ADF Required

"Peter R." wrote:

He told me what you stated above. If you ask ATC for alternate missed

approach instructions, you can "legally" fly the approach without an
ADF.

Your examiner is wrong. ATC cannot waive Part 97. But, you can substitute an
IFR-certified GPS for the ADF because Flight Standards has issued a national policy
letter permitting that.

And, most IAPs do not have a non-radar alternate missed approach proceddure. It's
either the published missed or radar vectors.

"Peter R." wrote:


Now that I think of it, I recall the chief CFI at my school mentioned he
was going to talk to the DE about GPS substitution, as it appeared the
DE did not have his facts entirely correct. Then again, this was about
a year ago.

The FAA authorized that substitution about 4 years ago.

AOPA has the link, I can't find it right now.

Is the AOPA link you are referring to?
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/air_tra...s_in_lieu.html
Some more info is at
http://www.avionicswest.com/myviewpoint/gpsuse.htm
Tom

Actually, failure of the ADF was one the reasons I installed a Garmin 430 in
my plane. The GPS can substitute for an ADF or DME.

If I understood your response correctly, the approach may not be flown
without having either an ADF or an IFR-certified GPS.

It seems to me like very poor planning to design approaches such as the two
I previously mentioned (Rochester, NY KROC ILS RWY 4 or VOR RWY 4). A
pilot could have a day (1,000 foot ceiling) with an extremely low
probability of needing to execute the missed and not be able to "legally"
fly the approach if the ADF was inop.

Has anyone tried to get an approach modified, e.g., get a missed approach
procedure changed to eliminate the ADF requirement?

wrote in message ...

ATC cannot waive Part 97. But, you can substitute an
IFR-certified GPS for the ADF because Flight Standards has issued a
national policy
letter permitting that.

And, most IAPs do not have a non-radar alternate missed approach
proceddure. It's
either the published missed or radar vectors.

"Ted Timmons" wrote in message
...
If I understood your response correctly, the approach may not be flown
without having either an ADF or an IFR-certified GPS.

It seems to me like very poor planning to design approaches such as the
two
I previously mentioned (Rochester, NY KROC ILS RWY 4 or VOR RWY 4). A
pilot could have a day (1,000 foot ceiling) with an extremely low
probability of needing to execute the missed and not be able to "legally"
fly the approach if the ADF was inop.

How is that poor design? That may be all the facilities they had. Years
ago ADF was more prevalent. There are approaches that are not legal even
when the airport's weather is VFR - does that make sense to you either? (3
miles, 1000 ft)


Has anyone tried to get an approach modified, e.g., get a missed approach
procedure changed to eliminate the ADF requirement?

Try it. tell us how it works out.


wrote in message ...

ATC cannot waive Part 97. But, you can substitute an
IFR-certified GPS for the ADF because Flight Standards has issued a
national policy
letter permitting that.

And, most IAPs do not have a non-radar alternate missed approach
proceddure. It's
either the published missed or radar vectors.

or VOR RWY 4) is there any legal way to fly the approach without an ADF?
It appears to me that the only reason for the ADF requirement is for the
missed approach.

Only with an approach approved GPS that has the paperwork for
installation in the plane. (In which case, you can use it for that
approach, but your alternate still has to be filed such that you can use
non-GPS methods.)

Can the approach be flown leagally by requesting alternate
missed approach instructions that don't require and ADF?

Now that's a great question. I suppose ATC can override anything really.
But then, what do you do in case of lost comm? You can't fly the
published missed. If you're an AOPA member, call up there help line.
They know or can find out just about anything about this stuff.

Scott
www.privacytactics.com -- Protect Your Personal Information Assets

Ted Timmons wrote:

If I understood your response correctly, the approach may not be flown
without having either an ADF or an IFR-certified GPS.

It seems to me like very poor planning to design approaches such as the two
I previously mentioned (Rochester, NY KROC ILS RWY 4 or VOR RWY 4). A
pilot could have a day (1,000 foot ceiling) with an extremely low
probability of needing to execute the missed and not be able to "legally"
fly the approach if the ADF was inop.

Has anyone tried to get an approach modified, e.g., get a missed approach
procedure changed to eliminate the ADF requirement?

They don't do that unless other facilities or traffic flow won't permit use of
a VOR facility or fix. Having said that, with IFR GPS it is no big deal any
longer.

Now that's a great question. I suppose ATC can override anything really.
But then, what do you do in case of lost comm? You can't fly the
published missed. If you're an AOPA member, call up there help line.
They know or can find out just about anything about this stuff.


Not anything. They cannot construct a non-radar missed approach procedure, nor
can they waive notes on an approach chart (those are regulatory). But, where
they have radar they can give you a vectored missed approach, but only once
you're talking to them.

Scott wrote:

Can the approach be flown leagally by requesting alternate
missed approach instructions that don't require and ADF?


Now that's a great question. I suppose ATC can override anything really.

There is no situation where the plate says ADF required that GPS cannot
substitute. And yes ATC can come up with alternate missed instructions.


But then, what do you do in case of lost comm? You can't fly the
published missed.

Why not? Just go to the NDB and hold using the GPS. That's not even
difficult.