I did a bit of digging as I was sure if my memory was correct back in the old days before RNAV arrivals we used to pick up the KLAX 24R LOC way out from the field and it was part of the charted arrival procedure.

As I recall we used to fly it in LOC and use V/S to manually attain the many crossing restrictions on the arrival before intercepting the glideslope at the FAF, which in itself was challenging as ATC would slow you up then speed you up all the way down.

It’s all changed now of course with RNAV, so I’m curious if KLAX have maintained their long range LOCs

I found this interesting conversation on the navigraph forum where someone mentions 24R LOC has an ESV of 85nm !

https://forum.navigraph.com/t/klax-super-localizer/18326

8 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

 

I don't know why you make everything so dramatic LOL

Lets look at your example of LAX runway  ILS 24L it states DME or RADAR required. So DME is not mandatory but optional. In fact, GPS can be used in lieu DME with some limitation which I doubt would affect modern airliners. 

I'm not sure how wide  localizer beam really gets at  37 miles. I assume RNAV equipment will be still required for LNAV separation during simultaneous  approaches like SIPIA or SDPIA. FAF for ILS or LOC 24L is starts 8.3 DME. So you can still shoot it safely with MSFS limitations.

Finally, you do realize you won't be flying ILS approach 37 miles out. Otherwise your FAF and glideslope intercept would be 37 miles out, which clearly not the case!

 

Again and again with you, it is the same problem, looking for a confrontation at any cost and twisting the facts.  I'm afraid that you don't realize that the word mandatory is a synonym for required.  Further clarification for you, "required" and "mandatory" are often used interchangeably and mean something is not optional, but "mandatory" typically implies a formal command from an authority. This is probably much easier to understand than the issues we have with this situation, related to the ILS signals in MSFS2020/2024 and the whole concept of reading and understanding Jeppesen approach charts.  Please, concentrate on helping ASOBO and the sim community versus these unnecessary fights.

20 minutes ago, LRBS said:

Again and again with you, it is the same problem, looking for a confrontation at any cost and twisting the facts.  I'm afraid that you don't realize that the word mandatory is a synonym for required.  Further clarification for you, "required" and "mandatory" are often used interchangeably and mean something is not optional, but "mandatory" typically implies a formal command from an authority. This is probably much easier to understand than the issues we have with this situation, related to the ILS signals in MSFS2020/2024 and the whole concept of reading and understanding Jeppesen approach charts.  Please, concentrate on helping ASOBO and the sim community versus these unnecessary fights.

I'm not looking for a confrontation. You are throwing overall drama about game. Also you  tend to blow things out of proportion! Iv'e been flying instruments in California for well all over two decades, that also includes LA basin and LAX. I never violated airspace or busted approach, so I hope I understand how to read approach plates LOL

15 hours ago, LRBS said:

Unfortunately, there are many cases of issues like that caused by a poor signal in MSFS.

Perhaps it's time to revisit this arbitrary, bad decision —it shows.

The sim does not simulate bad signals or signal degradation at all. The receive distance for a given ILS transmitter is given in the data. If your distance is equal to or less than the distance in the data, you will receive the ILS signal.

If you are not receiving the signal when you expect, then you should report that specific location to your navdata provider for investigation.

When I read posts like the stuff in this thread, I feel even happier that I'm just a 'running around the playground with my arms out, going "wheeeeeeee!"' kind of simmer. It really feels like the sim is more of a pain than a joy to some folk.

Still, whatever floats your boat (assuming the boat is certified seaworthy and the floats have been verifed against RNLA current standards, of course)

3 hours ago, jon b said:

I did a bit of digging as I was sure if my memory was correct back in the old days before RNAV arrivals we used to pick up the KLAX 24R LOC way out from the field and it was part of the charted arrival procedure.

As I recall we used to fly it in LOC and use V/S to manually attain the many crossing restrictions on the arrival before intercepting the glideslope at the FAF, which in itself was challenging as ATC would slow you up then speed you up all the way down.

It’s all changed now of course with RNAV, so I’m curious if KLAX have maintained their long range LOCs

I found this interesting conversation on the navigraph forum where someone mentions 24R LOC has an ESV of 85nm !

https://forum.navigraph.com/t/klax-super-localizer/18326

Yes, Jon, 100% correct, this scenario (approach) is very fresh in my memory. Two months ago, from PVG to LAX, we were vectored around due to delays inbound for at least 100 NM eastbound, and put us in a minimum fuel advisory before we were cleared to this approach. As you mentioned, we were using this LNAV/VNAV overlay for the ILS, and the ILS autotuning happened as advertised, with correct LOC and DME information. Yes, it's on "steroids" due to the certified extended signal, though we used VNAV vs VS to avoid the mandatory crossing restrictions and unnecessary workload, passing BOUBY. We engaged APP mode. From what I noticed, the extended range was still good. 

 

20 hours ago, JonathanC said:

While I'm not a pilot, I am into ham radio (have my licenses in two countries, extra in the US for those who are into ham), and it's very plausible that a ~20watt signal can travel 100+ miles in the right conditions. One of the fun things in ham radio is to go to a hill or mountain, and then use a 5 watt handheld (walkie-talkie style) to see how far you can go. You'd be surprised how far 5 watts can go with the right conditions.  

