smartt1982 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 107 posts, RR: 0 Posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1300 times:
Hello,
Any input on the interpretation of this chart at all. Just really curious in that it says DME, VOR required. Silly point but which DME is it specifying or does it mean both?.
The ARC is based off the LAW VOR which has a DME (What if it was U/S, my understanding isthat you could not perform that procedure in IFR with no radar, technically of course) but the ILS is based on the DME from the ILS DME POZ.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 17877 posts, RR: 59 Reply 1, posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1295 times:
Quoting smartt1982 (Thread starter): Just really curious in that it says DME, VOR required. Silly point but which DME is it specifying or does it mean both?.
That's for your aircraft, not any ground equipment. You must be capable of receiving DME and VOR signals (the one exception to that would be where it says RADAR REQUIRED - that's an ATC requirement). Why DME is required is obvious - why they would put VOR equipment as required is a bit strange, since I don't know of any ILS-only equipment and thus you'd need a VOR receiver to track the localizer anyway. Perhaps that's just the Polish aviation authorities being redundant, and Jepp will do so as well.
When dealing with approach charts, any navaid that you plan on using for the approach is going to need to be operative. So if you're getting vectors, then you don't need LAW to be operative. If you can navigate off an FMS database, then you only need the localizer and its DME component to be operative (and you might not need the DME, depending on your FMS setup), since you can do the arc and the missed approach to SZE off the FMS.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
Fly2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1287 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 1): why they would put VOR equipment as required is a bit strange, since I don't know of any ILS-only equipment and thus you'd need a VOR receiver to track the localizer anyway.
They probably put it there because of the arc to reference the appropriate radials.
dogbreath From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2008, 193 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (3 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1243 times:
If cleared direct ARBUR then cleared for the ILS 28, you'd need the LAW VOR and DME to conduct the approach from waypoint ARBUR. (If the VOR was U/S, then I'd imagine you'd be given vectors to intercept the Localiser)
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 17877 posts, RR: 59 Reply 5, posted (3 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1238 times:
Now that I've had an opportunity to look at the chart in more detail, I have to ask: why the 3,010' and 4,930'? What's wrong with 3,000' or 3,100', or 4,900' or 5,000'? I'm pretty sure that most altitude preselectors can't do tens of feet (ours can, but only for the minimums, and I don't want to be continuously resetting minima on the way down an approach), so why not just set the minimum altitudes at even hundreds of feet?
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 5880 posts, RR: 74 Reply 6, posted (3 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1214 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 1): If you can navigate off an FMS database, then you only need the localizer and its DME component to be operative (and you might not need the DME, depending on your FMS setup), since you can do the arc and the missed approach to SZE off the FMS.
And if you don't have an FMS? The only explanation is that you need the VOR and DME to perform the procedure from the IAF to the FAF... but, I thought it was standard convention that VOR required, doesn't have to be mentioned...
Quoting Mir (Reply 5): so why not just set the minimum altitudes at even hundreds of feet?
Poland still use meters for altitude? Not surprising though, given that it's a former Warsaw Pact country...
Hence the meter conversion table in the chart.
Just had thought on this... maybe because in the past, Warsaw Pact countries had their IAF to FAF segments done by NDBs predominantly, which makes "VOR required" need to be mentioned?
Yes... trivial indeed... or maybe it's just too damn obvious that we think it's trivial?
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
dogbreath From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2008, 193 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (3 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1211 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 5): Now that I've had an opportunity to look at the chart in more detail, I have to ask: why the 3,010' and 4,930'? What's wrong with 3,000' or 3,100', or 4,900' or 5,000'? I'm pretty sure that most altitude preselectors can't do tens of feet (ours can, but only for the minimums, and I don't want to be continuously resetting minima on the way down an approach), so why not just set the minimum altitudes at even hundreds of feet?
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 6516 posts, RR: 29 Reply 8, posted (3 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1184 times:
Quoting mandala499 (Reply 6): Hence the meter conversion table in the chart.
I would then further Mir's question by asking why 915 and 345 meters? Seem like rather arbitrary numbers. Are they simply heights based on the glideslope and how far you are from the runway?
