Instrument landing system localizer off?
-
Again, you are mixing things!
On one side, you talk about ILS (instruments procedures implying IMC conditions), and then, on the other side about visual recovery using HSI just to help to acquire visually the field and help for runway alignment!
No, you just do not understand.
What you didn’t said is that you are doing this on non Radio nav equiped airfield.
Anyway … You can’t because:To perform a proper ILS you have to validate the glide, hence, you need the TACAN distance. You can’t (or must not) perform an instument prodecure using the wong references.
This is illegal and unsafe (not only for you but for the others)
Using a GPS fix as a TACAN to perform an instrument recovery should be an ultimate “solution” if no other choices…
A “good pilot” will divert to a suitable IFR field before being trapped into that situation.In case of VFR (visual) recovery, you do not need to do this.
… Caper, you still don’t trust us!? we are not trying to confuse you.
1. I want to see if using HSI NAV mode was ok for a VFR approach on a field that has no beacon, ILS, ATC. I guess it’s still a no or not necessary.
2. I did understand if glideslope include course correction.
3. I said to cross reference several times. I would want to abandon the ILS LOC bar.
4. you never been trapped, you never flown F4AF combat.Why did god put NAV mode on my HSI? No beacons during war time. <shrug>In 90’s GPS was not approve by the FAA for anything having to do with a/c. Funny how in the 80’s EGI/INS/GPS was intergraded into the F-16’s navigation system.</shrug>
-
In 90’s GPS was not approve by the FAA for anything having to do with a/c. Funny how in the 80’s EGI/INS/GPS was intergraded into the F-16’s navigation system.
What’s FAA regulations got to do with Military Flying during time of conflict or training in military airspace? While transiting through civilian airspace yes FAA rules and equipment standards apply - hence why the F-16 has these systems. However, it is highly unlikely that in a combat situation the other side is going to leave you with their navigation aids to help you bomb them. Thus military aircraft also have systems that the FAA don’t approve for use in civil airspace so that they can do their job with more precision than is available through dead-reckoning navigation.
-
Caper, if you want to fly VFR, then you dont need the HSI. Use your mark ones, they will be perfectly fine.
Technically speaking military aircraft are not bound by FAA regulations, but they are bound by air force regulations… which are often just as restrictive (as far as Ive seen anyway. Im no expert on the topic - yet).
You dont understand DJ, as the STPT created was used for course, and altitude was guessed at for the approach.
-
What he did is not a pseudo ILS, but a pseudo TACAN approache whith alt checks based on distances … Any cases, this was illegal and dangerous (no way for him to know what are the actual obstacles clearance during his final) … But had no other choices.
DJ said it was illegal.
All I know is the FAA did not want anything to do with a GPS approach/departure system for peace time rotorwing.
-
Its certainly not in accordance with the air force regs Ive read.
Are you trying to suggest DJ was wrong when he said it was not legal? Im not sure what point you are trying to make. His jet may or may not have had GPS, but even the brand new F-16s with GPS are not certified to use their GPS for navigation in IFR. That includes VFR-on-top flight conditions.
If he was flying VFR (which he was not) then he could have conducted a visual approach, but leaving aside the directives from AFI11-202 which state that flight in USAF aircraft is to be conducted in IFR to the maximum extent possible, you have the freaking monsoon sandstorm conditions which made VFR impossible to maintain on such an approach.
-
Caper, I think we can’t understand each other because of
- my limited english skills
- your limited knowlegdes about air flight rules and regulations
Was “illegal” because : was flying an unpublished instrument approach.
Trapped: bad or miss evaluation of the situation leading into a uncomfortable position (already outside the flight rules, now, it is no more a question of flight rules but to figure out how to stay alive => very degraded situation … Will have to explain why we have felt into this situation.)
-
If I understand DJ, the STPT was only used for glideslope and not for course.
Not, the opposite actualy.
Only the couse, unable to have a glide path guidance, hence, not an ILS, but rather like a TACAN approach. (Since markpoint was on the threshold, we can say, an “on axis non precision approach”)
-
All I know is the FAA did not want anything to do with a GPS approach/departure system for peace time rotorwing.
It is not only a question of yes or no … It must be performed with certain conditions.
I my RL job, I can create (I have the right) my own autonomous procedure, but certainly not using a mark-point and not somewhere where procedures already exists.
Talking about unprepared runways (sand stipe in the desert as exemple) … GPS coordinates has to be validated and crosschecked several time using two different means (ex, charts and global mapper) and followed by a real time recce.
If there is no obstacles around the field, no prob, it is easy (on Google Earth, look for “Kidal” in Mali or “Mao” in Chad) … But when there is relief or antenas, it is not the same story (look for Tessalit in Mali, or “Bardai” or “Zouar” in Chad.) -
imo it does sound like a pseudo ILS approach. A TACAN approach does not do glideslope. I’m sure he knew there was not any obstacles. It was not like he was landing at Splits AB.
If there is no obstacles around the field, no prob, it is easy (on Google Earth, look for “Kidal” in Mali or “Mao” in Chad) … But when there is relief or antenas, it is not the same story (look for Tessalit in Mali, or “Bardai” or “Zouar” in Chad.)
