Why is ADF or Radar Required on MFD ILS RWY 32 Approach Plate?

[S. Ramirez]

Does anyone know why the Mansfield OH MFD ILS RWY 32 approach plate has ADF
or Radar Required written on it?

There is speculation on another forum that ADF is required to establish the
FAF for the localizer approach, but I argued that it is not required for the
ILS approach, since intercept of the glideslope is the "FAF" for the ILS
approach. The approaches we have in FL are similar but do not have ADF or
Radar Required written on them.

I can understand that without radar vectors, setting up for the ILS approach
would require ADF so that one overflies the NDB outbound, stays within ten
miles, and then comes back to intercept the glideslope; therefore, radar
vectors or ADF would be required for this approach. But this is obvious on
other approach plates without spelling it out. Why is this verbiage written
on this approach plate?

Thanks.

Simon Ramirez

[Ray Andraka]

Simon,

It may be for the missed, or it may be required to provide a fix where the
altimeter can be checked. In the case of my home 'drome, DME is required
because there are no VORs positioned sufficiently to provide a crossing radial
for that identification. You need that ID to fly the localizer only, as well as
to cross check the altimeter and glideslope when on the ILS. A marker beacon
will also suffice, but recently the FAA has been changing the ILS approaches so
that the intercepts are at even thousands of feet, and so the marker beacons are
no longer in the right place.

"S. Ramirez" wrote:

> Does anyone know why the Mansfield OH MFD ILS RWY 32 approach plate has ADF
> or Radar Required written on it?
>
> There is speculation on another forum that ADF is required to establish the
> FAF for the localizer approach, but I argued that it is not required for the
> ILS approach, since intercept of the glideslope is the "FAF" for the ILS
> approach. The approaches we have in FL are similar but do not have ADF or
> Radar Required written on them.
>
> I can understand that without radar vectors, setting up for the ILS approach
> would require ADF so that one overflies the NDB outbound, stays within ten
> miles, and then comes back to intercept the glideslope; therefore, radar
> vectors or ADF would be required for this approach. But this is obvious on
> other approach plates without spelling it out. Why is this verbiage written
> on this approach plate?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Simon Ramirez

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"S. Ramirez" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Does anyone know why the Mansfield OH MFD ILS RWY 32
> approach plate has ADF or Radar Required written on it?
>

Sure. It's because the person procedure that developed or reviewed the
procedure believed ADF or approach radar was required to fly the approach.


>
> I can understand that without radar vectors, setting up for the ILS
> approach would require ADF so that one overflies the NDB outbound, > stays
within ten miles, and then comes back to intercept the glideslope;
> therefore, radar vectors or ADF would be required for this approach.
>

You don't need ADF or radar to fly this approach. There's a feeder route
from MFD and the marker beacon works just as well as the NDB to identify
MANNS.


>
> But this is obvious on other approach plates without spelling it
> out. Why is this verbiage written
> on this approach plate?
>

It's an error.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> Sure. It's because the person procedure that developed or reviewed
> the procedure believed ADF or approach radar was required to fly the
> approach.
>

Oops. That should have been, "It's because the person that developed or
reviewed the procedure believed ADF or approach radar was required to fly
the approach."

[Greg Esres]

<<There's a feeder route from MFD and the marker beacon works just as
well >>

There are some vague suggestions in FAA literature that marker beacons
should only be used to determine a fix when flying the course they're
associated with, such as the localizer.

[Andrew Sarangan]

In a nonradar environment you will need to start the approach at the
IAF, which in this case is the NDB station. I suspect that in your
other examples you may have multiple IAF's. If one of the IAF's is not
an NDB, then you would not need an ADF.





"S. Ramirez" > wrote in message >...
> Does anyone know why the Mansfield OH MFD ILS RWY 32 approach plate has ADF
> or Radar Required written on it?
>
> There is speculation on another forum that ADF is required to establish the
> FAF for the localizer approach, but I argued that it is not required for the
> ILS approach, since intercept of the glideslope is the "FAF" for the ILS
> approach. The approaches we have in FL are similar but do not have ADF or
> Radar Required written on them.
>
> I can understand that without radar vectors, setting up for the ILS approach
> would require ADF so that one overflies the NDB outbound, stays within ten
> miles, and then comes back to intercept the glideslope; therefore, radar
> vectors or ADF would be required for this approach. But this is obvious on
> other approach plates without spelling it out. Why is this verbiage written
> on this approach plate?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Simon Ramirez

[Ross Richardson]

