SAC ILS "ADF Required" Info

"Jose" wrote in message
. com...

By not flying the approach unless he had a working ADF.


What would he have to use the ADF for?

What would he have to use the ADF for?

To comply with the notation on the chart "ADF required".

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

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

To comply with the notation on the chart "ADF required".


Notes like this are not regulatory, they're just reminders.

Notes like this are not regulatory, they're just reminders.

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.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"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."

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"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."


You have just proven yourself wrong. The note that results from
application of Paragraph 814 h. goes on the applicable 8260.3 or 8260.5
which is an amendment to FAR 97.

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.

.... 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 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.

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

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

As you note, when the note is "in error", confusion results.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Jose" wrote in message
y.net...

To comply with the notation on the chart "ADF required".



Notes like this are not regulatory, they're just reminders.


That is incorrect.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:0Nxlg.179313$bm6.96676@fed1read04...

That is incorrect.


As they can be nothing else, that is entirely correct.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:0Nxlg.179313$bm6.96676@fed1read04...

That is incorrect.



As they can be nothing else, that is entirely correct.


Why can they be "nothing else?"