DME or RADAR REQUIRED

[\__[Ô]__/]

If I'm flying an approach with "DME or RADAR REQUIRED" on the procedure and I don't have a working DME, do I need any agreement from the approach controller to fly the approach? They are watching me on radar, so I've got radar coverage. Is that sufficient or do I need to do anything else to meet the requirement?

 

[BillTIZ]

Based on the code you filed, the controller should know you are non-DME and need radar for the approach and should be prepared to monitor. Need to know why it's DME or RADAR, most likely to find the FAF.

You can always remind the controller you are non DME when you get the approach clearance.

 

[peerlesscowboy]

If I'm flying an approach with "DME or RADAR REQUIRED" on the procedure and I don't have a working DME, do I need any agreement from the approach controller to fly the approach? They are watching me on radar, so I've got radar coverage. Is that sufficient or do I need to do anything else to meet the requirement?

As long as you're in radar contact you should be good. Expect radar vectors to final.

 

[\__[Ô]__/]

Based on the code you filed, the controller should know you are non-DME and need radar for the approach and should be prepared to monitor. Need to know why it's DME or RADAR, most likely to find the FAF.

You can always remind the controller you are non DME when you get the approach clearance.

This may be the way it's supposed to work but in my experience if i don't ask they won't monitor my approach and call out fixes. That's part of the point of my question

Example approach in my area: http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1404/00945IL12.PDF
IAF, FAF, MAP are all based on DME distances. On glide slope, I think I can identify the fixes based on the altimeter. For this approach, the visual descent point seems to be the only point that can't be identified without DME.

 

[Clip4]

If I'm flying an approach with "DME or RADAR REQUIRED" on the procedure and I don't have a working DME, do I need any agreement from the approach controller to fly the approach? They are watching me on radar, so I've got radar coverage. Is that sufficient or do I need to do anything else to meet the requirement?

When they say "Radar Contact" you meet the requirement.

This may be the way it's supposed to work but in my experience if i don't ask they won't monitor my approach and call out fixes. That's part of the point of my question

Example approach in my area: http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1404/00945IL12.PDF
IAF, FAF, MAP are all based on DME distances. On glide slope, I think I can identify the fixes based on the altimeter. For this approach, the visual descent point seems to be the only point that can't be identified without DME.

The approach is a LOC or ILS approach. One is precision, one is non precision.

The MAP for the LOC is 5.8 nm from the FAF. The MAP can be indentifed on the LOC (non precision) approach by time, but the controller has to call both EYUCE and CALCA if you lack DME. The visual decent point is applicable to approaches without vertical guidance (MDA). AIM section 5-4-5 adresses VDPs. You might be surprised what it says to do if you lack DME. ("Pilots not equipped to receive the VDP should fly the approach procedure as though no VDP had been provided".)

For the ILS, the MAP is the DA, and as you stated the fixes can be identified if you are at the proper altitudes on the GS.

Unless the GS is NOTAMed OTS, the controller kinda assumes you are not flying IFR without a fully operational LOC/GS receiver and you are taking advantage of ILS vertical guidance. You will need to request DME call out if you want them, but call outs are not needed for the ILS approach.

 

[MarkZ]

Part of the approach clearance includes distance from the fix, either EYUCE or CULCA. Approach control will not necessarily tell you when you are over the fix unless you ask for it. I agree with the others, if it's an issue ask the controller to advise when you are over the fix. Since ALO is an up-down facility, there is a chance that the tower has a scope up there to aid in approaches. That sadly isn't always the case, but it never hurts to ask.

 

[Jaybird180]

Just in case you forgot: GPS can substitute for DME to identify the fixes

 

[Jmcmanna]

This may be the way it's supposed to work but in my experience if i don't ask they won't monitor my approach and call out fixes. That's part of the point of my question

ATC is monitoring your approach when you're under radar coverage. Usually they won't actually identify a fix for you unless you ask. Sometimes you'll be told "Radar service terminated, contact ABC tower", in that case, there isn't radar coverage all the way to the ground. Can you do an approach without DME in that case (radar coverage only to the FAF)? I don't know. I suspect not, but I don't know for sure.