I went through the same thing when my local airport had a brand new ILS
commissioned. It came out with ADF required and other airports in the
area with ILSs didn't. I wrote to the FAA and explained that the FAF
could be defined by the combination of any two, localizer, cross radial,
and marker beacon. The marker beacon is colocated with the NDB. At first
the FAA thought they didn't optimize the approach correctly and
submitted a change. They had you go missed approach to a VOR 20+ miles
away and hold. It required almost 60 miles of flying. I said disregard
my message. The current ILS has a ADF required. I cannot remember the
exact answer from the FAA, but the ADF was simpler than using the
localizer and the VOR cross radial. Go figure. I have a IFR approved
GPS, so I quit complaining. And I apologized to the airport manager for
almost screwing up his new approach.

Ross

"S. Ramirez" wrote:
>
> Does anyone know why the Mansfield OH MFD ILS RWY 32 approach plate has ADF
> or Radar Required written on it?
>
> There is speculation on another forum that ADF is required to establish the
> FAF for the localizer approach, but I argued that it is not required for the
> ILS approach, since intercept of the glideslope is the "FAF" for the ILS
> approach. The approaches we have in FL are similar but do not have ADF or
> Radar Required written on them.
>
> I can understand that without radar vectors, setting up for the ILS approach
> would require ADF so that one overflies the NDB outbound, stays within ten
> miles, and then comes back to intercept the glideslope; therefore, radar
> vectors or ADF would be required for this approach. But this is obvious on
> other approach plates without spelling it out. Why is this verbiage written
> on this approach plate?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Simon Ramirez


"S. Ramirez" wrote:
>
> Does anyone know why the Mansfield OH MFD ILS RWY 32 approach plate has ADF
> or Radar Required written on it?
>
> There is speculation on another forum that ADF is required to establish the
> FAF for the localizer approach, but I argued that it is not required for the
> ILS approach, since intercept of the glideslope is the "FAF" for the ILS
> approach. The approaches we have in FL are similar but do not have ADF or
> Radar Required written on them.
>
> I can understand that without radar vectors, setting up for the ILS approach
> would require ADF so that one overflies the NDB outbound, stays within ten
> miles, and then comes back to intercept the glideslope; therefore, radar
> vectors or ADF would be required for this approach. But this is obvious on
> other approach plates without spelling it out. Why is this verbiage written
> on this approach plate?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Simon Ramirez

[Ross Richardson]

See my previous message, it is not necessarily an error. It is part of
the developed procedure. It was in my case.

Ross

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
>
> >
> > But this is obvious on other approach plates without spelling it
> > out. Why is this verbiage written
> > on this approach plate?
> >
>
> It's an error.

[Greg]

My guess would be because the only IAF is the NDB.

"S. Ramirez" > wrote in message >...
> Does anyone know why the Mansfield OH MFD ILS RWY 32 approach plate has ADF
> or Radar Required written on it?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Simon Ramirez

[Greg]

I'd guess because the only IAF is the NDB.

-greg

"S. Ramirez" > wrote in message >...
> Does anyone know why the Mansfield OH MFD ILS RWY 32 approach plate has ADF
> or Radar Required written on it?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Simon Ramirez

[S Narayan]

I am not so sure. See LVK ILS 25R (California), why is ADF required here?
Almost exclusively, TRACY is used as the IAF for this approach. Maybe if an
NDB is designated as an IAF, then ADF is required whether or not other IAFs
exist.

"Greg" > wrote in message
om...
> I'd guess because the only IAF is the NDB.
>
> -greg
>
> "S. Ramirez" > wrote in message
>...
> > Does anyone know why the Mansfield OH MFD ILS RWY 32 approach plate has
ADF
> > or Radar Required written on it?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Simon Ramirez

[[email protected]]

S Narayan wrote:

> I am not so sure. See LVK ILS 25R (California), why is ADF required here?
> Almost exclusively, TRACY is used as the IAF for this approach. Maybe if an
> NDB is designated as an IAF, then ADF is required whether or not other IAFs
> exist.

The missed approach goes to the LOM. Whenever they do that, ADF is always
required.

[S Narayan]

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> S Narayan wrote:
>
> > I am not so sure. See LVK ILS 25R (California), why is ADF required
here?
> > Almost exclusively, TRACY is used as the IAF for this approach. Maybe if
an
> > NDB is designated as an IAF, then ADF is required whether or not other
IAFs
> > exist.
>
> The missed approach goes to the LOM. Whenever they do that, ADF is always
> required.
>

Makes perfect sense. Thanks.

