SAC ILS "ADF Required" Info

There's no need for ADF on
this approach, the note "ADF REQUIRED" is an error.

It may be an error, but it is an error with which the pilot has to comply.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
. com...

It may be an error, but it is an error with which the pilot has to comply.


It's definitely an error. How would the pilot comply with it?

Mark Hansen wrote:

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.

Could you provide some context? Where is this? Why can't I find EXECC in my
database, or on airnav.com? Thanks. Dave

Dave Butler wrote:
Mark Hansen wrote:

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.


Could you provide some context? Where is this? Why can't I find EXECC in
my database, or on airnav.com? Thanks.

Oh, never mind, sorry for the noise. I see it's a navaid, not a
fix/intersection. DGB

On 06/16/06 09:23, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"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.



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.

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.

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

On 06/16/06 10:35, Dave Butler wrote:
Dave Butler wrote:
Mark Hansen wrote:

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.


Could you provide some context? Where is this? Why can't I find EXECC in
my database, or on airnav.com? Thanks.

Oh, never mind, sorry for the noise. I see it's a navaid, not a
fix/intersection. DGB

Yes, it's the LOM/NDB near the SAC VOR.


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

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"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.


Yes, but it's only a feeder route. SAC VORTAC is not an IAF nor an IF,
it's just a feeder to the IAF at the LOM. From the LOM, you need to do a
course reversal based on how the procedure was designed, and if you
don't have capability to receive the LOM, then you can't do the course
reversal.
Why do you have to do a course reversal at the LOM? Because from a TERPS
construction viewpoint, SAC VORTAC doesn't meet the TERPS criteria for
intercepting final prior to the glideslope intercept point for the ILS
(TERPS Vol IV para 2.3.1), so you can't do a straight-in from SAC VORTAC
legally. And without the LOM, you can't do the LOC because you can't
identify the FAF (EXECC is not an intersection).
Now, if SAC VORTAC was further out, then it could provide a route to
intercept the LOC further out from the FAF (minimum length for an
intermediate segment on ILS is 1 NM, and SAC VORTAC is only 0.4 NM from
the non-precision FAF and even less from the glideslope intercept and it
goes to the LOM, and not necessarily the LOC depending on how far off
centerline the LOM is).

JPH

"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?

"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?

"JPH" wrote in message
news:gAIkg.7731$f76.2544@dukeread06...

Yes, but it's only a feeder route. SAC VORTAC is not an IAF nor an IF,
it's just a feeder to the IAF at the LOM. From the LOM, you need to do a
course reversal based on how the procedure was designed, and if you don't
have capability to receive the LOM, then you can't do the course reversal.


ADF is not needed to receive the LOM.