Why is ADF required for KSAC ILS Rwy 2 SIAP?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:G526g.175119$bm6.2264@fed1read04...

ADF is required for the transition from COUPS.



No it isn't, COUPS is on the SAC 195 radial.


I am just the messenger Steve. A senior manager at the National Flight
Procedures Office is the guy you have a beef with. The terminal route
goes to the LOM, not to the VOR. The 195 radial is part of the fix, not
part of the terminal route. Those are facts, even though you may not
like them.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:wy56g.175128$bm6.85723@fed1read04...

I am just the messenger Steve. A senior manager at the National Flight
Procedures Office is the guy you have a beef with. The terminal route
goes to the LOM, not to the VOR. The 195 radial is part of the fix, not
part of the terminal route. Those are facts, even though you may not like
them.


I don't have a beef with anyone. Since COUPS is on the SAC 195 radial and
the terminal route from COUPS is 015 it cannot avoid taking you to the IAF.
That's a fact I'm sure you won't like.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:wy56g.175128$bm6.85723@fed1read04...

I am just the messenger Steve. A senior manager at the National Flight
Procedures Office is the guy you have a beef with. The terminal route
goes to the LOM, not to the VOR. The 195 radial is part of the fix, not
part of the terminal route. Those are facts, even though you may not like
them.



I don't have a beef with anyone. Since COUPS is on the SAC 195 radial and
the terminal route from COUPS is 015 it cannot avoid taking you to the IAF.
That's a fact I'm sure you won't like.


A handheld GPS will do that better.

As to me not liking your fact, it's more an issue of the Part 97
regulation for this particular IAP. But, since we all realize you hold
FAA directives and FARs in contempt, have it it.

BTW, do you choose to ignore the 7110.65 when working your day job?

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:0338g.176016$bm6.30345@fed1read04...

As to me not liking your fact, it's more an issue of the Part 97
regulation for this particular IAP.


That's not an issue at all.



But, since we all realize you hold
FAA directives and FARs in contempt, have it it.

BTW, do you choose to ignore the 7110.65 when working your day job?



I don't ignore any of those things at any time.

That NDB is on the list of phase 1 for NDB's to be decommisioned. The
NDB is an IAF but the VOR is slow close, most of us just use the VOR.
ATC can't tell the difference.

-Robert

On 05/12/06 13:57, Robert M. Gary wrote:
That NDB is on the list of phase 1 for NDB's to be decommisioned. The
NDB is an IAF but the VOR is slow close, most of us just use the VOR.
ATC can't tell the difference.

-Robert


In fact, while training we always used the VOR. I didn't even realize
the ADF was used for the feeder until this NOTAM happened and I looked
more closely at the chart. Of course, I realize that the feeder route
takes you to the LOM because that it the FAF for the LOC-only approach.

I wonder if my instrument instructor realized this issue... He is a real
"don't sweat the details if it works" kinda guy, so I would guess not.


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

Mark Hansen wrote:

On 05/12/06 13:57, Robert M. Gary wrote:

That NDB is on the list of phase 1 for NDB's to be decommisioned. The
NDB is an IAF but the VOR is slow close, most of us just use the VOR.
ATC can't tell the difference.

-Robert



In fact, while training we always used the VOR. I didn't even realize
the ADF was used for the feeder until this NOTAM happened and I looked
more closely at the chart. Of course, I realize that the feeder route
takes you to the LOM because that it the FAF for the LOC-only approach.

I wonder if my instrument instructor realized this issue... He is a real
"don't sweat the details if it works" kinda guy, so I would guess not.


Who cares when in the "line of fire?" Nonetheless, the conceptual
differences are the stuff really good CFI-I's are made of, hopefully in
a briefing or debriefing.

I wonder if my instrument instructor realized this issue... He is a real
"don't sweat the details if it works" kinda guy, so I would guess not.

I'm guessing he doesn't work for Carter then!

-Robert

On 05/13/06 21:41, Robert M. Gary wrote:
I wonder if my instrument instructor realized this issue... He is a real
"don't sweat the details if it works" kinda guy, so I would guess not.

I'm guessing he doesn't work for Carter then!

-Robert


Heh, heh, ... nope. There was one guy at the FBO that seemed to
know his stuff. The assistant chief flight instructor. I had an
opportunity to fly with him for my IR stage check rides (but not
my final check, unfortunately). It is a privilege to fly with
someone like this.


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

Sam Spade wrote:

There is a lot of subjectivity in procedure design. According to my
source, and I quote:

"This is one of those old ILS procedures done by some of our old
pilot/developers years ago. The in NoPT route goes to the LOM, one
reason for ADF required, and the procedure was generating too many
questions. We have it on the list to fix."

The ADF Required note now appears in the published procedure updated
May 11.

So why doesn't it say ADF or RADAR required? Why can't you get vectors
to final and shoot this approach without an ADF (assuming the VOR is in
service)?

Peter