 

[John Collins]

The altimeter may not be used to identify a fix, but it is used to determine the MDA or DA. When the GS is intercepted, it may be used to cross check the altitude over the FAF, but not identify it.

 

[poadeleted20]

Whether a reminder to the controller is necessary depends on why it says that and how sharp the controller is.

If the reason for it is procedure entry, odds are the controller will be giving you vectors to final without further prompting. If the controller tries to route you via the DME REQUIRED routing and you don't have DME or GPS, you can say something at that time.

If the reason is to identify the FAF or other required fix once on the approach, it would not be surprising for the controller not to notice you are not equipped with either DME or GPS, and need reminding to call the fix for you -- these days many controllers seem to assume everybody is GPS-equipped. For example on the LOC BC 27 at PTK, my experience giving training there tells me if you don't specifically ask in advance, Detroit Approach isn't going to call ERNST even after giving you vectors to final. Since you could easily pass the fix before anybody realized the controller wasn't going to call it, I suggest you advise the controller early on that you will need a RADAR fix called. That's a particular problem on the linked approach since IIRC Pontiac Tower doesn't have the radar to call ERNST for you, which means your handoff from Approach to Tower must be delayed until after the fix.

 

[midlifeflyer]

This may be the way it's supposed to work but in my experience if i don't ask they won't monitor my approach and call out fixes. That's part of the point of my question

Seems you've also answered your own question.

My first rule of dealing with ATC: be on the same page.

Having been cleared direct to an airport in /U aircraft, I know that ATC doesn't always pay attention to the equipment codes. If I were using an approach that had a radar or DME fix that I needed, I'd take the 2-3 seconds to say, "Negative DME, please advise crossing [XXXXX]" as a reminder

 

[Clip4]

Ron, Unless the chart identifies the DME fix as "RADAR", I make the assumption the controller may not be call the fix. Is that your read?

 

[poadeleted20]

Ron, Unless the chart identifies the DME fix as "RADAR", I make the assumption the controller may not be call the fix. Is that your read?

If you by "may not" you mean when there is no "RADAR" printed by the fix, it is not permissible to substitute the controller calling it based on their radar for the required system, your assumption is correct. You can only make that substitution legally when the fix has RADAR next to it.

However, to reiterate my point above, unless you remind the controller of your need (i.e., lack of the required system), the controller "may not" (as in "might possibly fail to") call it for you.

Ah, semantics...

 

[Clip4]

If you by "may not" you mean when there is no "RADAR" printed by the fix, it is not permissible to substitute the controller calling it based on their radar for the required system, your assumption is correct. You can only make that substitution legally when the fix has RADAR next to it.

Yes, and this goes to the OPs original question, after the FAF, you are not going to get other distances called for you unless the are noted RADAR. The timer needs to be running.

 

[poadeleted20]

Yes, and this goes to the OPs original question, after the FAF, you are not going to get other distances called for you unless the are noted RADAR. The timer needs to be running.

I agree that the timer needs to be running, but don't ever count on a fix being called by ATC just because it's noted as RADAR -- if you need that fix called, make sure you've coordinated that callout with the controller.

 

[\__[Ô]__/]

I agree that the timer needs to be running, but don't ever count on a fix being called by ATC just because it's noted as RADAR -- if you need that fix called, make sure you've coordinated that callout with the controller.

Sure, I was just wondering without DME am I required to do that coordination in order to legally fly the approach, or is just being in radar contact sufficient to satisfy the "radar required" condition?

From my own understanding and some of the replies, it seems the answer is the latter.

 

[gismo]

Sure, I was just wondering without DME am I required to do that coordination in order to legally fly the approach, or is just being in radar contact sufficient to satisfy the "radar required" condition?

From my own understanding and some of the replies, it seems the answer is the latter.

If ATC doesn't call the FAF crossing you can't legally descend (e.g. by using a portable GPS) to the MDA and would have to fly the miss. It's in your best interest to make a specific request but I don't think you've violated any FARs by failing to do so as long as you don't descend.

 

[BillTIZ]

Just in case you forgot: GPS can substitute for DME to identify the fixes

Yes, if the fix is loaded into the data base. In the OP example the DME is on the localizer frequency. I have experienced that certain IFR gps units do not have percision ILS approaches loaded and the fix on the approach would not be loaded.

