 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bakerocb
Joined: 15 Jan 2006
Posts: 727
Location: FAIRFAX VA
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 7:10 am Post subject: lower OM minima; was Anyone with a KR22 Marker Beacon |
 |
|
3/20/2009
Hello All: Old Bob wrote: "That is undoubtedly a controversial discussion.
My inclination is to eliminate the marker beacon receiver,....."
I agree with Old Bob, but I am having a bit of difficulty understanding the
magnitude of the decision to "eliminate the marker beacon receiver".
Don't most of the modern audio panels that homebuilders are inclined to use
already include the marker beacon receiver and associated light indicators?
See:
http://www.ps-engineering.com/audio.shtml
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/menus/av/audiopanel_garmin.html
https://commerce.honeywell.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?storeId=10101&catalogId=10052&langId=-1&categoryId=10094&cursel=item7&sysId=item2&pCategoryId=10086&pcursel=item7&psysId=null
So a decision to "eliminate the marker beacon receiver" boils down to just
not installing an antenna and the cableing between the antenna and the audio
panel -- seems like a rather easy choice to make.
It is true that there are separate marker beacon receivers available for
installation. See:
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/mb10_markerBeacon.php
http://www.gulf-coast-avionics.com/detail/4196/Avionics/Bendix_King/KR-22/
If one were to use an audio panel that did not already include a marker
beacon receiver and light indicators then the decision to install a separate
marker beacon receiver and the associated antenna and cabling becomes a bit
more significant - and expensive.
Then the decision bias for an airplane operating primarily in the USA,
particularly one with an IFR capable GPS, would definitely lean towards not
installing a separate marker beacon receiver and the associated antenna and
cabling -- also a rather easy decision.
As Old Bob wrote: "I would save the space, power, weight, and cost by
leaving the marker
beacon off the airplane."
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
============================================
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from BobsV35B(at)aol.com; Date: 11:16 PM 03/18/09
EDT)
________________________________________________________________
Good Evening Jose,
That is undoubtedly a controversial discussion.
My inclination is to eliminate the marker beacon receiver, though, just
like many other folks, I like the friendly tones of the marker beacons when
they are being flown over. It is comforting and familiar.
Up until a few years ago, the marker beacon was a required portion of the
ILS system. That is no longer the case. The marker beacon is NOT a
required portion of the ILS and the minima does not change if you are or
are not equipped with such a receiver.
To my knowledge, there is only one non precision approach in the USA that
has a step down fix based on crossing a marker. That is the circling
approach from the (LOC-D, KSEE) localizer approach at Gillespie Field, San
Diego, CA. The last time I checked, that marker was out of service awaiting
parts for a repair. If you are equipped with an IFR approved GPS and a
current datacard, you can check passing over the marker beacon utilizing
the GPS and use the minima associated with that marker.
I would save the space, power, weight, and cost by leaving the marker
beacon off the airplane.
Does anyone on the list know of any other approach where any lower minima
can be flown by having a marker beacon available?
Happy Skies
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:09 am Post subject: lower OM minima; was Anyone with a KR22 Marker Beacon |
|
|
Good Morning OC,
You asked: "Don't most of the modern audio panels that homebuilders are inclined to use
already include the marker beacon receiver and associated light indicators?"
They sure do, but I think that will be changing relatively soon.
I can find no official policy from the FAA concerning the future of the marker beacon, but I prefer to NOT spend any money, weight, space, power or effort on having a marker beacon.
Our desires have been made known to PS Engineering and I will bet a milk shake that you will see more products on the market that do not include a marker receiver. I imagine the cost to add the marker is not great and I doubt that eliminating it will lower the cost of the unit, but it will lower the cost of the installation. No marker beacon means no antenna and no cabling. It also means fewer switches and less space utilized on the face plate.
I have found PS Engineering to be the best manufacturer to work with in the entire industry. Good folks there.
We are currently installing a 430W, 327 TXPDR, and PS Engineering PM3000 Intercomm in our Piper Pacer. I will not want a marker beacon at all. It will be flown IFR extensively. I have found no approaches other than category II and III that will not be usable to the lowest published minima with that radio package.
As soon as the Pacer is finished, our J35 will get a similar package, but with a King KX-155A added to the mix. I have not decided which PS Engineering unit will be used for the J35, but think it might be the PMA4000-TSO.
Definitely no ADF, DME, or marker beacon!
Any other thoughts or ideas?
Happy Skies
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
628 West 86th Street
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
In a message dated 3/20/2009 10:13:10 A.M. Central Daylight Time, bakerocb(at)cox.net writes:
| Quote: | --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
3/20/2009
Hello All: Old Bob wrote: "That is undoubtedly a controversial discussion.
My inclination is to eliminate the marker beacon receiver,....."
