There's a NOTAM out for KSAC ILS-2 which states that the following
note should be added to the planview: "ADF Required".

Why is ADF required for this IAP? The marker beacon should tell you
when you're over the LOM, and the missed approach procedure says you
need to hold at the VOR or the NDB.

Is there some requirement for the use of the ADF which I'm not seeing?

Thanks,


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

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
>
> There's a NOTAM out for KSAC ILS-2 which states that the following
> note should be added to the planview: "ADF Required".
>
> Why is ADF required for this IAP? The marker beacon should tell you
> when you're over the LOM, and the missed approach procedure says you
> need to hold at the VOR or the NDB.
>
> Is there some requirement for the use of the ADF which I'm not seeing?
>

There are two current NOTAMs for SAC. The one you mentioned, and one
showing the VOR unserviceable. Without the VOR an ADF is needed for the
missed approach.

On 05/02/06 17:14, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> There's a NOTAM out for KSAC ILS-2 which states that the following
>> note should be added to the planview: "ADF Required".
>>
>> Why is ADF required for this IAP? The marker beacon should tell you
>> when you're over the LOM, and the missed approach procedure says you
>> need to hold at the VOR or the NDB.
>>
>> Is there some requirement for the use of the ADF which I'm not seeing?
>>
>
> There are two current NOTAMs for SAC. The one you mentioned, and one
> showing the VOR unserviceable. Without the VOR an ADF is needed for the
> missed approach.
>
>

Thanks Stephen.

The VOR being OTS is temporary. It will be out from 9:00AM to 4:00PM
on Wednesday (local time).

I was under the impression that the change to the SIAP was permanent...
Because it was done via an FDC NOTAM. Perhaps I'm off base there?
They said it was AMDT 22C.

So will they then come out with an AMDT 22D which says to remove
the note?

I just didn't think they would make a permanent change (FDC) to the
SAIP for a temporary condition.

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

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
>
> The VOR being OTS is temporary. It will be out from 9:00AM to 4:00PM
> on Wednesday (local time).
>
> I was under the impression that the change to the SIAP was permanent...
> Because it was done via an FDC NOTAM. Perhaps I'm off base there?
> They said it was AMDT 22C.
>

The NOTAM says "WIE UNTIL UFN", With Immediate Effect Until Further Notice.
It may not be pernanent.


>
> So will they then come out with an AMDT 22D which says to remove
> the note?
>
> I just didn't think they would make a permanent change (FDC) to the
> SAIP for a temporary condition.
>

Once you've spent a few years reading these things you stop trying to find
any logic in them. The VOR outage justifies the amendment to the IAP, but
it's possible they're unrelated.

Mark Hansen wrote:
> There's a NOTAM out for KSAC ILS-2 which states that the following
> note should be added to the planview: "ADF Required".
>
> Why is ADF required for this IAP? The marker beacon should tell you
> when you're over the LOM, and the missed approach procedure says you
> need to hold at the VOR or the NDB.
>
> Is there some requirement for the use of the ADF which I'm not seeing?
>
> Thanks,
>
>
ADF is required for the transition from COUPS.

Mark Hansen wrote:

> On 05/02/06 17:14, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>>"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>There's a NOTAM out for KSAC ILS-2 which states that the following
>>>note should be added to the planview: "ADF Required".
>>>
>>>Why is ADF required for this IAP? The marker beacon should tell you
>>>when you're over the LOM, and the missed approach procedure says you
>>>need to hold at the VOR or the NDB.
>>>
>>>Is there some requirement for the use of the ADF which I'm not seeing?
>>>
>>
>>There are two current NOTAMs for SAC. The one you mentioned, and one
>>showing the VOR unserviceable. Without the VOR an ADF is needed for the
>>missed approach.
>>
>>
>
>
> Thanks Stephen.
>
> The VOR being OTS is temporary. It will be out from 9:00AM to 4:00PM
> on Wednesday (local time).
>
> I was under the impression that the change to the SIAP was permanent...
> Because it was done via an FDC NOTAM. Perhaps I'm off base there?
> They said it was AMDT 22C.
>
> So will they then come out with an AMDT 22D which says to remove
> the note?
>
> I just didn't think they would make a permanent change (FDC) to the
> SAIP for a temporary condition.
>

They don't issue Permanent FDC NOTAMS (which is what one is when it
amends the procedure from 22B to 22C). They will sometimes issue a
temporary FDC NOTAM for a facility outage, but never for one day.

These NOTAMS are geared to NACO charts. NACO cannot chart a T FDC
NOTAM. They must chart a P FDC NOTAM.

On 05/02/06 18:57, Mark Hansen wrote:
> On 05/02/06 17:14, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> "Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> There's a NOTAM out for KSAC ILS-2 which states that the following
>>> note should be added to the planview: "ADF Required".
>>>
>>> Why is ADF required for this IAP? The marker beacon should tell you
>>> when you're over the LOM, and the missed approach procedure says you
>>> need to hold at the VOR or the NDB.
>>>
>>> Is there some requirement for the use of the ADF which I'm not seeing?
>>>
>>
>> There are two current NOTAMs for SAC. The one you mentioned, and one
>> showing the VOR unserviceable. Without the VOR an ADF is needed for the
>> missed approach.
>>
>>
>
> Thanks Stephen.

Oh ... rats. I meant "Steven", of course. Sorry about that.

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

On 05/03/06 06:19, Sam Spade wrote:
> Mark Hansen wrote:
>> There's a NOTAM out for KSAC ILS-2 which states that the following
>> note should be added to the planview: "ADF Required".
>>
>> Why is ADF required for this IAP? The marker beacon should tell you
>> when you're over the LOM, and the missed approach procedure says you
>> need to hold at the VOR or the NDB.
>>
>> Is there some requirement for the use of the ADF which I'm not seeing?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
> ADF is required for the transition from COUPS.

That's interesting. In all the times I've flown that in training, I
think we've always just used the localizer. However, in looking at
the chart now, the feeder route says "1400 NoPT 015 TO LOM".

However, if you're coming in from COUPS, wouldn't you be on the
localizer before you get to the LOM? After all, by this point,
you're already on the GS. Why would anyone fly the ADF to the
LOM on this approach?


Also, what changed such that the ADF is required now, and wasn't
before? Was it always required, but the chart just didn't say so,
and they are now correcting that?

Thanks,



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

Mark Hansen wrote:
> On 05/03/06 06:19, Sam Spade wrote:
>
>>Mark Hansen wrote:
>>
>>>There's a NOTAM out for KSAC ILS-2 which states that the following
>>>note should be added to the planview: "ADF Required".
>>>
>>>Why is ADF required for this IAP? The marker beacon should tell you
>>>when you're over the LOM, and the missed approach procedure says you
>>>need to hold at the VOR or the NDB.
>>>
>>>Is there some requirement for the use of the ADF which I'm not seeing?
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>
>>>
>>
>>ADF is required for the transition from COUPS.
>
>
> That's interesting. In all the times I've flown that in training, I
> think we've always just used the localizer. However, in looking at
> the chart now, the feeder route says "1400 NoPT 015 TO LOM".
>
> However, if you're coming in from COUPS, wouldn't you be on the
> localizer before you get to the LOM? After all, by this point,
> you're already on the GS. Why would anyone fly the ADF to the
> LOM on this approach?
>
>
> Also, what changed such that the ADF is required now, and wasn't
> before? Was it always required, but the chart just didn't say so,
> and they are now correcting that?
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
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."

"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.

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