[Max T, CFI]

Livermore requires ADF for the missed approach (climbing right turn to 3000 and direct Reiga LOM).
Theoretically you could identify Reiga with the marker beacon receiver, but you wouldn't know for
sure whether you re-intercepted the localizer before or after Reiga.

On the MFD approach, I agree with those who say ADF or radar requirement is to identify the IAF.
Max T, MCFI.

S Narayan > wrote in message ...
> I am not so sure. See LVK ILS 25R (California), why is ADF required here?
> Almost exclusively, TRACY is used as the IAF for this approach. Maybe if an
> NDB is designated as an IAF, then ADF is required whether or not other IAFs
> exist.
>
> "Greg" > wrote in message
> om...
> > I'd guess because the only IAF is the NDB.
> >
> > -greg
> >
> > "S. Ramirez" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > Does anyone know why the Mansfield OH MFD ILS RWY 32 approach plate has
> ADF
> > > or Radar Required written on it?
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > Simon Ramirez
>
>

[Jim Leedham]

It appears to me needed to find the IAF if radar service is not available...

"Ray Andraka" > wrote in message
...
> Simon,
>
> It may be for the missed, or it may be required to provide a fix where the
> altimeter can be checked. In the case of my home 'drome, DME is required
> because there are no VORs positioned sufficiently to provide a crossing
radial
> for that identification. You need that ID to fly the localizer only, as
well as
> to cross check the altimeter and glideslope when on the ILS. A marker
beacon
> will also suffice, but recently the FAA has been changing the ILS
approaches so
> that the intercepts are at even thousands of feet, and so the marker
beacons are
> no longer in the right place.
>
> "S. Ramirez" wrote:
>
> > Does anyone know why the Mansfield OH MFD ILS RWY 32 approach plate has
ADF
> > or Radar Required written on it?
> >
> > There is speculation on another forum that ADF is required to establish
the
> > FAF for the localizer approach, but I argued that it is not required for
the
> > ILS approach, since intercept of the glideslope is the "FAF" for the ILS
> > approach. The approaches we have in FL are similar but do not have ADF
or
> > Radar Required written on them.
> >
> > I can understand that without radar vectors, setting up for the ILS
approach
> > would require ADF so that one overflies the NDB outbound, stays within
ten
> > miles, and then comes back to intercept the glideslope; therefore, radar
> > vectors or ADF would be required for this approach. But this is obvious
on
> > other approach plates without spelling it out. Why is this verbiage
written
> > on this approach plate?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Simon Ramirez
>
> --
> --Ray Andraka, P.E.
> President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
> 401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
> email
> http://www.andraka.com
>
> "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
> temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> -Benjamin Franklin, 1759
>
>

[Tim Witt]

Another possible reason for requiring the ADF or Radar is the fact
that the min safe altitude is defined off the compass locator. An ADF
(along with your compass/DG) would allow you to determine if you were
north or south of the locator. The localizer and marker would only
tell you when you were at the fix.

[J Haggerty]

The only way to get to the final approach is either via Radar vector to
final (RADAR) or via Procedure Turn over the LOM (ADF), hence the note
"ADF or RADAR required". (FAAO 8260.19 para 214; PT's are not authorized
from 75 MHZ markers, so ADF is required for the PT). Without one of
those entries, there are no other instrument routes to the final approach.

JPH

S. Ramirez wrote:
> Does anyone know why the Mansfield OH MFD ILS RWY 32 approach plate has ADF
> or Radar Required written on it?
>
> There is speculation on another forum that ADF is required to establish the
> FAF for the localizer approach, but I argued that it is not required for the
> ILS approach, since intercept of the glideslope is the "FAF" for the ILS
> approach. The approaches we have in FL are similar but do not have ADF or
> Radar Required written on them.
>
> I can understand that without radar vectors, setting up for the ILS approach
> would require ADF so that one overflies the NDB outbound, stays within ten
> miles, and then comes back to intercept the glideslope; therefore, radar
> vectors or ADF would be required for this approach. But this is obvious on
> other approach plates without spelling it out. Why is this verbiage written
> on this approach plate?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Simon Ramirez
>
>

[[email protected]]

Tim Witt wrote:

> Another possible reason for requiring the ADF or Radar is the fact
> that the min safe altitude is defined off the compass locator. An ADF
> (along with your compass/DG) would allow you to determine if you were
> north or south of the locator. The localizer and marker would only
> tell you when you were at the fix.

No way. The MSAs are not part of the regulatory or operational scheme for
IAPs in the United States.