SAC ILS "ADF Required" Info

I just got some information back from the FAA on why an ADF is now
required after several decades of being able to fly the approach w/o
the ADF....

"Mr. Gary: The FAA Flight Procedures Office has issued a NOTAM
amendment 22C. This amendment states that the ILS Runway 02 approach at
SAC Airport requires ADF due to the inbound course 015 degrees is off
by 1 degree starting at the Coups IAF to the VOR. This procedure can
still be flown with GPS if an ADF is not available. The FAA has stated
that this approach will be amended in the future to realign the
approach course, probably using the Vortac. This does not effect the
future decommissioning of the NDB at SAC. Flight Service might have
more information if you need it. "

-Robert

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

I just got some information back from the FAA on why an ADF is now
required after several decades of being able to fly the approach w/o
the ADF....

"Mr. Gary: The FAA Flight Procedures Office has issued a NOTAM
amendment 22C. This amendment states that the ILS Runway 02 approach at
SAC Airport requires ADF due to the inbound course 015 degrees is off
by 1 degree starting at the Coups IAF to the VOR. This procedure can
still be flown with GPS if an ADF is not available. The FAA has stated
that this approach will be amended in the future to realign the
approach course, probably using the Vortac. This does not effect the
future decommissioning of the NDB at SAC. Flight Service might have
more information if you need it. "


It's too bad he didn't say what the ADF or GPS is required for.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

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

I just got some information back from the FAA on why an ADF is now
required after several decades of being able to fly the approach w/o
the ADF....

"Mr. Gary: The FAA Flight Procedures Office has issued a NOTAM
amendment 22C. This amendment states that the ILS Runway 02 approach at
SAC Airport requires ADF due to the inbound course 015 degrees is off
by 1 degree starting at the Coups IAF to the VOR. This procedure can
still be flown with GPS if an ADF is not available. The FAA has stated
that this approach will be amended in the future to realign the
approach course, probably using the Vortac. This does not effect the
future decommissioning of the NDB at SAC. Flight Service might have
more information if you need it. "



It's too bad he didn't say what the ADF or GPS is required for.


What part of "requires ADF due to the inbound course 015 degrees is off
by 1 degree starting at the Coups IAF to the VOR" don't you understand?

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:Wd3kg.179045$bm6.51565@fed1read04...

What part of "requires ADF due to the inbound course 015 degrees is off by
1 degree starting at the Coups IAF to the VOR" don't you understand?


I don't understand what the FAA Flight Procedures Office believes ADF or GPS
is required for on the SAC ILS RUNWAY 2 SIAP.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:Wd3kg.179045$bm6.51565@fed1read04...

What part of "requires ADF due to the inbound course 015 degrees is off by
1 degree starting at the Coups IAF to the VOR" don't you understand?



I don't understand what the FAA Flight Procedures Office believes ADF or GPS
is required for on the SAC ILS RUNWAY 2 SIAP.


They have their reasons, and sometimes their reasons are not very sound.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:O9ekg.179076$bm6.79817@fed1read04...

They have their reasons, and sometimes their reasons are not very sound.


As in this case. Bottom line is ADF does not provide any information needed
to fly this approach.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:O9ekg.179076$bm6.79817@fed1read04...

They have their reasons, and sometimes their reasons are not very sound.



As in this case. Bottom line is ADF does not provide any information needed
to fly this approach.


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? If not, that would
explain the ADF required note. Perhaps "ADF or RADAR required" would
have been more appropriate.
It wouldn't be charted that way just for the sake of the LOC portion,
because if that was the case, they would have changed the title of the
procedure to indicate the extra equipment required for the non-precision
final. Assuming the outer marker works, then ADF would not be required
for the LOC FAF, because the OM would take care of that.
The ILS doesn't need the LOM for final since it relies on glideslope
intercept, and not the non-precision FAF.
In this case the LOM is not required for missed approach, as the MA
instructions give the option to go to the VORTAC.
It would be nice if the procedure could include the reason the ADF is
required, i.e., "ADF required for missed approach" or "ADF required for
procedure entry when radar OTS".

It appears this procedure can be completed via radar vectors to final,
then glideslope intercept (ILS) or OM (LOC), followed by MA back to SAC
VORTAC. Don't see a need for the ADF as long as NORCAL can vector to final.

Guess this is just one of lifes mysteries.

JPH

"JPH" wrote in message
news:qAmkg.7416$f76.6314@dukeread06...

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? If not, that would explain the ADF
required note. Perhaps "ADF or RADAR required" would have been more
appropriate.
It wouldn't be charted that way just for the sake of the LOC portion,
because if that was the case, they would have changed the title of the
procedure to indicate the extra equipment required for the non-precision
final. Assuming the outer marker works, then ADF would not be required for
the LOC FAF, because the OM would take care of that.
The ILS doesn't need the LOM for final since it relies on glideslope
intercept, and not the non-precision FAF.
In this case the LOM is not required for missed approach, as the MA
instructions give the option to go to the VORTAC.
It would be nice if the procedure could include the reason the ADF is
required, i.e., "ADF required for missed approach" or "ADF required for
procedure entry when radar OTS".

It appears this procedure can be completed via radar vectors to final,
then glideslope intercept (ILS) or OM (LOC), followed by MA back to SAC
VORTAC. Don't see a need for the ADF as long as NORCAL can vector to
final.

Guess this is just one of lifes mysteries.


Where do you see a need for ADF without vectors to final?

On 06/16/06 08:19, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"JPH" wrote in message
news:qAmkg.7416$f76.6314@dukeread06...

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? If not, that would explain the ADF
required note. Perhaps "ADF or RADAR required" would have been more
appropriate.
It wouldn't be charted that way just for the sake of the LOC portion,
because if that was the case, they would have changed the title of the
procedure to indicate the extra equipment required for the non-precision
final. Assuming the outer marker works, then ADF would not be required for
the LOC FAF, because the OM would take care of that.
The ILS doesn't need the LOM for final since it relies on glideslope
intercept, and not the non-precision FAF.
In this case the LOM is not required for missed approach, as the MA
instructions give the option to go to the VORTAC.
It would be nice if the procedure could include the reason the ADF is
required, i.e., "ADF required for missed approach" or "ADF required for
procedure entry when radar OTS".

It appears this procedure can be completed via radar vectors to final,
then glideslope intercept (ILS) or OM (LOC), followed by MA back to SAC
VORTAC. Don't see a need for the ADF as long as NORCAL can vector to
final.

Guess this is just one of lifes mysteries.


Where do you see a need for ADF without vectors to final?



When told to head direct EXECC (IAF) and fly the approach pilot-nav.
Technically, EXECC is the IAF, not the VOR. However, because they are
so close, I think most pilots just use the VOR.


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

"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...

When told to head direct EXECC (IAF) and fly the approach pilot-nav.
Technically, EXECC is the IAF, not the VOR. However, because they are
so close, I think most pilots just use the VOR.


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.