 

[midlifeflyer]

If ATC doesn't call the FAF crossing you can't legally descend (e.g. by using a portable GPS) to the MDA and would have to fly the miss. It's in your best interest to make a specific request but I don't think you've violated any FARs by failing to do so as long as you don't descend.

Depends if you are flying the ILS or the LOC. On the example approach you need the call for EYUCE in order to descend to the 2800' glide slope intercept altitude but nor for the GS intercept itself. For the LOC you'd need the call for both EYUCE and the FAF at CULCA (although it would be nice to have to cross-check the altitude).

 

[poadeleted20]

Sure, I was just wondering without DME am I required to do that coordination in order to legally fly the approach, or is just being in radar contact sufficient to satisfy the "radar required" condition?

From my own understanding and some of the replies, it seems the answer is the latter.

I'm with Gismo. Just being in "radar contact" is not sufficient for determining location at a RADAR fix so you can step down or start a timer -- the controller must explicitly call your passage of the fix on the radio. However, if radar is required only for procedure entry (as opposed to fix identification), then receiving vectors to final fills that particular square. So, the answer to your question is neither "yes" nor "no", but rather "it depends on why you need that DME/RADAR".

For example, for the ILS 28 at BWI, if you have the GS working, you don't need to identify any of those fixes to fly it as an ILS, but radar is still required to enter the procedure. Why? Since there are no feeder or transition fixes, and no IAF, the only procedure entries are direct to the HURTZ IF and vectors to final. While an Advanced RNAV aircraft (and any IFR GPS meets that requirement) can go direct HURTZ (within certain limits, like a maximum 90 degree turn to final at HURTZ), RNAV-direct anywhere requires radar monitoring, so radar is required for that procedure entry method. If you don't have RNAV, or you're not cleared direct HURTZ, then the only way to enter the procedure is by radar vectors, and again, radar is required. But either way, no explicit call is required -- once you're established on final, you do the rest on your own based on GS intercept to start down and arrival at DA to start your missed.

OTOH, if GS is not available (either yours or BWI's is down) and you are flying that approach as a LOC-only, then you must as a minimum identify JURTI, and if you lack DME/GPS, that requires an explicit call from Potomac (or BWI Tower, which is a "radar tower" and so can call that RADAR fix to you) to tell you that you're at JURTI so you can start the clock for missed approach timing and leave 2000 for your S-LOC MDA of 820 (there being no way to identify ZIXUS for the lower MDA without either DME or GPS since ZIXUS is not a RADAR fix). And, as I said, if you don't remind them of your non-DME/non-GPS status, odds are they won't catch the fact that they have to call JURTI to you, and the last thing anyone says may be "Cessna 123 is four miles from JURTI, turn left heading 3000, maintain 2000 until established, cleared LOC 28 approach" followed by "Cessna 123, contact tower 119.4" with no further mention of JURTI -- which would leave you motoring along at 2000 feet not knowing when to start the timer or when to leave 2000 feet.

 

[\__[Ô]__/]

I believe I understand now.

So for the example I posted (ILS or LOC 12 at ALO): http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1404/00945IL12.PDF

If doing the LOC approach, radar call outs are required at EYUCE to descend to CULCA and then a call out at CULCA to descend to the MDA

If doing the ILS with an entry via the hold in lieu of a procedure turn, a radar call out is required to identify where to start the hold

If doing the ILS with vectors to final, no radar callouts are required and the glide slope can be followed from 3400 down to the DA.

Is all this correct?

 

[Clip4]

I believe I understand now.

So for the example I posted (ILS or LOC 12 at ALO): http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1404/00945IL12.PDF

If doing the LOC approach, radar call outs are required at EYUCE to descend to CULCA and then a call out at CULCA to descend to the MAP

If doing the ILS with an entry via the hold in lieu of a procedure turn, a radar call out is required to identify where to start the hold

If doing the ILS with vectors to final, no radar callouts are required and the glide slope can be followed from 3400 down to the DA.

Is all this correct?

Yes, you got it, but on the LOC you will descend to the MDA, not the MAP. It is a dive and drive approach. You must time the LOC approach to ID the MAP.

