SAC ILS "ADF Required" Info

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...

Steven, if you have any push with the FAA, any help getting this
notation removed would be very, very appreciated. This is causing
headaches for many pilots who don't have IFR GPSs (and of course most
of us put the ADF in the dumpster long ago). I was talking to a local
DE who used to be a big wig at the FSDO. He didn't even believe me
until I pulled out the charge. He said he was going to make some calls
to the FAA and thought perhaps he could help get this fixed as well.


I have no push with the FAA. The TPP has an email address for notification
of charting errors on the inside front cover. I sent the following message:

I found an error on the SAC ILS or LOC RWY 2 SIAP chart. The note "ADF
REQUIRED" appears on the approach plate, but ADF is not required for
procedure entry or missed approach. Since this approach can be flown
without ADF or GPS in lieu of ADF the note is in error and must be removed.

I have no push with the FAA. The TPP has an email address for notification
of charting errors on the inside front cover. I sent the following message:

I found an error on the SAC ILS or LOC RWY 2 SIAP chart. The note "ADF
REQUIRED" appears on the approach plate, but ADF is not required for
procedure entry or missed approach. Since this approach can be flown
without ADF or GPS in lieu of ADF the note is in error and must be removed.

It would be interesting to hear the response.

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

Jose wrote:
I have no push with the FAA. The TPP has an email address for notification
of charting errors on the inside front cover. I sent the following message:

I found an error on the SAC ILS or LOC RWY 2 SIAP chart. The note "ADF
REQUIRED" appears on the approach plate, but ADF is not required for
procedure entry or missed approach. Since this approach can be flown
without ADF or GPS in lieu of ADF the note is in error and must be removed.

It would be interesting to hear the response.


Here it is:

Steven,

After reviewing our records it appears that the "ADF Required" note
should be charted on ILS or LOC Rwy 2 SIAP. This ADF note was added on
the chart per TL06-09 CCP request effective 5/11/06. We would need a
revised procedure to remove the note. I have forwarded your question
onto AVN-100 Don Harmer. Hopefully, AVN-100 will evaluate your concern
and if necessary revise the current procedure.

Thank you for your concern

Paul Spadaro
NACO



And here is my reply:

Dear Mr. Spadaro,

I did not have a question, I wrote only to point out the error on the
chart. Can you tell me what is in your records that makes it appear
that the "ADF REQUIRED" note should be charted on the ILS or LOC RWY 2
SIAP? Can you tell me why this ADF note was added on the chart per
TL06-09 CCP request? Why would you need a revised procedure to remove
the note? Since this approach can be flown without ADF it would appear
the note should never have been added, unless "ADF REQUIRED" means
something other than "ADF is needed to fly this approach". Does it?

Have a nice day.

Steven P. McNicoll

It would be interesting to hear the response.

Here it is [along with my reply]:

Ah... bureaucracy in motion. Keep us posted.

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:

It would be interesting to hear the response.



Here it is:

Steven,

After reviewing our records it appears that the "ADF Required" note
should be charted on ILS or LOC Rwy 2 SIAP. This ADF note was added on
the chart per TL06-09 CCP request effective 5/11/06. We would need a
revised procedure to remove the note. I have forwarded your question
onto AVN-100 Don Harmer. Hopefully, AVN-100 will evaluate your concern
and if necessary revise the current procedure.

Thank you for your concern

Paul Spadaro
NACO



And here is my reply:

Dear Mr. Spadaro,

I did not have a question, I wrote only to point out the error on the
chart. Can you tell me what is in your records that makes it appear
that the "ADF REQUIRED" note should be charted on the ILS or LOC RWY 2
SIAP? Can you tell me why this ADF note was added on the chart per
TL06-09 CCP request? Why would you need a revised procedure to remove
the note? Since this approach can be flown without ADF it would appear
the note should never have been added, unless "ADF REQUIRED" means
something other than "ADF is needed to fly this approach". Does it?

Have a nice day.