I agree with Old Bob, but I am having a bit of difficulty understanding the
magnitude of the decision to "eliminate the marker beacon receiver".
Don't most of the modern audio panels that homebuilders are inclined to use
already include the marker beacon receiver and associated light indicators?
See:
http://www.ps-engineering.com/audio.shtml
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/menus/av/audiopanel_garmin.html
https://commerce.honeywell.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?storeId=10101&catalogId=10052&langId=-1&categoryId=10094&cursel=item7&sysId=item2&pCategoryId=10086&pcursel=item7&psysId=null
So a decision to "eliminate the marker beacon receiver" boils down to just
not installing an antenna and the cableing between the antenna and the audio
panel -- seems like a rather easy choice to make.
It is true that there are separate marker beacon receivers available for
installation. See:
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/mb10_markerBeacon.php
http://www.gulf-coast-avionics.com/detail/4196/Avionics/Bendix_King/KR-22/
If one were to use an audio panel that did not already include a marker
beacon receiver and light indicators then the decision to install a separate
marker beacon receiver and the associated antenna and cabling becomes a bit
more significant - and expensive.
Then the decision bias for an airplane operating primarily in the USA,
particularly one with an IFR capable GPS, would definitely lean towards not
installing a separate marker beacon receiver and the associated antenna and
cabling -- also a rather easy decision.
As Old Bob wrote: "I would save the space, power, weight, and cost by
leaving the marker
beacon off the airplane."
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
===================
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from BobsV35B(at)aol.com; Date: 11:16 PM 03/18/09
EDT)
________________________________________________________________
Good Evening Jose,
That is undoubtedly a controversial discussion.
My inclination is to eliminate the marker beacon receiver, though, just
like many other folks, I like the friendly tones of the marker beacons when
they are being flown over. It is comforting and familiar.
Up until a few years ago, the marker beacon was a required portion of the
ILS system. That is no longer the case. The marker beacon is NOT a
required portion of the ILS and the minima does not change if you are or
are not equipped with such a receiver.
To my knowledge, there is only one non precision approach in the USA that
has a step down fix based on crossing a marker. That is the circling
approach from the (LOC-D, KSEE) localizer approach at Gillespie Field, San
Diego, CA. The last time I checked, that marker was out of service awaiting
parts for a repair. If you are equipped with an IFR approved GPS and a
current datacard, you can check passing over the marker beacon utilizing
the GPS and use the minima associated with that marker.
I would save the space, power, weight, and cost by leaving the marker
beacon off the airplane.
Does anyone on the list know of any other approach where any lower minima
can be flown by having a marker beacon available?
Happy Skies
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator = Use lities y - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS =========================< - List Contribution Web Site ; =========================
|
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 10:05 am Post subject: lower OM minima; was Anyone with a KR22 Marker Beacon |
|
|
Good Morning All,
I sent a message to an FAA friend (who is pretty high up on the food chain) concerning the future of the marker beacons. Here is his answer with the name removed.
------------- "We are attempting to eliminate as many as possible to include OMs and MMs.
In most cases, they are not needed and they cost quite a bit to maintain
when other methods are available to mark these spots. We're also looking at
eliminating as many NDBs as possible. Users have to provide a need, then
we'll keep the procedures available." -------------------
Any help at all?
Happy Skies
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
628 West 86th Street
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
In a message dated 3/20/2009 11:12:00 A.M. Central Daylight Time, BobsV35B(at)aol.com writes:
| Quote: | Good Morning OC,
You asked: "Don't most of the modern audio panels that homebuilders are inclined to use
already include the marker beacon receiver and associated light indicators?"
They sure do, but I think that will be changing relatively soon.
I can find no official policy from the FAA concerning the future of the marker beacon, but I prefer to NOT spend any money, weight, space, power or effort on having a marker beacon.
Our desires have been made known to PS Engineering and I will bet a milk shake that you will see more products on the market that do not include a marker receiver. I imagine the cost to add the marker is not great and I doubt that eliminating it will lower the cost of the unit, but it will lower the cost of the installation. No marker beacon means no antenna and no cabling. It also means fewer switches and less space utilized on the face plate.
I have found PS Engineering to be the best manufacturer to work with in the entire industry. Good folks there.
We are currently installing a 430W, 327 TXPDR, and PS Engineering PM3000 Intercomm in our Piper Pacer. I will not want a marker beacon at all. It will be flown IFR extensively. I have found no approaches other than category II and III that will not be usable to the lowest published minima with that radio package.
As soon as the Pacer is finished, our J35 will get a similar package, but with a King KX-155A added to the mix. I have not decided which PS Engineering unit will be used for the J35, but think it might be the PMA4000-TSO.
Definitely no ADF, DME, or marker beacon!
Any other thoughts or ideas?
