SAC ILS "ADF Required" Info

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Sam Spade wrote:

Oh very well. But, this is not a charting error.



"ADF REQUIRED" on charts for IAPs that do not require ADF is not a
charting error?



If it is an error at
all, it is a source document error. That is not in NACO's purview no
matter how much you may wish it to be.



It appears the FAA wants notice of charting errors reported to NACO.
Do you understand that?

Yes, far better than you do.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

Jose wrote:

Perhaps that note is an error.



Perhaps. I wonder where notification of that possible error should be
addressed?



http://avn.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=nfpo/qoab

Sam Spade wrote:

Yes, far better than you do.


Impossible, and you're welcome.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Sam Spade wrote:

Yes, far better than you do.



Impossible, and you're welcome.


It's becoming increasingly apparent that you are delusional.

"Jose" wrote in message
. com...

That remains to be seen. Let's hear what Mr. Harmer has to say.


I received a response from Mr. Harmer. ADF is required to identify the FAF.
Apparently marker beacons cannot be used to determine position along track.
His response and my reply follow.




Paul

I will try to clarify this issue because it is more than a bit confusing.

When a procedure isn't absolutely clear on what equipment is required to
fly the approach then we have to add notes as necessary so the pilot knows
exactly what equipment is needed. For this particular approach the VOR
and
NDB are used for the procedure and are depicted in the plan view. Their
close physical proximity as depicted on the planview could lead a pilot to
believe that he could do the hold in lieu pattern using the VOR, but that
is not correct. The VOR is only used on the procedure as a feeder and a
missed approach holding fix.

Now to try and explain. This approach has 2 parts, the full ILS and then
the LOC only which must be addressed separately for clarification. There
are 2 IAFs identified on this approach, first the hold in lieu at EXECC
LOM
and secondly the NoPT segment from COUPS INT to EXECC LOM; and 1 feeder
route, SAC VORTAC to EXECC LOM. When an aircraft is shooting the full ILS
approach from COUPS INT it does not require the use of ADF to fly the
final
(the precision FAF is based on an altitude not the LOM) or missed approach
because 2 missed options are provided. But should the glideslope fail and
he has to transition to the LOC only approach, or when flying the LOC only
approach, then ADF is required to identify the FAF. The missed approach
provides the pilot with 2 possible holding options either going to the SAC
VORTAC or the EXECC LOM to hold so ADF required doesn't apply. Mr
McNicoll
is correct is stating that he is allowed to substitute GPS for ADF in
certain circumstances. However we have to consider the least possibly
equipped aircraft shooting this approach and that requires that we place
an
"ADF REQUIRED " note on this approach.

I hope this will answer the question for Mr McNicoll. Feel free to
contact
us anytime



Don Harmer
Air Traffic Organization-W
Western Flight Procedures Team
Lead, Western Pacific Area (AJW-324)
405-954-9930




Dear Mr. Harmer,

I received your response through Paul Spadero explaining why ADF is required
on the SAC ILS or LOC RWY 2 approach. You indicated that ADF is required to
identify the FAF when flying the LOC only approach. The FAF is EXECC LOM,
why must the pilot use ADF to identify station passage of the Compass
Locator? Why can't the Outer Marker be used to identify EXECC?

Steven P. McNicoll
De Pere, WI

Mr
McNicoll
is correct is stating that he is allowed to substitute GPS for ADF in
certain circumstances. However we have to consider the least possibly
equipped aircraft shooting this approach and that requires that we place
an
"ADF REQUIRED " note on this approach.

Why not "ADF OR GPS required"?

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

Jose wrote:
Mr

McNicoll
is correct is stating that he is allowed to substitute GPS for ADF in
certain circumstances. However we have to consider the least possibly
equipped aircraft shooting this approach and that requires that we place
an
"ADF REQUIRED " note on this approach.


Why not "ADF OR GPS required"?

Jose

Good question. I'm sure that will be an option in the not too distant
future, but right now you can't mix and match ground-based systems with
GPS on published procedures due to TERPS requirements. That's another
set of guidelines that allows substitution with GPS in some
circumstances, and already you may have seen NOTAMS stating "Procedure
NA except for IFR certified GPS equipped aircraft" where the NOTAM
specifically allows substitution for DME or ADF ancillary equipment.

John

On 06/29/06 15:17, JPH wrote:
Jose wrote:
Mr

McNicoll
is correct is stating that he is allowed to substitute GPS for ADF in
certain circumstances. However we have to consider the least possibly
equipped aircraft shooting this approach and that requires that we place
an
"ADF REQUIRED " note on this approach.


Why not "ADF OR GPS required"?

Jose

Good question. I'm sure that will be an option in the not too distant
future, but right now you can't mix and match ground-based systems with
GPS on published procedures due to TERPS requirements.

Huh? The AIM has a complete section called "Use of GPS in lieu of
ADF and DME"


That's another
set of guidelines that allows substitution with GPS in some
circumstances, and already you may have seen NOTAMS stating "Procedure
NA except for IFR certified GPS equipped aircraft" where the NOTAM
specifically allows substitution for DME or ADF ancillary equipment.

John



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

"Jose" wrote in message
om...

Why not "ADF OR GPS required"?


No need for that, GPS can substitute for ADF in this case anyway. But why
not "ADF REQUIRED FOR LOC RWY 2"?

"JPH" wrote in message
news:TjYog.11140$f76.5031@dukeread06...

Good question. I'm sure that will be an option in the not too distant
future, but right now you can't mix and match ground-based systems with
GPS on published procedures due to TERPS requirements. That's another set
of guidelines that allows substitution with GPS in some circumstances, and
already you may have seen NOTAMS stating "Procedure NA except for IFR
certified GPS equipped aircraft" where the NOTAM specifically allows
substitution for DME or ADF ancillary equipment.


It's an option now. See AIM para 1-1-19.f.:

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/AIM/Chap1/aim0101.html#1-1-19