Why is ADF required on ILS approach?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
thlink.net...

You're viewing the note "ADF REQUIRED" as having legal authority. I view
it
as just a reminder that ADF is needed to fly the full approach, the missed
approach segment in this case. This isn't the first time this matter has
been discussed in this forum. As I recall from previous discussions,
nobody
was able to present any definitive documentation in support of either
view.
But logic tends to support the view that these notes are just reminders to
the pilot. Take a look at most LOC BC approaches and you'll find a
similar
note that says "BACK COURSE". Is that a legal requirement that a back
course receiver must be aboard to fly the approach, or is it just a
reminder
of reverse sensing?


Of course its a requirement, that's why the word "required" is used. You
can use a GPS in substitute, but one or the other is required. "Radar
required" is also a frequently found note. Do you think that if the radar
is inop that day you can still shoot the approach because it was "just a
reminder"?

Paul Steichen
CFI, CFII, MEI, CRJ FO

Dave Butler wrote:

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Gig Giacona" wrote in message
...

So this means I will need to install and ADF in the plane I'm building in
order to use the ILS approach?



Not necessarily. GPS can substitute for ADF and ATC can sometimes issue
alternate missed approach instructions.

I think the alternate missed approach instructions still don't relieve the pilot
of the requirement to have all the equipment mentioned in the title of the
approach chart. Of course, no enforcement action unless there's an incident.

The naming convention in TERPS was changed about 3 years ago to shorten titles, so
that they fit better in RNAV databases. Thus, what is required for an ILS approach,
for instance, is what is implied by the title and what is stated by any equipment
notes, such as "ADF required," etc.

Formerly, when DME was mandatory on an ILS approach the title would be ILS/DME, but
for any auch approach revised in the past couple of years, or in the future it will
state ILS in the title, then there will be an equipment note "DME required."

And, alternate missed approach procedures are not charted, thus generally known only
to the ATC facility, when they even exist. Even if a pilot knew such alternate
missed approach procedure existed, it is not a reality unless the controlling ATC
facility assigns it once you're in their airspace and under their control.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Dave Butler" wrote in message
...

Oh, right, sorry. I lost sight of the original premise, an ILS with ADF
REQUIRED. So what I should have said was:

"I think the alternate missed approach instructions still don't relieve
the
pilot of the requirement for carrying an ADF as explicitly stated on the
approach chart."


You're viewing the note "ADF REQUIRED" as having legal authority. I view it
as just a reminder that ADF is needed to fly the full approach, the missed
approach segment in this case. This isn't the first time this matter has
been discussed in this forum. As I recall from previous discussions, nobody
was able to present any definitive documentation in support of either view.
But logic tends to support the view that these notes are just reminders to
the pilot. Take a look at most LOC BC approaches and you'll find a similar
note that says "BACK COURSE". Is that a legal requirement that a back
course receiver must be aboard to fly the approach, or is it just a reminder
of reverse sensing?

You're entitled to your view, of course. But, the "ADF REQUIRED" note is a
procedural data equipment note issued as part of an amendment to 14 CFR 97. If
in doubt, all the manager of AVN-100 and ask him whether the note is advisory in
nature. Also, AFS-400 many have a view somewhat different than your's.

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Rich,

Wait! He can use a GPS in place of the ADF on that approach. Isn't that
correct?


I think so. But: Does the GPS need to be certified? If so (and I think so),
does it need to be approach certified or is enroute sufficient?

IFR certified, but approach certification is not required.

"unknown" wrote in message
news

Of course its a requirement, that's why the word "required" is used.


Can you present any definitive documentation in support of that view?

What requirement does the note "BACK COURSE" on a LOC BC approach present?



"Radar required" is also a frequently found note. Do you think that if
the radar
is inop that day you can still shoot the approach because it was "just a
reminder"?


I think if the radar is inop that day I won't be cleared for any approach
that requires radar.

wrote in message ...

You're entitled to your view, of course. But, the "ADF REQUIRED"
note is a procedural data equipment note issued as part of an
amendment to 14 CFR 97.


Can you cite a source for that?



If in doubt, all the manager of AVN-100 and ask him whether the note is
advisory in nature. Also, AFS-400 many have a view somewhat
different than your's.


I'm not looking for another opinion, I'm looking for something definitive.

a) FAA 8260.19 is a source document for what I think you are looking for
(Including changes 1 & 2)
http://av-info.faa.gov/terps/Directi...s/8260.19C.pdf
b) Policy 01022, Documentation of Radar Requirements on Instrument Approach
Procedures
http://av-info.faa.gov/terps/Policies1/TIL01022.pdf


1) "ADF Required" - Par 814-h
-- on an ILS, most likely a NDB is used for the missed approach
2) "RADAR Required" - Par 814-g, and TILS 01022
-- What I have seen is that the IAF is defined off of the localizer beam
at some specific DME/crossing radial, or again, required for the missed

Cheers


On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 12:34:13 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll
wrote:


"unknown" wrote in message
news

Of course its a requirement, that's why the word "required" is used.


Can you present any definitive documentation in support of that view?

What requirement does the note "BACK COURSE" on a LOC BC approach
present?



"Radar required" is also a frequently found note. Do you think that if
the radar
is inop that day you can still shoot the approach because it was "just a
reminder"?


I think if the radar is inop that day I won't be cleared for any approach
that requires radar.






--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

"AJNOKC" wrote in message
newsprs5pg1vbg62b0q@localhost...

a) FAA 8260.19 is a source document for what I think you are looking for
(Including changes 1 & 2)
http://av-info.faa.gov/terps/Directi...s/8260.19C.pdf
b) Policy 01022, Documentation of Radar Requirements on Instrument
Approach
Procedures
http://av-info.faa.gov/terps/Policies1/TIL01022.pdf


1) "ADF Required" - Par 814-h
-- on an ILS, most likely a NDB is used for the missed approach
2) "RADAR Required" - Par 814-g, and TILS 01022
-- What I have seen is that the IAF is defined off of the localizer beam
at some specific DME/crossing radial, or again, required for the missed


Thank you. That explains how these notes appear on the plates, and suggests
why "ADF REQUIRED" appears on plates that can be flown completely without
ADF.