Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 08:22 AM - Re: Re: Antenna locations (Bill Watson)
2. 09:27 AM - Re: Re: Antenna locations (Kelly McMullen)
3. 09:35 AM - Re: Antenna locations (Bob Turner)
4. 09:51 AM - Re: Re: Antenna locations (Tim Olson)
5. 02:59 PM - Re: Antenna locations (tsts4)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Antenna locations |
So I ask you all; why are you flying the ILS instead of the RNAV
approach that I assume serves the same runways? Possible reasons might be:
1. ATIS identifies the ILS as the approach in use and you just decide
it's easier to proceed with it
2. There is a 10-20-40-80 foot difference in DA
3. Habit
I ask this because I find the RNAV approaches easier to fly because they
are easier to setup avionics wise, at least when flying a full approach
at smaller airports. And they are definitely easier to fly accurately
because of the lack of RF anomalies, at least that's my sense of things.
Bill "sent from my imaginary IBM 370 mainframe in my imaginary basement"
Watson
On 7/30/2018 7:06 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> Typical scenario is the first time a marker beacon goes into alarm and
> needs maintenance or part replaced they simply notam it out of service
> and start process to de-commission. The only nearby ILS for practice
> in our area had a middle marker for the first 10-15 years it was in
> service. Now, for the last 10 years or so it has been out of service,
> with all the structures still there. Keeping a single frequency
> transmitter with a single frequency tone generator running is not
> exactly rocket science nor particularly expensive. I guess, because of
> lack of the beacon, the Loc only approach requires a DME while neither
> the ILS nor the VOR approach that have identical horizontal paths
> require anything beyond a clock.
>
> On 7/30/2018 2:49 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>>
>> It must be region dependent. (ILS with MB). I just flew one at OSH a
>> couple weeks ago and flew over it a couple days ago, and there is one
>> 15 miles from my home airport as well. We arent decommissioning all
>> That fast around me.
>> Tim
>>
>>> On Jul 30, 2018, at 2:55 PM, Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kellym wrote:
>>>> Yes. I loved both outer and middle markers, ...
>>>>
>>>> But technology moves on and has us replacing
>>>> electronics every 10-15 years instead of every 30 years.
>>>> Nostalgia mode off.
>>>> Kelly
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I loved the MBs too, especially the MM, since it was a good reminder
>>> to not fixate just when the workload was highest. But try to find
>>> one these days. I currently have two instrument students who, so
>>> far, have never heard a MB. There arent any left around here.
>>> As to the 10 year life cycle: Ten years ago I was still
>>> contemplating avionics choices. My home field had an ADF required
>>> ILS. I seriously considered not buying a GPS (to save money) and
>>> instead buying a used ADF, which were dirt cheap and plentiful. But
>>> I found that used ADF antennas were hard to find - people were
>>> pulling their ADFs but leaving the antennas, I presume so they
>>> wouldnt have to patch and paint the hole left behind. So I ended up
>>> with a 420W. Today, 10 years later, the LOM is gone; the ILS is now
>>> DME required. So now, if I had gone the ADF route 10 years ago,
>>> Id be looking at a major panel upgrade. I think your ten year life
>>> cycle comment is correct.
>>>
>>> --------
>>> Bob Turner
>>> RV-10 QB
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481967#481967
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Antenna locations |
Among other reasons, there isn't an LPV approach available to practice
within 30 mi of my home base. The RNAV/VNAV approach at same airport I
do ILS approaches has different holding pattern with conflicts, uses
extra 1000 ft at IAF, has 100 ft higher minimums. Only difference is
whether I have to watch for ILS switchover from GPS. I generally don't
care for the T layout of GPS approaches. ILS has independent monitoring
that sounds an alarm in monitoring facility if anything goes out of
tolerance. GPS relies on software monitoring in your box...less
transparent. GPS is reliant on WAAS corrections. ILS is more likely to
have recent flight check.
Either one is likely to get you to a position to land if the visibility
and ceiling are there. Sometimes 50 or 100 ft make that difference.
Most ILS have 200 and 1//2 or better minimums. Some Cat 1 are 200 and
1800 RVR. Most GPS are either 250 or 300 and 1, although some go lower.
On 7/31/2018 8:20 AM, Bill Watson wrote:
> So I ask you all; why are you flying the ILS instead of the RNAV
> approach that I assume serves the same runways? Possible reasons might be:
>
> 1. ATIS identifies the ILS as the approach in use and you just decide
> it's easier to proceed with it
> 2. There is a 10-20-40-80 foot difference in DA
> 3. Habit
>
> I ask this because I find the RNAV approaches easier to fly because they
> are easier to setup avionics wise, at least when flying a full approach
> at smaller airports. And they are definitely easier to fly accurately
> because of the lack of RF anomalies, at least that's my sense of things.
