ADF Required

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.

Actually, ATC can only over-ride those things which way "unless approved
by ATC" or something similar. For example, ATC can waive the rule which
says you need to file a flight plan to get an IFR clearance, because
91.whatever says they can. But they cannot invent new approach
procedures.

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.

Yeah, I can just see that. "Hi, AOPA? I'm up here in the clouds, my
radios just crapped out, and I need to go missed. Can you help me?" :-)

"Newps" wrote in message
news:OU1%b.57647$4o.76032@attbi_s52...


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.

Um, filing that airport as the alternate (when you are required to have an
alternate) (assuming it is the only approach) and you do not have an ADF is
one example I can think of.



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.


I think he was talking about without the GPS.

"Richard Hertz" wrote in message
t...

"Newps" wrote in message
news:OU1%b.57647$4o.76032@attbi_s52...


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.

Um, filing that airport as the alternate (when you are required to have an
alternate) (assuming it is the only approach) and you do not have an ADF
is
one example I can think of.

Hmmm, I have a problem with this. Aren't you risking a slap on the wrist if
you file an airport as an alternate KNOWING that you didn't have the
required equipment to begin with. Not to mention that you are playing with
your next birthday. Note, I'm not talking about an enroute failure of the
instrument.

"Casey Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Richard Hertz" wrote in message
t...

"Newps" wrote in message
news:OU1%b.57647$4o.76032@attbi_s52...


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.

Um, filing that airport as the alternate (when you are required to have
an
alternate) (assuming it is the only approach) and you do not have an ADF
is
one example I can think of.

Hmmm, I have a problem with this. Aren't you risking a slap on the wrist
if
you file an airport as an alternate KNOWING that you didn't have the
required equipment to begin with. Not to mention that you are playing with
your next birthday. Note, I'm not talking about an enroute failure of the
instrument.


I am not sure you understood my point. The poster I replied to says an IFR
GPS can replace ADF any time. I suggested that is not the case.
Specifically, filing for an alternate that has an approach that says "ADF
required" when you do not have an ADF installed (even if you have a gps) and
there are no other approaches suitable is not legal. You can't substitute
GPS for ADF for an alternat apprch. (filed)

I think you have come to the same conclusion, though not in the same way?

"Richard Hertz" wrote in message
t...

"Casey Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Richard Hertz" wrote in message
t...

"Newps" wrote in message
news:OU1%b.57647$4o.76032@attbi_s52...


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.

Um, filing that airport as the alternate (when you are required to
have
an
alternate) (assuming it is the only approach) and you do not have an
ADF
is
one example I can think of.

Hmmm, I have a problem with this. Aren't you risking a slap on the wrist
if
you file an airport as an alternate KNOWING that you didn't have the
required equipment to begin with. Not to mention that you are playing
with
your next birthday. Note, I'm not talking about an enroute failure of
the
instrument.


I am not sure you understood my point. The poster I replied to says an
IFR
GPS can replace ADF any time. I suggested that is not the case.
Specifically, filing for an alternate that has an approach that says "ADF
required" when you do not have an ADF installed (even if you have a gps)
and
there are no other approaches suitable is not legal. You can't
substitute
GPS for ADF for an alternat apprch. (filed)

I think you have come to the same conclusion, though not in the same way?

Well, in did misunderstand your point -- but, now that you've clarified
it, I disagree. My interpretation is that an IFR approved GPS will stand in
for the ADF "at any time." (Quote marks are mine for emphasis.) In other
words, if the airplane is IFR GPS equipped, it does not need an ADF for that
alternate to be valid when filing the flight plan.
I got the impression that the pilot intended to file with a known faulty
ADF and no GPS with the intention of requesting a modified missed-approach
for the alternate -- if he needed to go there.
I'm probably reading into the subject. We need a FSDO to answer this
one.

Earlier mention of hanging an 'inop' sticker reminded me of
an occasion back around '70 when we had to inop the ADF
on either a DC8 or 727. Somebody asked if they really needed
an ADF? One of the old timers wisecracked, "How else can
they learn the scores of the ball games."

Oddly enough, about a month later the company started a project
where we installed some wires and installed a switch on the S/O's
panel through out our fairly large fleet. With a flip of this switch
all of the passengers back in the cabin could listen to anything
dialed into the S/O's audio panel. Just in time for the World Series.

JK
( Return to serious mode )

wrote in message ...

Not anything. They cannot construct a non-radar missed approach
procedure, nor can they waive notes on an approach chart (those
are regulatory).


They're regulatory? Please cite the regulation.

The need for equipment requirement notes is determined by evaluating all
SIAP segments, including the missed approach procedure. A few years ago
many of these notes began appearing on procedures where the entire approach
could be flown without use of the specified equipment. Apparently some
approach designers did not have a good understanding of how approaches are
flown.

"Richard Hertz" wrote in message
t...

Um, filing that airport as the alternate (when you are required to have an
alternate) (assuming it is the only approach) and you do not have an ADF
is one example I can think of.


But that requirement affects only the filing of an alternate, not flying an
approach.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
wrote in message ...

Not anything. They cannot construct a non-radar missed approach
procedure, nor can they waive notes on an approach chart (those
are regulatory).



They're regulatory? Please cite the regulation.

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14, Part 97, Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures. The procedures, including notes, are promulgated in
the National Flight Data Digest to complete the requirements of Part 97.


The need for equipment requirement notes is determined by evaluating all
SIAP segments, including the missed approach procedure. A few years ago
many of these notes began appearing on procedures where the entire approach
could be flown without use of the specified equipment. Apparently some
approach designers did not have a good understanding of how approaches are
flown.


Equipment requirement notes are addressed in FAAO 8260.19 para 855 h,
"Equipment requirement notes". Although the need for specific equipment
to fly the final approach will be identified in the procedure title
(VOR/DME, etc), the requirement for additional equipment in other
segments such as feeders or missed approach will be listed in the notes
section.

"J Haggerty" wrote in message
news:PNy1c.8878$Pc.4349@okepread02...

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14, Part 97, Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures. The procedures, including notes, are
promulgated in the National Flight Data Digest to complete the
requirements of Part 97.


Please cite the regulation that makes notes on an approach chart regulatory.



Equipment requirement notes are addressed in FAAO 8260.19 para 855 h,
"Equipment requirement notes". Although the need for specific
equipment to fly the final approach will be identified in the procedure
title
(VOR/DME, etc), the requirement for additional equipment in other
segments such as feeders or missed approach will be listed in the notes
section.


I'm using the online version of FAAO 8260.19C, I don't know if it's the
latest. It has no paragraph 855, notes are covered in paragraph 814.


FAA Order 8260.19C

CHAPTER 8. INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES DATA TRANSMITTAL SYSTEM

SECTION 3. COMPLETION OF FAA FORMS 8260-3/5

814. NOTES.

h. Equipment Requirement Notes. Determine the need for equipment notes
after evaluating all SIAP segments, including missed approach. To avoid
proliferation of equipment requirement notes, all IFR aircraft are assumed
to have at least one VOR receiver. Therefore, the note "VOR required" is not
appropriate. VOR, ILS, or other non-ADF approaches may require ADF for
procedure entry or missed approach. Use standard Note: "ADF required." If
radar vectoring is available, use standard Note: "ADF or radar required."


Regardless which is more recent, the paragraph you quoted does not disagree
with the material I provided. In each case the notes are clearly derived
from the need for the specified equipment, the notes do not create the need
for the equipment. When properly placed, the notes are not an issue, they
simply state a fact. The problem arises when the notes appear on a chart
where the specified equipment is not needed at all, that is, when they
appear in error.