"Jose" wrote in message
.net...

I suppose this would be true, as the actual regulations are in part
something-or-other, and it is not required that one even have the chart,
just the textual description of the approach. Nonetheless, I would expect
pilots not to second-guess government publications in that manner; after
all part something-or-other might also have a misprint.

If it is an error, it should be NOTAM'd until it is reprinted. Absent a
NOTAM, I would expect pilots to rely on the government publication that
contained the putative error.


In what manner would you expect pilots to rely on the note "ADF REQUIRED" on
the SAC ILS or LOC RWY 2? When ADF is actually required on non-NDB
approaches the note "ADF REQUIRED" adds nothing to the approach, it simply
states a fact. When the note appears on an approach that can be flown
without ADF it only creates confusion.


FAA Order 8260.19C Flight Procedures and Airspace

CHAPTER 8. INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES DATA TRANSMITTAL SYSTEM

SECTION 3. COMPLETION OF FAA FORMS 8260-3/5

814. NOTES.

h. Equipment Requirement Notes. Determine the need for equipment notes
after evaluating all SIAP segments, including missed approach. To avoid
proliferation of equipment requirement notes, all IFR aircraft are assumed
to have at least one VOR receiver. Therefore, the note "VOR required" is
not appropriate. VOR, ILS, or other non-ADF approaches may require ADF for
procedure entry or missed approach. Use standard Note: "ADF required." If
radar vectoring is available, use standard Note: "ADF or radar required."