 

[\__[Ô]__/]

Yes, you got it, but on the LOC you will descend to the MDA, not the MAP. It is a dive and drive approach. You must time the LOC approach to ID the MAP.

Oops. You're right, that's what I meant. Good catch.

 

[NoHeat]

If you were under the hood, without an IFR flight plan that would specify your equipment type, would you expect approach to call out the Radar fix, without your asking?

I ask because I've flown the approach identified by the OP, the ILS 12 at KALO, under the hood. I don't recall approach calling my position differently from an ILS approach elsewhere, but maybe I've just forgotten.

 

[poadeleted20]

If you were under the hood, without an IFR flight plan that would specify your equipment type, would you expect approach to call out the Radar fix, without your asking?

No, I would not expect them to provide IFR services to a VFR aircraft without request. And as I said above, I wouldn't "expect" them to provide the callout even if I was IFR, i.e., I would definitely tell them I need the callout(s) before commencing the approach. Further, if you're doing practice approaches under VFR, they may respond to your request by telling they're too busy (BTDT with Detroit Approach on the PTK LOC BC 27 linked above).

 

[NoHeat]

Further, if you're doing practice approaches under VFR, they may respond to your request by telling they're too busy.

Too busy? Ha ha!

As always, you sound so sure of yourself, but clearly you have never practiced approaches at the airport in question, KALO. It is a sleepy Class D drome with its own lightly-used Approach. They have two daily outbound airline flights. I've never been more welcome, flying practice approaches VFR. Just haven't done it recently enough to remember exactly what they say on the LOC 12 approach.

 

[azure]

Too busy? Ha ha!

As always, you sound so sure of yourself, but clearly you have never practiced approaches at the airport in question, KALO. It is a sleepy Class D drome with its own lightly-used Approach. They have two daily outbound airline flights. I've never been more welcome, flying practice approaches VFR. Just haven't done it recently enough to remember exactly what they say on the LOC 12 approach.

I think Ron was talking in general, and certainly wasn't thinking about ALO. He's spot on as far as PTK and DTW Approach are concerned: VFR traffic is treated as lower priority, and the airspace is pretty busy.

 

[ChrisK]

I think Ron was talking in general, and certainly wasn't thinking about ALO. He's spot on as far as PTK and DTW Approach are concerned: VFR traffic is treated as lower priority, and the airspace is pretty busy.

Does PTK often deny practice approaches? On my singular trip, they were quite accommodating except for my lack of preparation as to parking.

 

[poadeleted20]

Too busy? Ha ha!

As always, you sound so sure of yourself, but clearly you have never practiced approaches at the airport in question, KALO. It is a sleepy Class D drome with its own lightly-used Approach. They have two daily outbound airline flights. I've never been more welcome, flying practice approaches VFR. Just haven't done it recently enough to remember exactly what they say on the LOC 12 approach.

That may be so at KALO, but it is not so everywhere. I have done this on the aforementioned KPTK LOC 27, and that is exactly what Detroit Approach said. As a result, I had to use my handheld GPS to call ERNST to the trainee. Same thing other places, too. So, if you're doing practice approaches under VFR, my actual experience says it's possible they will, but it's also possible they won't.

 

[poadeleted20]

Does PTK often deny practice approaches?

In my two experiences giving IR training in the Detroit area, PTK Tower never denied a practice approach under VFR, although when Rwy 9 was active, they did break us off the LOC 27 approach at about 2 miles. However, Detroit Approach often declined to provide vectors to final to any practice approach at PTK under VFR, and only once out of several times was willing to call ERNST for the LOC 27. Under IFR, Detroit was more cooperative, but that creates other issues while trying to conduct training.

 

[azure]

Does PTK often deny practice approaches? On my singular trip, they were quite accommodating except for my lack of preparation as to parking.

It doesn't happen too often, but they do sometimes refuse. More often you have to wait for service, or are vectored way off into Podunkville to make way for heavies. I've never needed them to call out a RADAR fix, but seeing as that is kind of unusual and requires a fair amount of attention on their part, I can easily imagine them refusing to do it when you're not IFR.

 

[Palmpilot]

...As always, you sound so sure of yourself...

I don't think the use of the word "may" in the post you were responding to is an example of sounding sure of oneself!