SAC ILS "ADF Required" Info

On 06/17/06 16:52, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...

But the VOR is not an IAF and doesn't provide a NoPT route to EXECC,
so when you get to EXECC you still need to execute the procedure turn.


The issue is not on what conditions a PT is required, it's why the note "ADF
REQUIRED" appears on this IAP.



Do you agree that the procedure turn should be made about EXECC?

When coming from the north, the pilot is going to have to make a u-turn
at the VOR, then, while in the zone of confusion, follow the 018 degree
radial to find the LOM... whew.

Do you think we should be able to identify the fix for the PT using
the marker beacons? A marker beacon receiver isn't required. What if the
plane doesn't have one?

I think the ADF receiver makes this scenario much simpler for the pilot,
and that was the reason for requiring it to execute the approach.


What am I required to use the ADF for if I'm cleared for this approach while
inbound on V6 southwest of COUPS?

Because from COUPS your to fly the bearing to the LOM. The notes on
the feeder route say: "1400 NoPT to LOM 015".

Now, as to why they did *that*, I don't know. From COUPS, I think
everyone just gets lined up on the localizer.

Here's another problem with this procedu From COUPS, it says that
the LOM is 015 degrees. However, the VOR is 016 degrees. That puts
the LOM to the left of the VOR (when looking from COUPS). However,
it also says that the LOM is 018 degrees from the VOR. That puts it
to the right of the VOR (again, when looking from COUPS).

Is this a rounding error, or am I missing something?


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...

Because from COUPS your to fly the bearing to the LOM. The notes on
the feeder route say: "1400 NoPT to LOM 015".


From COUPS you fly the SAC 195 radial inbound to the LOM. Check the enroute
chart. COUPS is on V6 which is defined by the SAC 195 radial.



Here's another problem with this procedu From COUPS, it says that
the LOM is 015 degrees. However, the VOR is 016 degrees. That puts
the LOM to the left of the VOR (when looking from COUPS). However,
it also says that the LOM is 018 degrees from the VOR. That puts it
to the right of the VOR (again, when looking from COUPS).

Is this a rounding error, or am I missing something?


016 is the localizer azimuth.

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.

JPH wrote:
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Some times, as in this case, it's hard (or impossible) to understand the
reason behind a "Chart planview note: ADF required". Usually that would
be there if the LOM is needed for procedure entry, and in this case it
would only be required for procedure entry if NORCAL can't vector
aircraft to final for some reason. Is NORCAL able to vector aircraft to
this final approach course at a suitable altitude?\

99% of the time NORCAL vectors aircraft to final for this approach.
-Robert

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
There's a feeder route from the VOR to EXECC. There's no need for ADF on
this approach, the note "ADF REQUIRED" is an error.

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.

-Robert

For those interested, this is the actual FDC that made this mess
happen...

!FDC 6/3235 SAC FI/P SACRAMENTO EXECUTIVE, SACRAMENTO, CA.
ILS RWY 2, AMDT 22B...
CHART PLANVIEW NOTE: ADF REQUIRED.
THIS IS ILS OR LOC RWY 2, AMDT 22C.


-Robert

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

JPH wrote:
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Some times, as in this case, it's hard (or impossible) to understand the
reason behind a "Chart planview note: ADF required". Usually that would
be there if the LOM is needed for procedure entry, and in this case it
would only be required for procedure entry if NORCAL can't vector
aircraft to final for some reason. Is NORCAL able to vector aircraft to
this final approach course at a suitable altitude?\


No he didn't.

"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."