Happy Skies
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
628 West 86th Street
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
In a message dated 3/20/2009 10:13:10 A.M. Central Daylight Time, bakerocb(at)cox.net writes:
| Quote: | --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
3/20/2009
Hello All: Old Bob wrote: "That is undoubtedly a controversial discussion.
My inclination is to eliminate the marker beacon receiver,....."
I agree with Old Bob, but I am having a bit of difficulty understanding the
magnitude of the decision to "eliminate the marker beacon receiver".
Don't most of the modern audio panels that homebuilders are inclined to use
already include the marker beacon receiver and associated light indicators?
See:
http://www.ps-engineering.com/audio.shtml
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/menus/av/audiopanel_garmin.html
https://commerce.honeywell.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?storeId=10101&catalogId=10052&langId=-1&categoryId=10094&cursel=item7&sysId=item2&pCategoryId=10086&pcursel=item7&psysId=null
So a decision to "eliminate the marker beacon receiver" boils down to just
not installing an antenna and the cableing between the antenna and the audio
panel -- seems like a rather easy choice to make.
It is true that there are separate marker beacon receivers available for
installation. See:
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/mb10_markerBeacon.php
http://www.gulf-coast-avionics.com/detail/4196/Avionics/Bendix_King/KR-22/
If one were to use an audio panel that did not already include a marker
beacon receiver and light indicators then the decision to install a separate
marker beacon receiver and the associated antenna and cabling becomes a bit
more significant - and expensive.
Then the decision bias for an airplane operating primarily in the USA,
particularly one with an IFR capable GPS, would definitely lean towards not
installing a separate marker beacon receiver and the associated antenna and
cabling -- also a rather easy decision.
As Old Bob wrote: "I would save the space, power, weight, and cost by
leaving the marker
beacon off the airplane."
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
===================
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from BobsV35B(at)aol.com; Date: 11:16 PM 03/18/09
EDT)
________________________________________________________________
Good Evening Jose,
That is undoubtedly a controversial discussion.
My inclination is to eliminate the marker beacon receiver, though, just
like many other folks, I like the friendly tones of the marker beacons when
they are being flown over. It is comforting and familiar.
Up until a few years ago, the marker beacon was a required portion of the
ILS system. That is no longer the case. The marker beacon is NOT a
required portion of the ILS and the minima does not change if you are or
are not equipped with such a receiver.
To my knowledge, there is only one non precision approach in the USA that
has a step down fix based on crossing a marker. That is the circling
approach from the (LOC-D, KSEE) localizer approach at Gillespie Field, San
Diego, CA. The last time I checked, that marker was out of service awaiting
parts for a repair. If you are equipped with an IFR approved GPS and a
current datacard, you can check passing over the marker beacon utilizing
the GPS and use the minima associated with that marker.
I would save the space, power, weight, and cost by leaving the marker
beacon off the airplane.
Does anyone on the list know of any other approach where any lower minima
can be flown by having a marker beacon available?
Happy Skies
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator = Use lities y - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS =========================< - List Contribution Web Site ; =========================
|
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!
| Quote: |
st href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
|
|
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Radioflyer
Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 43
Location: Boston
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 1:05 pm Post subject: Re: lower OM minima; was Anyone with a KR22 Marker Beacon |
|
|
Well, Old Bob, I guess the story is to keep the Marker Beacon receiver off the panel. I asked one question and got a different answer. However, your input is much appreciated. I guess I won't miss the receiver and it will simplify my panel. (However, you are right that it was pleasant hearing the signal when you overflew the airports.) Good Bye KR22.
--Jose
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Baker
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 181
Location: Sayre, PA
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 6:42 pm Post subject: lower OM minima; was Anyone with a KR22 Marker Beacon |
|
|
X-SpamReason %%SpamReason%%:
| Quote: | I sent a message to an FAA friend (who is pretty high up on the food chain)
concerning the future of the marker beacons. Here is his answer with the name
removed.
------------- "We are attempting to eliminate as many as possible to include
OMs and MMs.
In most cases, they are not needed and they cost quite a bit to maintain
when other methods are available to mark these spots. We're also looking at
eliminating as many NDBs as possible. Users have to provide a need, then
we'll keep the procedures available." -------------------
|
I'm a Lockheed Martin contractor to the FAA in Oklahoma City, right
now involved in instument procedure's biennial review program ( each
procedure must be reviewed, essentially re-built, to evaluate new
criteria application or obstacle encroachment).
What Bob said is absolutrely true. RNAV fix substitution for NDBs and
markers makes them redundant, trims the associated maintenance
expense, eliminates the real estate maintenace costs, drops the
navaid's frequency management to nil, and provides a better up-time
rate.
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
405. 426.5377 cell
Elmore City, OK
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
