"Jose" wrote in message
y.net...

... in the same manner that pilots would deal with being given a clearance
to fly an ILS when they did not have an ILS receiver aboard.


I fail to see any similarity. An "ILS receiver" is clearly needed to fly an
ILS approach. In what manner would you expect pilots to rely on the note
"ADF REQUIRED" when they're flying an approach that does not require ADF?



I expect
pilots to rely on the publication as accurately reflecting facts, and the
presence of "ADF Required" (which as stated upthread was actually
initiated by NOTAM) would be relied upon as reflecting the fact that ADF
is required.


But we know that ADF is not required for this approach. In what manner
would you expect pilots to rely on the note "ADF REQUIRED" when they know
ADF is not required?



I would not expect pilots to second-guess NOTAMS or approach procedures.
If it says ADF required, then an ADF is required.


What is the ADF required for on approaches where ADF is not required but
carry the note "ADF REQUIRED"?



So, if cleared for the approach, and no ADF is aboard, the word "unable"
or some equivalent would be legally required.


Is carrying an old, unserviceable ADF in the baggage compartment good
enough? If not, why not?