The GPS approach/departure system that we proposed was to dodge obstacles. ex:
Do you know Stevie Ray Von? After his last concert he jump into a helicopter with 3 other great artist and they flew into 300ft man-make snow ski mountain. It was the only hill within 100nm. Our system would of saved their lives. -
Its not ILS, because there is no glideslope information… you need to have something giving you a glideslope to reference.
Its not tacan, but its LIKE a tacan approach, because you step down in levels as you get closer, rather than flying a constant descent.
-
He used the HUD and mark STPT for glideslope information.
How do you do a TACAN approach are they inline with runway? In F4 the TACAN beacon is off to the side of the runway.
-
Parsing words to try to support a particular point of view …. or ignore the point of view of others.
It is 100% obvious to eveyone that a markpoint does not ‘transmit’ anything … no direction nor any glideslope. It’s just a reference mark on the ground.
Can you use OTHER systems to fly to that reference mark? Yes. Can you use and HSI to set a heading that may indicate a runway at that reference mark? Yes. Can you drop gear, align to the HSI or runway heading and put your HUD 3* reference line on the nav diamond that represents that mark? Yes.
Does all that get to a position to land? Assuming all is ‘good’, sure, maybe. Is it ‘proper’? No.
Did the mark give you course and glideslope. No, not really. It is after all just an imaginary mark on the ground.
-
Thats why a TACAN approach is a non precision approach. You cant use it like ILS. You need to get visual on the runway much earlier. TACAN beacons are not typically lined up with the runway, no.
…Id need to go find out what exactly the minimums are for a tacan approach, but its a hell of a lot more than 200 feet. The approaches published in your install folder are ILS approaches, but if you had no tacan and flew the approach normally until intercepting the glideslope, that would be a TACAN approach.
The HUD is not certified as a primary flight instrument (Even if it is claimed to be on brand new jets - and I do not know about that - but it was definitely not the case in this situation), and you cannot use the HUD and a STPT diamond to accurately determine your position above or below a glideslope. Yes, it worked, but he could not have referenced the HUD to see that he was for example 150 feet low, or 100 feet too high, for instance. Incidentally, neither are the MFDs.
-
The GPS approach/departure system that we proposed was to dodge obstacles. ex:
Do you know Stevie Ray Von? After his last concert he jump into a helicopter with 3 other great artist and they flew into 300ft man-make snow ski mountain. It was the only hill within 100nm. Our system would of saved their lives.I’ve never said the opposite. You definitively do not understand what we are trying to explain you. (Actually, i think that you do not want do understand)
I give up.
-
…. you cannot use the HUD and a STPT diamond to accurately determine your position above or below a glideslope. Yes, it worked, but he could not have referenced the HUD to see that he was for example 150 feet low, or 100 feet too high, for instance. …
Sorry, lost me. Did someone say you could use a mark point for a precision approach?
-
This post is deleted! -
Parsing words to try to support a particular point of view …. or ignore the point of view of others.
It is 100% obvious to eveyone that a markpoint does not ‘transmit’ anything … no direction nor any glideslope. It’s just a reference mark on the ground.
Can you use OTHER systems to fly to that reference mark? Yes. Can you use and HSI to set a heading that may indicate a runway at that reference mark? Yes. Can you drop gear, align to the HSI or runway heading and put your HUD 3* reference line on the nav diamond that represents that mark? Yes.
Does all that get to a position to land? Assuming all is ‘good’, sure, maybe. Is it ‘proper’? No.
Did the mark give you course and glideslope. No, not really. It is after all just an imaginary mark on the ground.
The mark stpt is placed on the end of the runway. You can’t see the runway but you can see the mark stpt.
Knowing this all you have to do is place the diamond on the pitch ladder. Put on 2.5 or 3* you got glideslope.I don’t know if he used the HSI. I’ve done it with and without HSI on impossible xwind te/
-
Sorry, lost me. Did someone say you could use a mark point for a precision approach?
How do you do a TACAN approach are they inline with runway? In F4 the TACAN beacon is off to the side of the runway.
No, I was just pointing out that its not like a TACAN approach is a precision approach. ILS is considered a precision approach. If we could get ATC to talk us in like in Precision Approach RADAR, that would be another example.
He used the HUD and mark STPT for glideslope information.
I was also wanting to point out that using the HUD and location of a STPT diamond in the HUD does not constitute glideslope information.
-
I was also wanting to point out that using the HUD and location of a STPT diamond in the HUD does not constitute glideslope information.
not legally. but for a non precision approach……
-
The mark stpt is placed on the end of the runway. You can’t see the runway but you can see the mark stpt.
Knowing this all you have to do is place the diamond on the pitch ladder. Put on 2.5 or 3* you got glideslope.I don’t know if he used the HSI. I’ve done it with and without HSI on impossible xwind te/
No, you know your relative position from the runway. This is not your position relative to the glideslope, and it is once again subject to a fair bit of error from a variety of sources.
No one is arguing about the possibility of doing so, Caper. The only argument is whether it is an acceptable practice for it to be a valid approach - and no one is arguing that either, aside from you.