Just adding to your info:When not radar surveyed, on the IFR plate/enroute map waypoints indicated solid and all VORs I believe required the pilot to acknowledge arrival to ATC. I think that is actually the term checkpoint (aka reporting point) (checking in) as opposed to just a waypoint.I do not think FS ATC has provision for pilot reporting position.I use Radar Contact so I'm not sure.

Thanks once again!The reason I asked about those particular fixes(NARBO, WINNT) is that they are specifically identified as RADAR fixes(see the plate in Geofa's post near the begnning of this thread). Navaids are not usually identified like this. If one needed GPS, I would have expected the plate to state that GPS was required.BR,Frank

Thanks, Rudi.I take it, though, that the plate in this thread(ILS RWY4R KBOS) is NOT a vectored approach....or is it? As I said above, you don't normally see waypoints with the RADAR label attached.BR,Frank

Unless you're talking about PAR or ASR approaches, there is no such thing as a "vectored approach". All IFR procedures and routes are designed to be completable under non-radar and under non-communications. That is the foundation of IFR flight. ATC Radar is just a bonus. The only meaning you should attach to the the label of "radar" on those fixes on the 4R approach is that they are allowed to be identified by ATC radar. That is, if you don't have the necessary DME equipment to identify them otherwise, you can still have the controller _tell_ you when you are at those fixes. Therefore, if you do not have DME and if the approach facility has closed for the day, there would then be no way for you to identify those fixes. That is all that it means.

Great, Kevin! I'd say that clears that one up. :-)Many thanks,Frank

I was just speaking in general mostly about enroute gps waypoints.Note that the plate specifies radar OR dme. The inbound vertical profile shows dme fixes from I-BOS. I suppose if your DME was out you could request or they might volunteer (but don't count on it - they are busy) radar fixes from approach but if they don't agree then you would have to use an alternate. Thanks for calling my attention to it.

Are there any civilian PAR radars left in the US? Just curious. I also would think the minimums would be higher than ILS.As for vectoring I was referring to the approach phase and off flight path return to path for enroute. Sorry for the misuse of terminology.It has been a long time since I've done a PAR approach during training (civilian), but I guess a few non-military airports were equipped at one time. It was at KMSP in the early 70's and that does have some military gear there. I guess it is more common (or was) with military bases and perhaps with high minimums for the initial slope to a carrier.For the OP it is not uncommon that approach ATC radar be located off the field to some degree. The antenna is not too far to insure scanning range but must be located to scan perhaps forty or fifty miles, maybe more. That radar system may provide guidance and seperation for many airports in the wide area. PAR would require the antenna be placed closer to the runway and would serve a smaller area. With the development of mode C (altitude reporting) transponders that give your vertical profile to ATC, perhaps the extra expense requirements of PAR radar systems reduced the depoyment. Of course the mode C altitude reporting is only as good as your altimeter setup. It would not be used in place of a glideslope.I note the posted KBOS plate does include the timing tables from the FAF to the MAP and, perhaps because of accuracy problems, I've never noticed a DME fix for the MAP. The altitude of the MAP and its location would change of course depending if you were doing a precision (ILS) or nonprecision (LOC only).

Just checked my copy of the DOD FLIP (June 10th version--out of date on 5 Aug04). PAR minimums are 200-1/2 at the majority of fields I found it at (only checked about 6 of the 22 volumes though). Did find one PAR approach (Rwy 29,Dobbins ARB/Atlanta NAS) where it was 100-1/4 (CAT ABCDE). Runway 11 though has the PAR at 400-3/4. Paul

For fun I looke at Ellsworth AFB ILS 13. It is Radar or DME.There is one radar fix at the FAF. If the GS were inop, then it is a timed approach to the MAP as indicated in the table (without DME).You can get there from here:http://www.naco.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=naco/online/d_tppand the specific approache is here:http://www.naco.faa.gov/digital_tpp_search.asp?fldIdent=&fld_ident_type=FAA&fldCity=&fldAPName=ELLSWORTH+AFB&st=SD&fullName=South+Dakota&ver=0409&eff=9-2-2004&end=9-30-2004&btnSubmit=Complete+Searchhttp://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0409/00343I13.PDFRelax -- it is a 12,000 foot runway.As an aside, I think it was last month or so that a civilian airliner landed here mistakenly instead of nearby Rapid City. The pilots are being disciplined by dismissal but that is being appealed. They must have been visual and Ellsworth does stand out against Rapid City.

Yes. Thanks very much, ronzie.BR,Frank

I'm probably talking too much about this but I do have one comment regarding GPS. While you may not have a certified GPS approach available it can't hurt if sensibly interpreted to use GPS as a tool to help maintain your orientation. You should learn to be able to work without it but I find it helps in estimating when the localizer merge will occur such as when approach may be vectoring you on a long intercept leg.I keep the range out enough to see the airport symbol (usually 20 nm) and also keep my eye on the bearing readout. (The GPS emulated I use is the Apollo 50 - no approach plates.) As it approaches the inbound LOC course I know to pay closer attention to the CDI.Also, yet another point, is the availability of radar for an approach offers a comforting aspect that is is available as an alternate and you can be monitored by ATC all the way down. This offers an out of airplane second a third party to hopefully note if you wander off incorrectly and issue a correction to you but again, don't count on it. The third party backup perhaps had it been available closer to the surface would have possibly prevented the noteworthy Wellstone crash just over a year ago I believe in Evelyth(?) Minnesota that was reported as pilot error - of two pilots in a chartered King Air. Duluth radar did track them but was probably too far away to catch the error which as I recall happened at too low an altitude. I am not sure if Duluth ATC knew the pilots final intentions at this uncontrolled airport -- but that is another story.Remember in many cases radar can not follow you to close to the surface but where it is offered it is nice to have that backup.Regarding the airliner that landed at Ellsworth AFB instead of Rapid City, SD, if they had been using all available info such as NAVAID ID, GPS or location symbols on their EHSI, I would think two pro pilots would have caught the error even while perhaps being visual sighting the wrong location. They were probably going for RWY 32, about 6500 feet, and almost in line loosely with Ellsworth's single 11,000 foot runway. Scary.