The spirit of Massachusetts is the spirit of America!
Fabo From Slovakia, joined Aug 2005, 826 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (3 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1181 times:
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 8): I would then further Mir's question by asking why 915 and 345 meters? Seem like rather arbitrary numbers. Are they simply heights based on the glideslope and how far you are from the runway?
Might be a carryover from QFE days (say 830/260m qfe) or some arbitrary number compared to elevation of say obstacles present.
France 1789, Eastern Europe 1989, Northern Africa 2011
Fly2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (3 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1157 times:
Quoting Fabo (Reply 9):
Might be a carryover from QFE days (say 830/260m qfe) or some arbitrary number compared to elevation of say obstacles present.
Pretty sure it's obstacles. I'm looking at charts for PEK right now and they have the nice round numbers in meters until you get lower in altitude in the conversion table.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 17877 posts, RR: 59 Reply 11, posted (3 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1152 times:
Quoting dogbreath (Reply 7): Metric altimetry converted to feet.
Does Poland use meters for altitude? I thought they were on feet.
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 8): why 915 and 345 meters? Seem like rather arbitrary numbers. Are they simply heights based on the glideslope and how far you are from the runway?
The 345 isn't unusual - you'll see numbers like that inside the FAF all the time (especially on continuous descent non-precision approaches like this one, which incidentally take a lot of work to monitor properly). I don't really get the 915 - that's far enough out that they should be able to bump it up to 925 or 950 without too much trouble. But it's their approach, so they can do with it what they want.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
They are additional aids needed for the designed approach, the DME is required for the altitude checks for the ILS and LOC, the minimum DME that is required is POZ. The VOR (CZE) is needed as it is the aid used for the missed approach.
When cleared for the LOC/ILS RW 28, the ATC clearance limit is to conduct the approach, and if necessary then to carry out the published missed approach to CZE and to enter the hold. In the event of a communications failure and the pilots were not get visual, the ATC expectation is that they aircraft would carry out the published missed approach procedure and to enter the hold at CZE, hence CZE is required.
A number of airports they have a number of ILS charts for the same runway, these are normally designated as “ILZ Y”, “ILS Z”, the difference between these charts is normally the aids used, especially for the missed approach.
Quoting smartt1982 (Thread starter): Silly point but which DME is it specifying or does it mean both?.
It is POZ, this chart is for two approaches on one plate, the LOC approach FAF, DMA/altitude checks are from POZ, and for the ILS/LOC IF is also based upon POS. It would be possible to be vectored or via RNAV to join the approach without the LAW VOR or DME.
Quoting smartt1982 (Thread starter): The ARC is based off the LAW VOR which has a DME (What if it was U/S, my understanding isthat you could not perform that procedure in IFR with no radar, technically of course) but the ILS is based on the DME from the ILS DME POZ.
An RNAV/GNSS equipped aircraft could fly that approach with either the LAW VOR or the LAW DME being unserviceable.
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 8):
I would then further Mir's question by asking why 915 and 345 meters? Seem like rather arbitrary numbers. Are they simply heights based on the glideslope and how far you are from the runway?
The 915m is used as the altitude for the FAF on the LOC. The 1140' at 2.6 DME POZ is an altimeter check, when it is very cold for example if an altimeter error is detected at 2.6DME, this should be added to the MDA.
mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 5880 posts, RR: 74 Reply 13, posted (3 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1117 times:
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 8): I would then further Mir's question by asking why 915 and 345 meters?
Well, yes... to add to:
Quoting Fabo (Reply 9): Might be a carryover from QFE days (say 830/260m qfe) or some arbitrary number compared to elevation of say obstacles present.
Looking at Lido charts, it shows that the following conversions...
4930ft = 1500m, minimum segment altitude between IAF and IF.
3010ft = 915m, minimum segment altitude between IF and FAF.
1120ft = 341m, glideslope altitude at D2.6 POZ (1140ft = 345m, glideslope altitude at D2.6 POZ on Jepp)
590ft = 179m, Decision Altitude.
Not so arbitrary anymore is it?
Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 107 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 17877 posts, 
From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 5880 posts, 
From Slovakia, joined Aug 2005, 826 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
