James Turner wrote:
> On 15 Sep 2009, at 22:59, Thomas Betka wrote:
>
>
>> But each LOC
>> on an airfield has it's own frequency
>>
>
> This is where the problems start:
>
> http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/current/ad/EGPH/EG_AD_2_EGPH_2-1_en.pdf
>
> IVG and ITH share the same frequency -
Dave Culp and I were researching this issue a bit tonight in
#fg_cantene, and it does appear that there are airports where either
end of the runway shares the same LOC frequency for a "front course"
approach. So this would imply that indeed there would have to be a way
for that particular a
Actually those are DMEs.
Look at the approach plate I referenced in the email I just sent--I
just noticed something I missed...this statement:
"Procedure not available without DME I-TH or radar"
It's in the text box towards the top of the plate.
I missed this, because it's generally *not* don
While my aviation expertise does not include foreign approach plates,
there should be some degree of standard between designations world-
wide. Thus I believe those are the designators of either the actual
marker beacons, just off the runway...not the LOC itself. From what I
can tell, there
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 5:11 PM, James Turner wrote:
> The good news is, I think I've come up with a more consistent
> heuristic (to make Curt happy!) than the current one.
>
I'm always happy! (Although I can get really torqued off when people
suggest that I'm not) :-)
Curt.
--
Curtis Olson:
On 15 Sep 2009, at 22:59, Thomas Betka wrote:
> But each LOC
> on an airfield has it's own frequency
This is where the problems start:
http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/current/ad/EGPH/EG_AD_2_EGPH_2-1_en.pdf
IVG and ITH share the same frequency - 108.9Mhz, and there's some
circuit/switch/e
I am confused... what the heck is a "reversible ILS"?
In 25 years as an instrument pilot and over 20 as an instrument
instructor--I've never of such a thing. Localizer beams are not
"reversible." They are horizontally polarized, but not reversible.
Reference the FAA Instrument Flying Handbook
On 15 Sep 2009, at 13:15, John Denker wrote:
> Constructive suggestion: Seriously, unless/until we
> can do a reasonable job of switching the reversible
> ILS, it would be better to not switch it at all. In
> particular, it would be better to just settle on one
> end or the other and stick with
On 09/15/09 03:25, James Turner wrote:
>> I suspect penaltyForNav is broken, probably by me - so that's where I
>> shall look next.
> This is 'fixed' now
Thanks.
> - except it's not.
> penaltyForNav is basically broken - we all know it's broken
> conceptually, but it's also broken in prac
9 matches
Mail list logo
