ADF Required

If I understood your response correctly, the approach may not be flown
without having either an ADF or an IFR-certified GPS.

It seems to me like very poor planning to design approaches such as the two
I previously mentioned (Rochester, NY KROC ILS RWY 4 or VOR RWY 4). A
pilot could have a day (1,000 foot ceiling) with an extremely low
probability of needing to execute the missed and not be able to "legally"
fly the approach if the ADF was inop.

Has anyone tried to get an approach modified, e.g., get a missed approach
procedure changed to eliminate the ADF requirement?

wrote in message ...

ATC cannot waive Part 97. But, you can substitute an
IFR-certified GPS for the ADF because Flight Standards has issued a
national policy
letter permitting that.

And, most IAPs do not have a non-radar alternate missed approach
proceddure. It's
either the published missed or radar vectors.

"Ted Timmons" wrote in message
...
If I understood your response correctly, the approach may not be flown
without having either an ADF or an IFR-certified GPS.

It seems to me like very poor planning to design approaches such as the
two
I previously mentioned (Rochester, NY KROC ILS RWY 4 or VOR RWY 4). A
pilot could have a day (1,000 foot ceiling) with an extremely low
probability of needing to execute the missed and not be able to "legally"
fly the approach if the ADF was inop.

How is that poor design? That may be all the facilities they had. Years
ago ADF was more prevalent. There are approaches that are not legal even
when the airport's weather is VFR - does that make sense to you either? (3
miles, 1000 ft)


Has anyone tried to get an approach modified, e.g., get a missed approach
procedure changed to eliminate the ADF requirement?

Try it. tell us how it works out.


wrote in message ...

ATC cannot waive Part 97. But, you can substitute an
IFR-certified GPS for the ADF because Flight Standards has issued a
national policy
letter permitting that.

And, most IAPs do not have a non-radar alternate missed approach
proceddure. It's
either the published missed or radar vectors.

Ted Timmons wrote:

If I understood your response correctly, the approach may not be flown
without having either an ADF or an IFR-certified GPS.

It seems to me like very poor planning to design approaches such as the two
I previously mentioned (Rochester, NY KROC ILS RWY 4 or VOR RWY 4). A
pilot could have a day (1,000 foot ceiling) with an extremely low
probability of needing to execute the missed and not be able to "legally"
fly the approach if the ADF was inop.

Has anyone tried to get an approach modified, e.g., get a missed approach
procedure changed to eliminate the ADF requirement?

They don't do that unless other facilities or traffic flow won't permit use of
a VOR facility or fix. Having said that, with IFR GPS it is no big deal any
longer.