W6KD here...it's also worth mentioning that a 20W signal into a high-gain directional array like a localizer antenna makes the ERP (effective radiated power) much higher still.

The TERPS guys that design approaches have access to tech data that isn't publicly available...so when you see an approach with a long localizer segment, you can assume that they took that data into account, and that the flight check guys confirmed the signal is within required strength and distortion limits throughout the published segment(s).  But I don't think it fair to fault Asobo for not covering this somewhat fringe case where the data needed to systematically incorporate it into the scenery isn't readily available.  I just accept it as one of many simisms.

 

30 minutes ago, MattNischan said:

The sim does not simulate bad signals or signal degradation at all. The receive distance for a given ILS transmitter is given in the data. If your distance is equal to or less than the distance in the data, you will receive the ILS signal.

If you are not receiving the signal when you expect, then you should report that specific location to your navdata provider for investigation.

Matt, please understand this: I don't have the ASOBO insights. Based on what you're mentioning, it seems to be an arbitrary decision on ASOBO's part regarding the signal, and, according to NAVIGRAPH's statements, the ILS signals are adjusted correctly. So, if time permits, further investigation may be helpful based on both parties' statements.  Thank you.

21 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

He’s an A320 pilot dying the Fenix. 👍

the clouds he shows remind me of 2020, but IDK for sure. 

Holy cow, all of this back and forth, ILS, DME, LOC, Signal Strength etc etc etc and no one noticed this poor guy is dying???

While everyone else was arguing this poor guy was dying the Fenix.  RIP  

🙂  

39 minutes ago, Bob Scott said:

But I don't think it fair to fault Asobo for not covering this somewhat fringe case where the data needed to systematically incorporate it into the scenery isn't readily available.  I just accept it as one of many simisms.

When you are at the point that this truly matters, you basically are a real pilot and have access to real simulators. I don’t think that 99% of non-pilots that use sims would care or notice if a localizer signal is 5-10miles less than what’s published on the charts. 
 

Another way of saying it - if the sim can depict reality to this level.. we are then in the matrix and it’s not a sim anymore 🙂 

43 minutes ago, Bob Scott said:

W6KD here

Also … I have a feeling I may have heard you on the air sometime in the past. I haven’t been on the air for a couple years (life, kids), and you’re not in my log.. but this callsign seems familiar. 
 

I don’t want to share my handle cause then my address and all that become public, but I’m in Toronto and I think I’ve heard you. 
 

 

17 hours ago, LRBS said:

I don't want to start anything unproductive here. 

My approach to this is as follows:

If the data provider for AIRAC is NAVIGRAPF, they claim that since MSFS2020, they have implemented real-world LOC ranges. If that's the case, inbound LAX ILS 24 L from a transition to LOC/ILS shortly before PHILA, we should be receiving the LOC and DME (37 NM out, based on the certification for this approach), but right after passing SALWA, we get the LOC and DME signal at about 30 NM. Very unrealistic. Unfortunately, there are many cases of issues like that caused by a poor signal in MSFS.

Perhaps it's time to revisit this arbitrary, bad decision —it shows.

This is for the kids following along at home:

1 hour ago, Bob Scott said:

W6KD here...it's also worth mentioning that a 20W signal into a high-gain directional array like a localizer antenna makes the ERP (effective radiated power) much higher still.

The TERPS guys that design approaches have access to tech data that isn't publicly available...so when you see an approach with a long localizer segment, you can assume that they took that data into account, and that the flight check guys confirmed the signal is within required strength and distortion limits throughout the published segment(s).  But I don't think it fair to fault Asobo for not covering this somewhat fringe case where the data needed to systematically incorporate it into the scenery isn't readily available.  I just accept it as one of many simisms.

 

LAX ILS transmitter is supposedly 100 watts. It is on steroids!!

On 11/2/2025 at 5:06 PM, nippa said:

I totally agree  with the unreal ground friction but he's quite wrong about the ILS range.

ILS systems have a protected range which is given in the National Aeronautical Publication usually 15 miles or so. You may receive a signal but it is not protected or calibrated.

ATC in the UK should not clear an aircraft to establish on to the Localizer outside that range although you might be cleared to intercept the final approach track prior to an ILS approach.

 

Its 25 nautical miles within a narrow azimuth (+/- 10 degrees).

However, it is generally receivable (and in my experience also very reliable) to much larger range, up to 50NM and more. Even real life ATC will often tell you to "intercept the localizer", even though you are technically outside of the certified reception range. 

I am proud to state that it was my input that made X-Plane increase reception ranges of Navaids well beyond the "certified" range - of course it also gets affected by user altitude (LOS) and becomes unreliable first, then fizzles out as you fly away further.

Edited November 4, 2025Nov 4 by Litjan

33 minutes ago, alanw2005 said:

LAX ILS transmitter is supposedly 100 watts. It is on steroids!!

Ah , So Dave my old line training Captain was correct all those years ago 🙂

It’s funny how these snippets of information stay with you. 29 years ago seems like yesterday 

Edited November 4, 2025Nov 4 by jon b