Yet Another DME Required Thread

luvflyin

luvflyin

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
May 8, 2015
Messages
17,444
Location
Santa Barbara, CA
Display Name
Luvflyin
Home Airfield
KVUO
There is a way to do procedure entry on this Approach without DME. That would be via the Feeder from PIA to TUNGG.

1783863431569.png
 
On a quick look (so I may well miss something) I don't see a way to identify NINIC without DME. And while I guess in theory, find TUNGG by NDB or by the intersection of the PIA R112° and the localizer, I wonder what if there are TERPS requirements are for do that for this purpose. Or may it's just that it gets the note if any of the IAFs or transitions require it, so the fact that NINIC requires DME covers everyhting.


Harkening for a moment to the closed (I really can't figure out why) thread about what name to use for an airport for communication purposes, do you use "Peoria" for communications (as in the Tower box) or "General Downing"?
 
midlifeflyer said:
On a quick look (so I may well miss something) I don't see a way to identify NINIC without DME. And while I guess in theory, find TUNGG by NDB or by the intersection of the PIA R112° and the localizer, I wonder what if there are TERPS requirements are for do that for this purpose. Or may it's just that it gets the note if any of the IAFs or transitions require it, so the fact that NINIC requires DME covers everyhting.


Harkening for a moment to the closed (I really can't figure out why) thread about what name to use for an airport for communication purposes, do you use "Peoria" for communications (as in the Tower box) or "General Downing"?
Click to expand...
Yeah, ya need it for NINIC, but that’s not the only available entry. TUNGG is not an Intersection, the angle is to narrow, I don’t recall the exact requirement. The Feeder is direct to the Compass Locator. I was looking at PIA because it was mentioned in I think a different thread than that one. Anytime I look at an airport for anything I always check out the Approaches. It’s kinda like a hobby.
 
luvflyin said:
Yeah, ya need it for NINIC, but that’s not the only available entry. TUNGG is not an Intersection, the angle is to narrow, I don’t recall the exact requirement. The Feeder is direct to the Compass Locator. I was looking at PIA because it was mentioned in I think a different thread than that one. Anytime I look at an airport for anything I always check out the Approaches. It’s kinda like a hobby.
Click to expand...
I think you are correct about the angle in this case.

In terms of PIA, I might be wrong but when I think of "procedure entry," I think in terms of getting to an IAF, not a non-IAF transition to an IAF.
 
Would finding NINIC via GPS be permissible?
 
Palmpilot said:
Would finding NINIC via GPS be permissible?
Click to expand...
Sure. It's just a point in space in the database. GPS Substitution 101 as discussed in AIM 1-2-3. Load the approach in your IFR GPS, and select it. Since it's not a LOC course or on the FAS , there's not even a "raw data requirement." Hit the D→ button and there you go. (Although an approach-certified GPS is not required for this one).

But once we get past, "I can just do it GPS" or ground-based approaches which require GPS, I find it more useful to discuss ground-based approaches by forgetting about GPS. Not so much about ILS, which many pilots will still use or opt for, but the only time most pilots are likely to fly a LOC, VOR, or other nonprecision ground NAVAID approach is in the case of GPS failure. FWIW, I even bring that into the training environment. While it is legally proper and for many a checkride task to fly an approach like this with GPS in lieu of DME, I would only use it in an airplane with a DME receiver if there were no other option.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
But once we get past, "I can just do it GPS" or ground-based approaches which require GPS, I find it more useful to discuss ground-based approaches by forgetting about GPS. Not so much about ILS, which many pilots will still use or opt for, but the only time most pilots are likely to fly a LOC, VOR, or other nonprecision ground NAVAID approach is in the case of GPS failure. FWIW, I even bring that into the training environment. While it is legally proper and for many a checkride task to fly an approach like this with GPS in lieu of DME, I would only use it in an airplane with a DME receiver if there were no other option.
Click to expand...

Makes sense. Also, there are still rental planes with neither a DME nor an IFR-approved GPS.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Sure. It's just a point in space in the database. GPS Substitution 101 as discussed in AIM 1-2-3. Load the approach in your IFR GPS, and select it. Since it's not a LOC course or on the FAS, there's not even a "raw data requirement." Hit the D→ button and there you go. (Although an approach-certified GPS is not required for this one).

