SAC ILS "ADF Required" Info

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:BNylg.179320$bm6.132661@fed1read04...

When you are out of ideas then, in your typical fine fashion, you resort
to personal attacks.


I never resort to personal attacks. You truly have demonstrated your
inability to use simple logic. Again.



Shoot the messenger as you so love to do, Steve.


You still don't get it. Your message is wrong.



That does not change the FACT that the note is an FAR.


Prove it.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:2Oylg.179321$bm6.81683@fed1read04...

Why can they be "nothing else?"


Because that's all they can be, that should be obvious even to you. When
"ADF REQUIRED" appears on a non-NDB SIAP where ADF is actually required to
fly the approach it does nothing to alter the approach in any way. It's
only function is to alert those pilots who don't do an adequate job of
preparing for the approach. Those pilots who do prepare adequately will
understand that ADF is required without the note. When it appears on an
approach where ADF is not required, as in this case, it's meaningless and
does nothing other than cause confusion in some pilots and indicate that the
FAA is running short of competent procedures specialists to others. The
note cannot create a regulatory requirement to use ADF where ADF is not
operationally required.

"Jose" wrote in message
y.net...

... in the same manner that pilots would deal with being given a clearance
to fly an ILS when they did not have an ILS receiver aboard.


I fail to see any similarity. An "ILS receiver" is clearly needed to fly an
ILS approach. In what manner would you expect pilots to rely on the note
"ADF REQUIRED" when they're flying an approach that does not require ADF?



I expect
pilots to rely on the publication as accurately reflecting facts, and the
presence of "ADF Required" (which as stated upthread was actually
initiated by NOTAM) would be relied upon as reflecting the fact that ADF
is required.


But we know that ADF is not required for this approach. In what manner
would you expect pilots to rely on the note "ADF REQUIRED" when they know
ADF is not required?



I would not expect pilots to second-guess NOTAMS or approach procedures.
If it says ADF required, then an ADF is required.


What is the ADF required for on approaches where ADF is not required but
carry the note "ADF REQUIRED"?



So, if cleared for the approach, and no ADF is aboard, the word "unable"
or some equivalent would be legally required.


Is carrying an old, unserviceable ADF in the baggage compartment good
enough? If not, why not?

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

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).


Check the dumpster. Perhaps there's one in there still. Put it in your
baggage compartment and go fly the approach.

But we know that ADF is not required for this approach.

No, we do not know that. We know that the FAA, in its infinite wisdom,
has stated a requirement for an ADF receiver to be on board. It has
done so by NOTAM (according to a previous poster).

It all boils down to whether or not a pilot is to rely on the
publications of (or sanctioned by) the FAA for regulatory information.

For all I know (no comments from the peanut gallery!) it may be typical
for ATC to issue alternate missed approach instructions "proceed direct
to the ABC More Music station and hold until you hear Jethro Tull", and
the ADF prepares you for that.

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
.net...

No, we do not know that.

Okay, all of us don't know that. But all of us that are knowledgeable on
IFR procedures know it.



We know that the FAA, in its infinite wisdom, has stated a requirement for
an ADF receiver to be on board. It has done so by NOTAM (according to a
previous poster).


No, we only know that at least one not-too-sharp procedures specialist
believes ADF is required for this approach.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:2Oylg.179321$bm6.81683@fed1read04...

Why can they be "nothing else?"



Because that's all they can be, that should be obvious even to you. When
"ADF REQUIRED" appears on a non-NDB SIAP where ADF is actually required to
fly the approach it does nothing to alter the approach in any way. It's
only function is to alert those pilots who don't do an adequate job of
preparing for the approach. Those pilots who do prepare adequately will
understand that ADF is required without the note. When it appears on an
approach where ADF is not required, as in this case, it's meaningless and
does nothing other than cause confusion in some pilots and indicate that the
FAA is running short of competent procedures specialists to others. The
note cannot create a regulatory requirement to use ADF where ADF is not
operationally required.


You should transfer to FAA legal.

Jose wrote:
I have no push with the FAA. The TPP has an email address for notification
of charting errors on the inside front cover. I sent the following message:

I found an error on the SAC ILS or LOC RWY 2 SIAP chart. The note "ADF
REQUIRED" appears on the approach plate, but ADF is not required for
procedure entry or missed approach. Since this approach can be flown
without ADF or GPS in lieu of ADF the note is in error and must be removed.

It would be interesting to hear the response.


Here it is:

Steven,

After reviewing our records it appears that the "ADF Required" note
should be charted on ILS or LOC Rwy 2 SIAP. This ADF note was added on
the chart per TL06-09 CCP request effective 5/11/06. We would need a
revised procedure to remove the note. I have forwarded your question
onto AVN-100 Don Harmer. Hopefully, AVN-100 will evaluate your concern
and if necessary revise the current procedure.

Thank you for your concern

Paul Spadaro
NACO



And here is my reply:

Dear Mr. Spadaro,

I did not have a question, I wrote only to point out the error on the
chart. Can you tell me what is in your records that makes it appear
that the "ADF REQUIRED" note should be charted on the ILS or LOC RWY 2
SIAP? Can you tell me why this ADF note was added on the chart per
TL06-09 CCP request? Why would you need a revised procedure to remove
the note? Since this approach can be flown without ADF it would appear
the note should never have been added, unless "ADF REQUIRED" means
something other than "ADF is needed to fly this approach". Does it?

Have a nice day.

Steven P. McNicoll

It would be interesting to hear the response.

Here it is [along with my reply]:

Ah... bureaucracy in motion. Keep us posted.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Jose wrote:

It would be interesting to hear the response.



Here it is:

Steven,

After reviewing our records it appears that the "ADF Required" note
should be charted on ILS or LOC Rwy 2 SIAP. This ADF note was added on
the chart per TL06-09 CCP request effective 5/11/06. We would need a
revised procedure to remove the note. I have forwarded your question
onto AVN-100 Don Harmer. Hopefully, AVN-100 will evaluate your concern
and if necessary revise the current procedure.

Thank you for your concern

Paul Spadaro
NACO



And here is my reply:

Dear Mr. Spadaro,

I did not have a question, I wrote only to point out the error on the
chart. Can you tell me what is in your records that makes it appear
that the "ADF REQUIRED" note should be charted on the ILS or LOC RWY 2
SIAP? Can you tell me why this ADF note was added on the chart per
TL06-09 CCP request? Why would you need a revised procedure to remove
the note? Since this approach can be flown without ADF it would appear
the note should never have been added, unless "ADF REQUIRED" means
something other than "ADF is needed to fly this approach". Does it?

Have a nice day.

Steven P. McNicoll


Mr Spadaro was explaining why he added the note; it was initiated by CCP
request (P-Notam). The P-NOTAM is a procedure amendment and was issued
by NFPG. NACO just charts what they are told to chart, as long as it
meets charting criteria. He didn't create the note, so he forwarded your
question to Don Harmer, who is a manager at NFPG/AVN. NFPG is the only
agency that can change the note, and it would have to be an amendment to
the procedure, either via another CCP or a full-blown amendment.
I'm sure Mr Harmer will review the procedure and determine if the note
is or is not required and take action to remove it or revise it if
necessary based on FAAO 8260.3 and 8260.19 requirements.

JPH