach. I Squawked it. We'll see what they do.

Your Aeronautical Inquiry has been received by the FAA.
========================================================
AI-204168
Category: Procedure Design > US Terminal Procedures
Airport: VPZ
State: IN
Procedure Name: ILS RWY 27
Inquiry: There does not seem to be an Alternate Missed Approach Procedure for this Approach. The Missed Approach is based on a Facility other than that used for the Final Approach Course. Therefore it should have one. Also there is an Approach Segment depicted on the GOV Chart west of SILMS that comes from nowhere. Did there used to be an IAF out there?
========================================================
You will receive email updates as your inquiry is processed. You may view your Aeronautical Inquiries online at https://nfdc.faa.gov.
Aeronautical Information Portal
https://nfdc.faa.gov

 

[midwestpa24]

Seems like a lot of the radio stuff at airports is busted these days. Every flight I do I seem to see reams of NOTAMs.

A lot of the old stuff isn't being fixed either. OM/Compass Locators/NDBs are mostly being decommissioned when they no longer work anymore.

 

[MauleSkinner]

It doesn't seem to have an Alternate Missed Approach. I Squawked it. We'll see what they do.

Your Aeronautical Inquiry has been received by the FAA.
========================================================
AI-204168
Category: Procedure Design > US Terminal Procedures
Airport: VPZ
State: IN
Procedure Name: ILS RWY 27
Inquiry: There does not seem to be an Alternate Missed Approach Procedure for this Approach. The Missed Approach is based on a Facility other than that used for the Final Approach Course. Therefore it should have one. Also there is an Approach Segment depicted on the GOV Chart west of SILMS that comes from nowhere. Did there used to be an IAF out there?
========================================================
You will receive email updates as your inquiry is processed. You may view your Aeronautical Inquiries online at https://nfdc.faa.gov.
Aeronautical Information Portal
https://nfdc.faa.gov

I would also submit one pointing out that the controllers are not allowing airplanes that can legally identify the fix to fly the approach.

 

[flyingron]

The FAF is an Intersection, so needing the NDB there for that is not the issue.

Even the FAF for the ILS has squat to do with the SEDLY or the LOM. It's back where the lightning bolt is (where the glideslope hits 2600').

 

[luvflyin]

Even the FAF for the ILS has squat to do with the SEDLY or the LOM. It's back where the lightning bolt is (where the glideslope hits 2600').

It has plenty to do with the ILS RWY 27 Approach. It has S-LOC-27 Minimums. You do not need a Glideslope to do this Approach. But yeah, if you have one, you can start down out there by the Bolt

 

[Chicago Bearhawk]

Have you considered filing an ASRS on this? It wouldn’t be a get out of jail free card thing, you did nothing wrong. It would be about identifying a problem in the system. It could go something like this. The NASA guy calls someone at the FAA Headquarters and says look at this. The guy at Headquarters calls the Head Honcho at South Bend Approach and says what’s going on there. He may say NDB is out so we can’t give Approach Clearances. Headquarters guy explains the facts of life to Honcho, problem resolved. Or Honcho says are my Controllers doing that again? Honcho tells the Controllers to quit doing that, problem resolved.

Report Submitted.

 

[flyingron]

It has plenty to do with the ILS RWY 27 Approach. It has S-LOC-27 Minimums. You do not need a Glideslope to do this Approach. But yeah, if you have one, you can start down out there by the Bolt

Right, but I was talking about flying the ILS (said as much). If you are using the glideslope, you don't need SEDLY.

 

[John Collins]

The controller was misinformed and based on the stated conditions, the ILS could have been flown. Not worth arguing about in the air, but I would make a call to the QA person at the facility and if needed point out AC 90-108 guidance or AIM guidance. This is a training issue.

 

[flyingron]

The controller was misinformed and based on the stated conditions, the ILS could have been flown. Not worth arguing about in the air, but I would make a call to the QA person at the facility and if needed point out AC 90-108 guidance or AIM guidance. This is a training issue.

The approach in any of its forms could be flown if you have an IFR GPS. The non-precision FAF and missed approach hold are both fair game for substitution for the compass locator.

 

[luvflyin]

It doesn't seem to have an Alternate Missed Approach. I Squawked it. We'll see what they do.

Your Aeronautical Inquiry has been received by the FAA.
========================================================
AI-204168
Category: Procedure Design > US Terminal Procedures
Airport: VPZ
State: IN
Procedure Name: ILS RWY 27
Inquiry: There does not seem to be an Alternate Missed Approach Procedure for this Approach. The Missed Approach is based on a Facility other than that used for the Final Approach Course. Therefore it should have one. Also there is an Approach Segment depicted on the GOV Chart west of SILMS that comes from nowhere. Did there used to be an IAF out there?
========================================================
You will receive email updates as your inquiry is processed. You may view your Aeronautical Inquiries online at https://nfdc.faa.gov.
Aeronautical Information Portal
https://nfdc.faa.gov

FAWC, got an answer. Oops, I did say west instead of east. But then he said SLIMS instead of SILMS, so there

Your Aeronautical Inquiry has been closed. If you have followup questions or comments, please use the online inquiry form instead of sending via email.
========================================================
FAA Response:
Hi,
I assume you meant EAST of SLIMS and there used to be a DEAD RECKONING SEGMENT there that was removed in 2018 due to a Flight Check issue.
An Alternate Missed Approach will be considered the next time the procedure is up for a full amendment. Air Traffic has the option to negate an Alternate Missed Approach being developed. I'm not sure if that is the case here since it wasn't documented on the forms.
========================================================