But once we get past, "I can just do it GPS" or ground-based approaches which require GPS, I find it more useful to discuss ground-based approaches by forgetting about GPS. Not so much about ILS, which many pilots will still use or opt for, but the only time most pilots are likely to fly a LOC, VOR, or other nonprecision ground NAVAID approach is in the case of GPS failure. FWIW, I even bring that into the training environment. While it is legally proper and for many a checkride task to fly an approach like this with GPS in lieu of DME, I would only use it in an airplane with a DME receiver if there were no other option.
Click to expand...
I've done a few LOC, VOR, and even a BC approach 121. We didn't have WAAS so sometimes those other approaches have minimums lower than LNAV minimums. That said, RNAV approaches were still second most common after ILS.
 
dmspilot said:
I've done a few LOC, VOR, and even a BC approach 121. We didn't have WAAS so sometimes those other approaches have minimums lower than LNAV minimums. That said, RNAV approaches were still second most common after ILS.
Click to expand...
Those situations definitely exist. My flying club has two G1000 airplanes. One does not have WAAS, so the issue can come up. But even then, the approach sequence is loaded and the extra step is going to green needles or a bearing pointer for the FAS, tasks that you need to do even if the approach did not require DME. I think the more significant "gotcha" for the GPS-dependent pilot is realizing that they still have to turn a HSI course pointer for a VOR (and sometimes for a LOC).
 

midlifeflyer said:
I think you are correct about the angle in this case.

In terms of PIA, I might be wrong but when I think of "procedure entry," I think in terms of getting to an IAF, not a non-IAF transition to an IAF.
Click to expand...
Ok, take the PIA TUNGG Feeder out of the equation. You don’t need DME to locate TUNGG. Just ADF.
 
luvflyin said:
Ok, take the PIA TUNGG Feeder out of the equation. You don’t need DME to locate TUNGG. Just ADF.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I mentioned than in my first comment as one of the things I wasn't sure about from a design standpoint. 10.2 NM doesn't seem very long, but my guess is that it's not within the acceptable usable range for a LOM.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Yeah, I mentioned than in my first comment as one of the things I wasn't sure about from a design standpoint. 10.2 NM doesn't seem very long, but my guess is that it's not within the acceptable usable range for a LOM.
Click to expand...
Yeah, range could be a thing


In aviation, a compass locator is a low-powered non-directional radio beacon (NDB) used in an Instrument Landing System (ILS). These locators have a standard service radius of 15 nautical miles (approx. 17.2 statute miles).
 

Attachments

  • 1783880898758.png
    1783880898758.png
    1 KB · Views: 2
  • 1783880898754.png
    1783880898754.png
    754 bytes · Views: 2
midlifeflyer said:
Yeah, I mentioned than in my first comment as one of the things I wasn't sure about from a design standpoint. 10.2 NM doesn't seem very long, but my guess is that it's not within the acceptable usable range for a LOM.
Click to expand...
The LOM is used to identify the intersection fix. You can use the VOR to get there.
 
Last edited:
dmspilot said:
The LOM is used to identify the intersection fix. You can use the VOR to get there.
Click to expand...
I see you just lined through intersection and called it a fix. It’s actually not a fix either. It is a Navaid. Yeah, I’d use the PIA 112 radial for starters. Once I had the holding heading established on that, then I’d change to using the ADF to homing in on the Locator.

EDIT: It is Fix. @dmspilot

FIX− A geographical position determined by visual reference to the surface, by reference to one or more radio
NAVAIDs, by celestial plotting, or by another navigational device.
 
Last edited:
All of the above (Former Peorian). But 100% of the time it's radar vectors to the localizer....
 
luvflyin said:
I see you just lined through intersection and called it a fix. It’s actually not a fix either. It is a Navaid. Yeah, I’d use the PIA 112 radial for starters. Once I had the holding heading established on that, then I’d change to using the ADF to homing in on the Locator.
Click to expand...
Huh? The FAA calls PI the alternate missed approach fix on that ILS 31 IAP.

All intersections are fixes, but all fixes aren’t intersections.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
Huh? The FAA calls PI the alternate missed approach fix on that ILS 31 IAP.

All intersections are fixes, but all fixes aren’t intersections.
Click to expand...
You’re right, by definition it is a fix.

FIX− A geographical position determined by visual reference to the surface, by reference to one or more radio
NAVAIDs, by celestial plotting, or by another navigational device.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Harkening for a moment to the closed (I really can't figure out why) thread about what name to use for an airport for communication purposes, do you use "Peoria" for communications (as in the Tower box) or "General Downing"?
Click to expand...
Peoria tower. Right there in the communication box. Same applies for ground and clearance delivery, though they only list the callsign once, with the tower frequency.
 
