ILS DME
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The clue might be here
- If they are not 'cheap' then you are being ripped off
If you wish to PM me a link to dropbox or whatever I will post for you.
company came back and said that LIDO is not very consistent in their charting.
If you wish to PM me a link to dropbox or whatever I will post for you.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite honestly i wouldnt read out of that chart that my DME receiver has to be operable as the relevant DME distances are backed up by RNAV waypoints which would be coded in the database for that approach.
However, as the DME is based on the LOC frequency there shouldn't be that big a problem to begin with as tuning of the ILS gives both the ILS and the DME information unlike EDDP where you would have to tune the ILS and another navaid to receive both the ILS and the DME, which is difficult to do with just two pilot tuneable nav receivers as both are needed for the ILS.
However, as the DME is based on the LOC frequency there shouldn't be that big a problem to begin with as tuning of the ILS gives both the ILS and the DME information unlike EDDP where you would have to tune the ILS and another navaid to receive both the ILS and the DME, which is difficult to do with just two pilot tuneable nav receivers as both are needed for the ILS.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as tuning of the ILS gives both the ILS and the DME information
flyburg - having seen the chart, I repeat - it is a company problem. They MUST make clear to crews how to interpret the charts with which you are provided. I E IF 'CAT1 DME' is to be interpreted as DME required or 'where RNAV waypoints are charted and coded in the FMC database, RNAV may be substituted' etc etc. I cannot interpret that chart. We can guess, pontificate and surmise all day and night and not be 'right'. Yes, it is perfectly practical and safe at EHEH on that procedure given the required ANP, but as I posted before, the ONLY correct answer is in your Ops Manual. I assume you have diligently ploughed through all LIDO chart guidance material and there is no clue?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I have, unfortunately, the wording in the legend are ambiguous.
I left it at the company. I started the discussion here in hope of getting some input from other LIDO users but I'll just wait for the official answer.
Thanks all for the input!!
(and thanks for taking the time posting the chart BOAC).
I left it at the company. I started the discussion here in hope of getting some input from other LIDO users but I'll just wait for the official answer.
Thanks all for the input!!
(and thanks for taking the time posting the chart BOAC).
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a very interesting discussion! I also have to rely on LIDO nowadays, and I agree that it is not always crystal clear how the information should be interpreted. However, one should assume that the published material is based on official documentation such as essentially AIP. Unfortunately, I have previous experience from other manual systems that compliances with the AIP are not always 100%.
If you enter "AIP Netherland" on Google, you will after some clicking find the "Electronic AIS publications" and from there you should be able to find the document "AD 2.EHEH-IAC 21.1" (PDF) describing the "ILS / DME Y" including "GP INOP".
Even in this (more or less) official document the EH-waypoints are described (including coordinates). In fact, also the coding of the FMS NDB is described in the text pages (which you as a pilot rarely has a reason to care about). However, what is interesting is Note 2 on the IAC, namely - "Given EH-waypoints beyond the FAF must be considered to be supplementary information to the published non-precision final approach (see also page EHEH AD 2.22)."
To me, this sounds like the EH-waypoints officially are for guidance (or awareness) only after the FAF, which harmonizes with an official requirement for DME. Furthermore, note that there is no officially published WP for the MAPt in the document AD 2.EHEH-IAC 21.1, but the reference is "THR 0.2 EHO." I.e. you need DME to "officially" determine the MAPt, while LIDO has the WP "RW21" on their chart (not 100% consistent with the AIP).
Do you need to be able to determine the MAPt located at the threshold if you fly an ILS approach? The DA is in any case well before the threshold, and a missed approach should be initiated at DA at the latest. In reality, this is unlikely to be a problem, but formally a missed approach shall be flown via the MAPt, located where?
As usual, it is not always easy to get the official theory work together with the everyday practice.
I am looking forward to hear what reply you get from your company!
If you enter "AIP Netherland" on Google, you will after some clicking find the "Electronic AIS publications" and from there you should be able to find the document "AD 2.EHEH-IAC 21.1" (PDF) describing the "ILS / DME Y" including "GP INOP".
Even in this (more or less) official document the EH-waypoints are described (including coordinates). In fact, also the coding of the FMS NDB is described in the text pages (which you as a pilot rarely has a reason to care about). However, what is interesting is Note 2 on the IAC, namely - "Given EH-waypoints beyond the FAF must be considered to be supplementary information to the published non-precision final approach (see also page EHEH AD 2.22)."
To me, this sounds like the EH-waypoints officially are for guidance (or awareness) only after the FAF, which harmonizes with an official requirement for DME. Furthermore, note that there is no officially published WP for the MAPt in the document AD 2.EHEH-IAC 21.1, but the reference is "THR 0.2 EHO." I.e. you need DME to "officially" determine the MAPt, while LIDO has the WP "RW21" on their chart (not 100% consistent with the AIP).
Do you need to be able to determine the MAPt located at the threshold if you fly an ILS approach? The DA is in any case well before the threshold, and a missed approach should be initiated at DA at the latest. In reality, this is unlikely to be a problem, but formally a missed approach shall be flown via the MAPt, located where?
As usual, it is not always easy to get the official theory work together with the everyday practice.
I am looking forward to hear what reply you get from your company!