Steven P. McNicoll


Mr Spadaro was explaining why he added the note; it was initiated by CCP
request (P-Notam). The P-NOTAM is a procedure amendment and was issued
by NFPG. NACO just charts what they are told to chart, as long as it
meets charting criteria. He didn't create the note, so he forwarded your
question to Don Harmer, who is a manager at NFPG/AVN. NFPG is the only
agency that can change the note, and it would have to be an amendment to
the procedure, either via another CCP or a full-blown amendment.
I'm sure Mr Harmer will review the procedure and determine if the note
is or is not required and take action to remove it or revise it if
necessary based on FAAO 8260.3 and 8260.19 requirements.

JPH

JPH wrote:

I'm sure Mr Harmer will review the procedure and determine if the note
is or is not required and take action to remove it or revise it if
necessary based on FAAO 8260.3 and 8260.19 requirements.


If he had done that last May the note would have never appeared on the
plate.

If he had done that last May the note would have never appeared on the
plate.

That remains to be seen. Let's hear what Mr. Harmer has to say.

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
. com...

That remains to be seen. Let's hear what Mr. Harmer has to say.


I received a response from Mr. Harmer. ADF is required to identify the FAF.
Apparently marker beacons cannot be used to determine position along track.
His response and my reply follow.




Paul

I will try to clarify this issue because it is more than a bit confusing.

When a procedure isn't absolutely clear on what equipment is required to
fly the approach then we have to add notes as necessary so the pilot knows
exactly what equipment is needed. For this particular approach the VOR
and
NDB are used for the procedure and are depicted in the plan view. Their
close physical proximity as depicted on the planview could lead a pilot to
believe that he could do the hold in lieu pattern using the VOR, but that
is not correct. The VOR is only used on the procedure as a feeder and a
missed approach holding fix.

Now to try and explain. This approach has 2 parts, the full ILS and then
the LOC only which must be addressed separately for clarification. There
are 2 IAFs identified on this approach, first the hold in lieu at EXECC
LOM
and secondly the NoPT segment from COUPS INT to EXECC LOM; and 1 feeder
route, SAC VORTAC to EXECC LOM. When an aircraft is shooting the full ILS
approach from COUPS INT it does not require the use of ADF to fly the
final
(the precision FAF is based on an altitude not the LOM) or missed approach
because 2 missed options are provided. But should the glideslope fail and
he has to transition to the LOC only approach, or when flying the LOC only
approach, then ADF is required to identify the FAF. The missed approach
provides the pilot with 2 possible holding options either going to the SAC
VORTAC or the EXECC LOM to hold so ADF required doesn't apply. Mr
McNicoll
is correct is stating that he is allowed to substitute GPS for ADF in
certain circumstances. However we have to consider the least possibly
equipped aircraft shooting this approach and that requires that we place
an
"ADF REQUIRED " note on this approach.

I hope this will answer the question for Mr McNicoll. Feel free to
contact
us anytime



Don Harmer
Air Traffic Organization-W
Western Flight Procedures Team
Lead, Western Pacific Area (AJW-324)
405-954-9930




Dear Mr. Harmer,

I received your response through Paul Spadero explaining why ADF is required
on the SAC ILS or LOC RWY 2 approach. You indicated that ADF is required to
identify the FAF when flying the LOC only approach. The FAF is EXECC LOM,
why must the pilot use ADF to identify station passage of the Compass
Locator? Why can't the Outer Marker be used to identify EXECC?

Steven P. McNicoll
De Pere, WI

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

JPH wrote:

I'm sure Mr Harmer will review the procedure and determine if the note
is or is not required and take action to remove it or revise it if
necessary based on FAAO 8260.3 and 8260.19 requirements.



If he had done that last May the note would have never appeared on the
plate.

Unlike ATC, AVN is not a perfect organization.

Sam Spade wrote:

Unlike ATC, AVN is not a perfect organization.


You have a higher opinion of ATC than I do.