SAC ILS "ADF Required" Info

"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.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:sOxlg.179314$bm6.172001@fed1read04...

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.


You've just demonstrated your inability to use simple logic.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:sOxlg.179314$bm6.172001@fed1read04...

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.



You've just demonstrated your inability to use simple logic.


When you are out of ideas then, in your typical fine fashion, you resort
to personal attacks.

Shoot the messenger as you so love to do, Steve.

That does not change the FACT that the note is an FAR.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:BNylg.179320$bm6.132661@fed1read04...

When you are out of ideas then, in your typical fine fashion, you resort
to personal attacks.


I never resort to personal attacks. You truly have demonstrated your
inability to use simple logic. Again.



Shoot the messenger as you so love to do, Steve.


You still don't get it. Your message is wrong.



That does not change the FACT that the note is an FAR.


Prove it.

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.

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

... 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 fail to see any similarity. An "ILS receiver" is clearly needed to fly an
ILS approach. In what manner would you expect pilots to rely on the note
"ADF REQUIRED" when they're flying an approach that does not require ADF?



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.


But we know that ADF is not required for this approach. In what manner
would you expect pilots to rely on the note "ADF REQUIRED" when they know
ADF is not required?



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


What is the ADF required for on approaches where ADF is not required but
carry the note "ADF REQUIRED"?



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


Is carrying an old, unserviceable ADF in the baggage compartment good
enough? If not, why not?

But we know that ADF is not required for this approach.

No, we do not know that. We know that the FAA, in its infinite wisdom,
has stated a requirement for an ADF receiver to be on board. It has
done so by NOTAM (according to a previous poster).

It all boils down to whether or not a pilot is to rely on the
publications of (or sanctioned by) the FAA for regulatory information.

For all I know (no comments from the peanut gallery!) it may be typical
for ATC to issue alternate missed approach instructions "proceed direct
to the ABC More Music station and hold until you hear Jethro Tull", and
the ADF prepares you for that.

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...

No, we do not know that.

Okay, all of us don't know that. But all of us that are knowledgeable on
IFR procedures know it.



We know that the FAA, in its infinite wisdom, has stated a requirement for
an ADF receiver to be on board. It has done so by NOTAM (according to a
previous poster).


No, we only know that at least one not-too-sharp procedures specialist
believes ADF is required for this approach.