ADF Required

[Ted Timmons]

When an approach specifies ADF REQUIRED (as in Rochester, NY KROC ILS RWY 4
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. Can the approach be flown leagally by requesting alternate
missed approach instructions that don't require and ADF?

[john smith]

Ted Timmons wrote:
> When an approach specifies ADF REQUIRED (as in Rochester, NY KROC ILS RWY 4
> 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. Can the approach be flown leagally by requesting alternate
> missed approach instructions that don't require and ADF?

Is there an overlay GPS approach to that runway?

[Peter R.]

Ted Timmons wrote:

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

I fly out of Syracuse, NY, which has an ADF-required ILS approach.
During the oral, the DE for my instrument checkride asked me if I could
legally fly this approach using a C172 with no ADF. I answered "yes" if
the aircraft is equipped with an IFR-certified GPS. That answer was
wrong.

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.

--
Peter







----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Newps]

Ted Timmons wrote:
> When an approach specifies ADF REQUIRED (as in Rochester, NY KROC ILS RWY 4
> 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. Can the approach be flown leagally by requesting alternate
> missed approach instructions that don't require and ADF?

No reason you can't use a GPS for this approach.

[Newps]

Peter R. wrote:

> Ted Timmons wrote:
>
>
>> Can the approach be flown leagally by requesting alternate
>>missed approach instructions that don't require and ADF?
>
>
> I fly out of Syracuse, NY, which has an ADF-required ILS approach.
> During the oral, the DE for my instrument checkride asked me if I could
> legally fly this approach using a C172 with no ADF. I answered "yes" if
> the aircraft is equipped with an IFR-certified GPS. That answer was
> wrong.
>
> 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.

I looked at both ILS's for SYR. No reson you can't use the GPS to hold
at KIRKI when you go missed.

[Craig Prouse]

In article >,
Peter R. > wrote:

> I fly out of Syracuse, NY, which has an ADF-required ILS approach.
> During the oral, the DE for my instrument checkride asked me if I could
> legally fly this approach using a C172 with no ADF. I answered "yes" if
> the aircraft is equipped with an IFR-certified GPS. That answer was
> wrong.

How was your answer wrong?

[Peter R.]

Newps wrote:

> I looked at both ILS's for SYR. No reson you can't use the GPS to hold
> at KIRKI when you go missed.

Yes, you are right and I am wrong. I just found the reference in the
AIM that states that both DME and ADF can be substituted with the GPS.

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.

--
Peter







----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Richard Hertz]

I think the clarification from the FAA is recent about DME and ADF
substitution. However, note that if this is an ALTERNATE airport, you
cannot substitute.

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


"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Newps wrote:
>
> > I looked at both ILS's for SYR. No reson you can't use the GPS to hold
> > at KIRKI when you go missed.
>
> Yes, you are right and I am wrong. I just found the reference in the
> AIM that states that both DME and ADF can be substituted with the GPS.
>
> 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.
>
> --
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

[Teacherjh]

>>
I think the clarification from the FAA is recent about DME and ADF
substitution. However, note that if this is an ALTERNATE airport, you
cannot substitute.
<<

More precisely, the substitution cannot be considered when choosing it as an
alternate. No ADF, can't use it as an alternate. Hoever, once in the air,
should you actually require an alternate airport, you are not required to use
the one in the flight plan, and you may use one notated ADF required by
substituting GPS just as if it were your intended airport and approach.

Requirements for filing differ from those for using.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Andrew Sarangan]

"Ted Timmons" > wrote in message >...
> When an approach specifies ADF REQUIRED (as in Rochester, NY KROC ILS RWY 4
> 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. Can the approach be flown leagally by requesting alternate
> missed approach instructions that don't require and ADF?

I am not sure how you decided that the ADF is required only for the
missed approach. The AVN NDB serves as the IAF and the holding fix. It
is required in order to fly the feeder route from FAULT intersection.
AVN is also the fix from which the MSA and the 10-NM approach area are
determined. Unless I am looking at the wrong approach chart, it seems
to me that you need the ADF in order to fly this approach.

[[email protected]]

"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.

[[email protected]]

"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.

[Tom Cummings]

> 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_traffic/gps_in_lieu.html
Some more info is at
http://www.avionicswest.com/myviewpoint/gpsuse.htm
Tom

[C J Campbell]

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.

[Ted Timmons]

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.

[Richard Hertz]

"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.
>
>

[Scott]

> 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

[[email protected]]

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.

[[email protected]]

> 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.

[Newps]

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.

[Roy Smith]

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?" :-)

[Richard Hertz]

"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.

[Casey Wilson]

"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.

[Richard Hertz]

"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?


>

[Casey Wilson]

"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.

[Jim Knoyle]

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 )

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> 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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.

[J Haggerty]

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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.

[J Haggerty]

Sounds like you have the old version. Paragraph 855 h (1) can be found
in Change 3 located at
http://av-info.faa.gov/terps/Directives_files/8260.19C%20CHG3.pdf

The notes are part of the procedure that is built and then promulgated
via the FAA forms via the NFDD. If the notes are in error, then that
should be bought to the attention of the FPO for correction via NOTAM.
Example, if the procedure was promulgated with the note "ADF required"
then you should have ADF to safely fly the procedure. If it states "ADF
or DME required", then you are supposed to either ensure that at least
one of them is available before flying the procedure.

§Extract of 14 CFR Part 97.20 General.

(a) This subpart prescribes standard instrument procedures based on the
criteria contained in FAA Order 8260.3B, "U.S. Standard for Terminal
Instrument Procedures (TERPS) (July 7, 1976) and FAA Order 8260.19C,
"Flight Procedures and Airspace" (September 16, 1993). These standard
instrument procedures and FAA Orders were approved for incorporation by
reference by the Director of the Federal Register pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.......

(b) Standard instrument procedures and associated supporting data are
documented on specific forms under FAA Order 8260.19C (September 16,
1993) and are promulgated by the FAA through the National Flight Data
Center (NFDC) as the source for aeronautical charts and avionics
databases. These procedures are then portrayed on aeronautical charts
and included in avionics databases prepared by the National Aeronautical
Charting Office (AVN-500) and other publishers of aeronautical data for
use by pilots using the NFDC source data. The terminal aeronautical
charts published by the U.S. Government were approved for incorporation
by reference by the Director of the Federal Register pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.......


Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "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.
>
>