ILS DME

[flyburg]

Frankly admit, I'm at a loss

When using LIDO charts, the header says ILSDME

The minima box specifies cat1dme

are you legally permitted to fly the ILS when the DME is inop? There are coded FMS waypoints to establish the equivalent position!

Are you in the planning fase allowed to plan this airport as an alternate? In the profile box it has timing to determine the mapt.

What I'm asking, if it says in the header ILSDME is the DME required or are you allowed to apply the inop component table and substitute the inop DME by FMS position

[BOAC]

inop component table

- what is that and what does it say?

[MCDU2]

Post a chart or tell us which airfield and runway. Also is there another dme to use such as off a VOR?

[flyburg]

Eindhoven EHEH

[BOAC]

How do you propose to determine MAP?

[flyburg]

Is that a trick question?

ILS when reaching the DH, loc by timing from the coded FMS waypoint overlaying point D.

That was the question, you can fly it without DME but are you allowed when it says DME in the approach title?

[Piltdown Man]

Hi Flyberg,

I think the the answer you are looking for is in the Lido Legend booklet, page LAT 410 where it states: "If two or more independent NAVAIDs or components thereof are required, they are separated by a ”+” (plus) and the principal NAVAID used for final approach and for the determination of landing minima". As both of Eindhoven's approaches are written as ILS DME Y, your plan of substituting an FMS fix to independently confirm your position is a good one. But it has to be between three and five miles so you can confirm you haven't picked up a false glideslope. Therefore I believe you can use EHEH as an alternate with standard ILS minima when the DME in U/S. But rather interestingly, the NDB DME approaches require the EHV DME to determine crossing altitudes yet the neither of these approaches are written as NDB+DME. I shall ask my colleague tomorrow. Ex Koko's are clever chaps and know most things.

[OhNoCB]

I don't know LIDO charts but on the Navtech I have beside me for Gatwick, the non LVO options are ILS+DME, LOC+DME and Circling. There is also a note to say that aircraft unable to receive the DME will be given RADAR ranges at FAP and 4nm.

Perhaps this is a legal requirement if there is no DME (I don't know).

[flyburg]

Hi PM,

That was my initial thought as well, however, how do you read LAT690 approach minimum sub designator? This suggest that DME is required!

Thanks

[aterpster]

The OP didn't state which ILS at EHEH. Here are both of them:





Here is an ILS in the U.S. that requires DME if the G/S is unavailable. Note that the DME fixes are named, which is FAA policy. Those named fixes can be substituted for DME in an RNAV equipped aircraft:

[BOAC]

Originally Posted by aterp

Those named fixes can be substituted for DME in an RNAV equipped aircraft:

- why does the Jepp not reflect this? It clearly states 'DME Required' which to me is a clear statement. Is that in bold print or is it just the scanned copy?

[Mach Jump]

It's always been my understanding that if both ILS and DME are in the title, then they are both required for the approach, unless there is provision for radar callouts of the significant ranges. I'm not familiar with LIDO charts, but, if the significant points are only identified by DME ranges, then how are you going to cross check the glideslope without DME? I know that some of my colleagues think that GPS range from the threshold is acceptable as 'DME' but I'm not of that opinion.

[MarkerInbound]

BOAC -Jepp does print the restriction in bold. To the OP, I'd say don't go missed.

[aterpster]

BOAC:

- why does the Jepp not reflect this? It clearly states 'DME Required' which to me is a clear statement. Is that in bold print or is it just the scanned copy?

It is in bold print. For all I know a suitable RNAV system may not be an authorized substitution for DME for foreign operators. The Jepp chart is not limited to use by FAA registered aircraft.

Substitution of a suitable RNAV system for DME is authorized for aircraft of U.S. registry under Advisory Circular 90-108, which is available on the FAA's website for download.

[glendalegoon]

arcata/eureka, a very, very foggy place. once used for earliest experiments in blind landings. been there with two different airlines. unique airport!

[BOAC]

The implementation of RNAV approaches appears to be a worldwide muddle with different 'rules'/'excepetions'/'authorisations' etc depending on national and even sometimes company rules. A minefield. Such a shame, since the principle is sound. It would appear the OP simply needs to ask his/her company for the answer rather than PPrune.

[de facto]

If your minima show CAT1 DME ,then DME is required.
If your approach minima can be used with time for example (as a back up) then DME will not be shown next to the approach type.

[BOAC]

If your minima show CAT1 DME ,then DME is required.

- not much help with a Jepp!

[de facto]

His question was ,using LIDO,if minima show CAT1 DME 200ft/550rvr then to legally fly that ILS, DME must be operative.

[flyburg]

De facto,

Actually two questions

1 If DME stated in tittle is DME required?

2 if DME stated in minima box is DME required

This only for lido charts as jeppessen charts seem to use another logic!

Inclined to believe your answer, but a lot of inconsistencies

Look for example at EHEH as I gave, then at nairobi! ILSDME not stated in the title, however, it is stated in the minima box! Several coded FMS waypoints and even a note that missed approach timing is NA. Can I or can I not fly an ILS with the DME inop(obviously not a loc approach since the note says timing not to be used and the only way to identify Missed approach point is DME)?