 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 4:13 am Post subject: lower OM minima; was Anyone with a KR22 Marker Beacon ... |
 |
|
Good Morning Rumen,
You will note that the step down fix is only applicable to the localizer approach and does not affect the ILS minima.
However, as I mentioned more thoroughly in my second message, you need another method of checking the crossing of SMILE if you do not have a marker beacon and wish to use the lower MDA. Without the marker beacon or a substitute, the MDA is 1920. With SMILE it is 1340. An IFR GPS is an acceptable substitute for the marker beacon.
Personally, I am not ready to remove my marker beacon, but if it fails, it will not be repaired. I would NOT install one in a new installation. It is just too rare that it provides any advantage at all. I do think having an IFR GPS is a major advantage for any IFR flight.
An IFR GPS approved for at least enroute and terminal use can be legally substituted for any DME and most ADF uses in the national airspace system as well as for locating the position of any marker beacon that has the name published on the approach and whose location is in the contained database.
Make any sense at all?
As to the ELT. we are still required to comply with the regulations concerning the ELT. It must be tested as required and the batteries must be up to date.
The thought is that 121.5 is being monitored by most IFR aircraft and all FAA facilities. It does have some use, but it never has been much good for effecting a rescue.
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 3/19/2009 6:52:00 A.M. Central Daylight Time, rd2(at)evenlink.com writes:
| Quote: | --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2(at)evenlink.com
Morning Bob,
Here is one: ILS 27 for KIPT in PA.
Have you come across some regulatory materials on this?
BTW speaking of regs something else non-related comes to mind: the ELT
(e.g. battery replacement) requirements for aircraft still equipped with
121.5 ELTs. I am not aware of any requirement changes, yet the frequency is
no longer monitored by sats. Is an aircraft considered airworthy, if the
121.5 ELT battery has not been replaced on time?
Rumen
_____________________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 = Use lities y - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS =========================< - List Contribution Web Site ; =========================
|
Great Deals on Dell 15" Laptops - Starting at $479
| | - 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 |
|
 |
rd2(at)evenlink.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 10:42 am Post subject: lower OM minima; was Anyone with a KR22 Marker Beacon ... |
|
|
Hello Bob,
Apparently my second message with the addition ("The lower OM minima
applies if flown as
non-precision, supporting your point.") did not go through; we are having
some internet problems here right now.
Anyway,
| Quote: |
Make any sense at all?
|
Fully concur. IFR GPS is the way to go when older systems start failing and
need replacement.
Best
Rumen
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from BobsV35B(at)aol.com; Date: 08:11 AM 03/19/09
EDT)
________________________________________________________________
Good Morning Rumen,
You will note that the step down fix is only applicable to the localizer
approach and does not affect the ILS minima.
However, as I mentioned more thoroughly in my second message, you need
another method of checking the crossing of SMILE if you do not have a
marker beacon and wish to use the lower MDA. Without the marker beacon or a
substitute, the MDA is 1920. With SMILE it is 1340. An IFR GPS is an
acceptable substitute for the marker beacon.
Personally, I am not ready to remove my marker beacon, but if it fails, it
will not be repaired. I would NOT install one in a new installation. It is
just too rare that it provides any advantage at all. I do think having an
IFR GPS is a major advantage for any IFR flight.
An IFR GPS approved for at least enroute and terminal use can be legally
substituted for any DME and most ADF uses in the national airspace system
as well as for locating the position of any marker beacon that has the name
published on the approach and whose location is in the contained database.
Make any sense at all?
As to the ELT. we are still required to comply with the regulations
concerning the ELT. It must be tested as required and the batteries must be
up to date.
The thought is that 121.5 is being monitored by most IFR aircraft and all
FAA facilities. It does have some use, but it never has been much good for
effecting a rescue.
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
| | - 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
