Why is ADF required on ILS approach?

"Brien K. Meehan" wrote in message
...

It's an IAF, so there's no previous fix from which you can start timing to
find LADOS.

DME is not required, so you can't assume you can use it to find LADOS -
yes,
even though it's clearly marked 5.2NM on the plate.

If you want to get into ELD without an ADF, you'll have to use one of the
other 3 approaches. Those aren't terrible options.


You're ignoring the feeder route from ELD to LADOS.

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...

or an approach certified GPS with LADOS as a waypoint, right?


The GPS does not need approach certification.

Brien K. Meehan wrote in message
...
"Gig Giacona" wrote in message
...
And the ILS plate is marked ADF required? Why is that?

... because you need to know where the LOM/IAF called LADOS is.

It's an IAF, so there's no previous fix from which you can start timing to
find LADOS.

DME is not required, so you can't assume you can use it to find LADOS -
yes,
even though it's clearly marked 5.2NM on the plate.


6.5 DME

"John Clonts" wrote in message
...
DME is not required, so you can't assume you can use it to find LADOS -
yes,
even though it's clearly marked 5.2NM on the plate.


6.5 DME

:-)

"Dave Butler" wrote in message
...

Oh, right, sorry. I lost sight of the original premise, an ILS with ADF
REQUIRED. So what I should have said was:

"I think the alternate missed approach instructions still don't relieve
the
pilot of the requirement for carrying an ADF as explicitly stated on the
approach chart."


You're viewing the note "ADF REQUIRED" as having legal authority. I view it
as just a reminder that ADF is needed to fly the full approach, the missed
approach segment in this case. This isn't the first time this matter has
been discussed in this forum. As I recall from previous discussions, nobody
was able to present any definitive documentation in support of either view.
But logic tends to support the view that these notes are just reminders to
the pilot. Take a look at most LOC BC approaches and you'll find a similar
note that says "BACK COURSE". Is that a legal requirement that a back
course receiver must be aboard to fly the approach, or is it just a reminder
of reverse sensing?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
thlink.net...

You're viewing the note "ADF REQUIRED" as having legal authority. I view
it
as just a reminder that ADF is needed to fly the full approach, the missed
approach segment in this case. This isn't the first time this matter has
been discussed in this forum. As I recall from previous discussions,
nobody
was able to present any definitive documentation in support of either
view.
But logic tends to support the view that these notes are just reminders to
the pilot. Take a look at most LOC BC approaches and you'll find a
similar
note that says "BACK COURSE". Is that a legal requirement that a back
course receiver must be aboard to fly the approach, or is it just a
reminder
of reverse sensing?


Of course its a requirement, that's why the word "required" is used. You
can use a GPS in substitute, but one or the other is required. "Radar
required" is also a frequently found note. Do you think that if the radar
is inop that day you can still shoot the approach because it was "just a
reminder"?

Paul Steichen
CFI, CFII, MEI, CRJ FO

"unknown" wrote in message
news

Of course its a requirement, that's why the word "required" is used.


Can you present any definitive documentation in support of that view?

What requirement does the note "BACK COURSE" on a LOC BC approach present?



"Radar required" is also a frequently found note. Do you think that if
the radar
is inop that day you can still shoot the approach because it was "just a
reminder"?


I think if the radar is inop that day I won't be cleared for any approach
that requires radar.

a) FAA 8260.19 is a source document for what I think you are looking for
(Including changes 1 & 2)
http://av-info.faa.gov/terps/Directi...s/8260.19C.pdf
b) Policy 01022, Documentation of Radar Requirements on Instrument Approach
Procedures
http://av-info.faa.gov/terps/Policies1/TIL01022.pdf


1) "ADF Required" - Par 814-h
-- on an ILS, most likely a NDB is used for the missed approach
2) "RADAR Required" - Par 814-g, and TILS 01022
-- What I have seen is that the IAF is defined off of the localizer beam
at some specific DME/crossing radial, or again, required for the missed

Cheers


On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 12:34:13 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll
wrote:


"unknown" wrote in message
news

Of course its a requirement, that's why the word "required" is used.


Can you present any definitive documentation in support of that view?

What requirement does the note "BACK COURSE" on a LOC BC approach
present?



"Radar required" is also a frequently found note. Do you think that if
the radar
is inop that day you can still shoot the approach because it was "just a
reminder"?


I think if the radar is inop that day I won't be cleared for any approach
that requires radar.






--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

"AJNOKC" wrote in message
newsprs5pg1vbg62b0q@localhost...

a) FAA 8260.19 is a source document for what I think you are looking for
(Including changes 1 & 2)
http://av-info.faa.gov/terps/Directi...s/8260.19C.pdf
b) Policy 01022, Documentation of Radar Requirements on Instrument
Approach
Procedures
http://av-info.faa.gov/terps/Policies1/TIL01022.pdf


1) "ADF Required" - Par 814-h
-- on an ILS, most likely a NDB is used for the missed approach
2) "RADAR Required" - Par 814-g, and TILS 01022
-- What I have seen is that the IAF is defined off of the localizer beam
at some specific DME/crossing radial, or again, required for the missed


Thank you. That explains how these notes appear on the plates, and suggests
why "ADF REQUIRED" appears on plates that can be flown completely without
ADF.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Dave Butler" wrote in message
...

Oh, right, sorry. I lost sight of the original premise, an ILS with ADF
REQUIRED. So what I should have said was:

"I think the alternate missed approach instructions still don't relieve
the
pilot of the requirement for carrying an ADF as explicitly stated on the
approach chart."


You're viewing the note "ADF REQUIRED" as having legal authority. I view it
as just a reminder that ADF is needed to fly the full approach, the missed
approach segment in this case. This isn't the first time this matter has
been discussed in this forum. As I recall from previous discussions, nobody
was able to present any definitive documentation in support of either view.
But logic tends to support the view that these notes are just reminders to
the pilot. Take a look at most LOC BC approaches and you'll find a similar
note that says "BACK COURSE". Is that a legal requirement that a back
course receiver must be aboard to fly the approach, or is it just a reminder
of reverse sensing?

You're entitled to your view, of course. But, the "ADF REQUIRED" note is a
procedural data equipment note issued as part of an amendment to 14 CFR 97. If
in doubt, all the manager of AVN-100 and ask him whether the note is advisory in
nature. Also, AFS-400 many have a view somewhat different than your's.