>
> Bill "sent from my imaginary IBM 370 mainframe in my imaginary basement"
> Watson
>
> On 7/30/2018 7:06 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>>
>> Typical scenario is the first time a marker beacon goes into alarm and
>> needs maintenance or part replaced they simply notam it out of service
>> and start process to de-commission. The only nearby ILS for practice
>> in our area had a middle marker for the first 10-15 years it was in
>> service. Now, for the last 10 years or so it has been out of service,
>> with all the structures still there. Keeping a single frequency
>> transmitter with a single frequency tone generator running is not
>> exactly rocket science nor particularly expensive. I guess, because of
>> lack of the beacon, the Loc only approach requires a DME while neither
>> the ILS nor the VOR approach that have identical horizontal paths
>> require anything beyond a clock.
>>
>> On 7/30/2018 2:49 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>>>
>>> It must be region dependent. (ILS with MB). I just flew one at OSH a
>>> couple weeks ago and flew over it a couple days ago, and there is one
>>> 15 miles from my home airport as well. We arent decommissioning all
>>> That fast around me.
>>> Tim
>>>
>>>> On Jul 30, 2018, at 2:55 PM, Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kellym wrote:
>>>>> Yes. I loved both outer and middle markers, ...
>>>>>
>>>>> But technology moves on and has us replacing
>>>>> electronics every 10-15 years instead of every 30 years.
>>>>> Nostalgia mode off.
>>>>> Kelly
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I loved the MBs too, especially the MM, since it was a good reminder
>>>> to not fixate just when the workload was highest. But try to find
>>>> one these days. I currently have two instrument students who, so
>>>> far, have never heard a MB. There arent any left around here.
>>>> As to the 10 year life cycle: Ten years ago I was still
>>>> contemplating avionics choices. My home field had an ADF required
>>>> ILS. I seriously considered not buying a GPS (to save money) and
>>>> instead buying a used ADF, which were dirt cheap and plentiful. But
>>>> I found that used ADF antennas were hard to find - people were
>>>> pulling their ADFs but leaving the antennas, I presume so they
>>>> wouldnt have to patch and paint the hole left behind. So I ended up
>>>> with a 420W. Today, 10 years later, the LOM is gone; the ILS is now
>>>> DME required. So now, if I had gone the ADF route 10 years ago,
>>>> Id be looking at a major panel upgrade. I think your ten year life
>>>> cycle comment is correct.
>>>>
>>>> --------
>>>> Bob Turner
>>>> RV-10 QB
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>>
>>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481967#481967
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Antenna locations |
Why ILS?
1. Keep in practice.
2. Sometimes the minimums are a bit lower and it matters. Some time ago I took
a (instrument) student to Chico (KCIC), planning the RNAV(gps) there. But ceilings
lowered to 200. GPS minimums were 300. ILS got us in.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481984#481984
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Antenna locations |
Agreed on the ease of RNAV. But, your #2 reason is my common
reason. If I know the MDA is higher for RNAV, and the ceiling
is low, I'll use the lowest approach I can get.
But, in general, I do try to fly RNAV almost all the time.
It'll be a sad day when the lions share of VORs are gone, and
ILS's are pulled out, because once our enemies jam our GPS's,
we're going to eventually have a very very bad day. It's
really only a matter of time in today's terrorist warfare.
GPS is great, but people love it so much they put all their
eggs into that basket.
Tim
On 07/31/2018 10:20 AM, Bill Watson wrote:
> So I ask you all; why are you flying the ILS instead of the RNAV
> approach that I assume serves the same runways? Possible reasons might be:
>
> 1. ATIS identifies the ILS as the approach in use and you just decide
> it's easier to proceed with it
> 2. There is a 10-20-40-80 foot difference in DA
> 3. Habit
>
> I ask this because I find the RNAV approaches easier to fly because they
> are easier to setup avionics wise, at least when flying a full approach
> at smaller airports. And they are definitely easier to fly accurately
> because of the lack of RF anomalies, at least that's my sense of things.
>
> Bill "sent from my imaginary IBM 370 mainframe in my imaginary basement"
> Watson
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Antenna locations |
Just add $.02 more, GPS is sometimes degraded and NOTAMed out of service. I like
to have options when IFR, particularly if IMC, so part of that is practicing
using those tools. Also Ive been in high traffic areas where the ILS was in
use and asking for something else would have taken more time as ATC would have
vectored me all over the place to get the sequencing right. Personally I dont
find flying an ILS any more difficult than an LPV so I really dont get the
question.
--------
Todd Stovall
aka Auburntsts on EAA, AOPA, and VAF
RV-10 N728TT -- Flying
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481989#481989
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|