A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Why is ADF required on ILS approach?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 9th 03, 01:06 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #2  
Old July 9th 03, 01:07 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...

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


The GPS does not need approach certification.


  #3  
Old July 9th 03, 01:46 PM
John Clonts
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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


  #4  
Old July 9th 03, 07:32 PM
Brien K. Meehan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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


:-)


  #5  
Old July 9th 03, 02:42 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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?


  #6  
Old July 12th 03, 09:17 PM
unknown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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


  #7  
Old July 27th 03, 01:34 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #8  
Old July 31st 03, 05:01 AM
AJNOKC
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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/
  #9  
Old August 1st 03, 05:14 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #10  
Old July 13th 03, 01:46 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



"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.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) Rich Stowell Aerobatics 28 January 2nd 09 02:26 PM
The perfect approach Capt.Doug Home Built 25 December 3rd 04 03:37 AM
Which aircraft certification is required for R&D? Netgeek Home Built 5 November 23rd 04 05:59 AM
LSA Approach speeds Ace Pilot Home Built 0 February 3rd 04 05:38 PM
Download approach charts Ron Natalie Home Built 0 July 9th 03 08:29 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.