The IFP indicates the note was changed from "DME required" to "DME required for procedure entry" but no older documents are available to figure out what they were thinking when they put that note on in the first place. One can contact the FAA with potential errors; there are links on the IFP page to do so. I contacted them a number of years ago about a mistaken lightning bolt (glideslope intercept) symbol on a localizer-only approach and got a response within 24 hours.
 
dmspilot said:
The IFP indicates the note was changed from "DME required" to "DME required for procedure entry" but no older documents are available to figure out what they were thinking when they put that note on in the first place. One can contact the FAA with potential errors; there are links on the IFP page to do so. I contacted them a number of years ago about a mistaken lightning bolt (glideslope intercept) symbol on a localizer-only approach and got a response within 24 hours.
Click to expand...
I sent an inquiry in. "The equipment required box says DME required for procedure entry. While it would be needed for entry at the IAF NINIC, it would not be for entry at the IAF TUNGG." We'll see what they have to say.
 
luvflyin said:
I sent an inquiry in. "The equipment required box says DME required for procedure entry. While it would be needed for entry at the IAF NINIC, it would not be for entry at the IAF TUNGG." We'll see what they have to say.
Click to expand...
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:

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. It will be corrected on the next procedure amendment.

========================================================
AI-259044
Category: Procedure Design > US Terminal Procedures
Airport: PIA
State: IL
Procedure Name: ILS OR LOC RWY 31
Inquiry: The equipment required box says DME required for procedure entry. While it would be needed for entry at the IAF NINIC, it would not be for entry at the IAF TUNGG.
========================================================
 
luvflyin said:
There is a way to do procedure entry on this Approach without DME. That would be via the Feeder from PIA to TUNGG.
Click to expand...
Are you asking for a non DME or GPS aircraft? If you're in a plane with an IFR certified GPS, this is a non quesiton. If you're in a plane with no GPS and no DME, you can't fly the approach.

NINIC, MKNTY, TUNGG and PIA are all identifiable with GPS, so no DME reciever is required in your plane if you have an IFR GPS. There are some approaches where even if you have a GPS, you sitll must have a DME because there is no Waypoint for the GPS to fly to. But those are becoming rarer and rarer these days.
 
M20K said:
Are you asking for a non DME or GPS aircraft? If you're in a plane with an IFR certified GPS, this is a non quesiton. If you're in a plane with no GPS and no DME, you can't fly the approach.

NINIC, MKNTY, TUNGG and PIA are all identifiable with GPS, so no DME reciever is required in your plane if you have an IFR GPS. There are some approaches where even if you have a GPS, you sitll must have a DME because there is no Waypoint for the GPS to fly to. But those are becoming rarer and rarer these days.
Click to expand...
Approaches that have no DME Fixes that require DME??? Example?
 
dmspilot said:
Like?
Click to expand...
luvflyin said:
Approaches that have no DME Fixes that require DME??? Example?
Click to expand...
With a quick search I found the KRBW ILS Z or LOC Z RWY 23 still shows "GPS and DME required." So in this case it is not a missing Wpt, but still DME required. It is possible that all the ones that just didn't have a fix back inthe day have been revised, but it wouldn't shock me if someone comes up with one local to them.
 
M20K said:
With a quick search I found the KRBW ILS Z or LOC Z RWY 23 still shows "GPS and DME required." So in this case it is not a missing Wpt, but still DME required. It is possible that all the ones that just didn't have a fix back inthe day have been revised, but it wouldn't shock me if someone comes up with one local to them.
Click to expand...
When I see something like this, my first thought is "charting error" because it makes no sense. If you send an inquiry using the gateway, I would not be a bit surprised if they say it's an error, all you need is GPS, and it will be fixed with the next amendment (or when they get around to it). The ones I've seen like this are converted from "pure" ground-based approaches to hybrid approaches which require GPS. Saying "OR" or deleting the DME/ADF/RADAR requirement entirely gets missed. I think I've reported at least 2 or 3. The response has uniformly been similar to this one about the KELM ILS OR OC 24.

1785519974050.png

Me: This approach was at some point modified to add a TAA and to require RNAV-1 GPS in order to enter the procedure at all. Yet ERINN, which is a GPS waypoint on the co-located RNAV 24, specifically requires RADAR, apparently even with GPS availability. Is there a reason for this?​

FAA: Thank you for your inquiry. We agree. I have entered a project for Dec 2024 chart date to fix the issue.​

They haven't bothered to fixed it yet but that's not uncommon with things that are low priority and likely ignored in practice.
 
Last edited:
I have to say, though, that my favorite in the hybrid ILS ("hybrid" is my term) is the HILO for the OLV ILS OR LOC 18

1785521045229.png
 
M20K said:
With a quick search I found the KRBW ILS Z or LOC Z RWY 23 still shows "GPS and DME required." So in this case it is not a missing Wpt, but still DME required. It is possible that all the ones that just didn't have a fix back inthe day have been revised, but it wouldn't shock me if someone comes up with one local to them.
Click to expand...
No reason you need both GPS and ground-based DME. What do you mean by "missing waypoint"?
 
midlifeflyer said:
When I see something like this, my first thought is "charting error" because it makes no sense.
Click to expand...
Peter, for one similar to yours I wrote in about, there's the PBG ILS ORL LOC 35
1785521594142.png

The DME required should not be there. If you look at the full chart, nether should the alternate missed approach fix.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top