SAC ILS "ADF Required" Info

[Robert M. Gary]

I just got some information back from the FAA on why an ADF is now
required after several decades of being able to fly the approach w/o
the ADF....

"Mr. Gary: The FAA Flight Procedures Office has issued a NOTAM
amendment 22C. This amendment states that the ILS Runway 02 approach at
SAC Airport requires ADF due to the inbound course 015 degrees is off
by 1 degree starting at the Coups IAF to the VOR. This procedure can
still be flown with GPS if an ADF is not available. The FAA has stated
that this approach will be amended in the future to realign the
approach course, probably using the Vortac. This does not effect the
future decommissioning of the NDB at SAC. Flight Service might have
more information if you need it. "

-Robert

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I just got some information back from the FAA on why an ADF is now
> required after several decades of being able to fly the approach w/o
> the ADF....
>
> "Mr. Gary: The FAA Flight Procedures Office has issued a NOTAM
> amendment 22C. This amendment states that the ILS Runway 02 approach at
> SAC Airport requires ADF due to the inbound course 015 degrees is off
> by 1 degree starting at the Coups IAF to the VOR. This procedure can
> still be flown with GPS if an ADF is not available. The FAA has stated
> that this approach will be amended in the future to realign the
> approach course, probably using the Vortac. This does not effect the
> future decommissioning of the NDB at SAC. Flight Service might have
> more information if you need it. "
>

It's too bad he didn't say what the ADF or GPS is required for.

[Sam Spade]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>I just got some information back from the FAA on why an ADF is now
>>required after several decades of being able to fly the approach w/o
>>the ADF....
>>
>>"Mr. Gary: The FAA Flight Procedures Office has issued a NOTAM
>>amendment 22C. This amendment states that the ILS Runway 02 approach at
>>SAC Airport requires ADF due to the inbound course 015 degrees is off
>>by 1 degree starting at the Coups IAF to the VOR. This procedure can
>>still be flown with GPS if an ADF is not available. The FAA has stated
>>that this approach will be amended in the future to realign the
>>approach course, probably using the Vortac. This does not effect the
>>future decommissioning of the NDB at SAC. Flight Service might have
>>more information if you need it. "
>>
>
>
> It's too bad he didn't say what the ADF or GPS is required for.
>
>
What part of "requires ADF due to the inbound course 015 degrees is off
by 1 degree starting at the Coups IAF to the VOR" don't you understand?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
news:Wd3kg.179045$bm6.51565@fed1read04...
>
> What part of "requires ADF due to the inbound course 015 degrees is off by
> 1 degree starting at the Coups IAF to the VOR" don't you understand?
>

I don't understand what the FAA Flight Procedures Office believes ADF or GPS
is required for on the SAC ILS RUNWAY 2 SIAP.

[Sam Spade]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> news:Wd3kg.179045$bm6.51565@fed1read04...
>
>>What part of "requires ADF due to the inbound course 015 degrees is off by
>>1 degree starting at the Coups IAF to the VOR" don't you understand?
>>
>
>
> I don't understand what the FAA Flight Procedures Office believes ADF or GPS
> is required for on the SAC ILS RUNWAY 2 SIAP.
>
>
They have their reasons, and sometimes their reasons are not very sound.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
news:O9ekg.179076$bm6.79817@fed1read04...
>
> They have their reasons, and sometimes their reasons are not very sound.
>

As in this case. Bottom line is ADF does not provide any information needed
to fly this approach.

[JPH]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> news:O9ekg.179076$bm6.79817@fed1read04...
>
>>They have their reasons, and sometimes their reasons are not very sound.
>>
>
>
> As in this case. Bottom line is ADF does not provide any information needed
> to fly this approach.
>
>
Some times, as in this case, it's hard (or impossible) to understand the
reason behind a "Chart planview note: ADF required". Usually that would
be there if the LOM is needed for procedure entry, and in this case it
would only be required for procedure entry if NORCAL can't vector
aircraft to final for some reason. Is NORCAL able to vector aircraft to
this final approach course at a suitable altitude? If not, that would
explain the ADF required note. Perhaps "ADF or RADAR required" would
have been more appropriate.
It wouldn't be charted that way just for the sake of the LOC portion,
because if that was the case, they would have changed the title of the
procedure to indicate the extra equipment required for the non-precision
final. Assuming the outer marker works, then ADF would not be required
for the LOC FAF, because the OM would take care of that.
The ILS doesn't need the LOM for final since it relies on glideslope
intercept, and not the non-precision FAF.
In this case the LOM is not required for missed approach, as the MA
instructions give the option to go to the VORTAC.
It would be nice if the procedure could include the reason the ADF is
required, i.e., "ADF required for missed approach" or "ADF required for
procedure entry when radar OTS".

It appears this procedure can be completed via radar vectors to final,
then glideslope intercept (ILS) or OM (LOC), followed by MA back to SAC
VORTAC. Don't see a need for the ADF as long as NORCAL can vector to final.

Guess this is just one of lifes mysteries.

JPH

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"JPH" > wrote in message
news:qAmkg.7416$f76.6314@dukeread06...
>
> Some times, as in this case, it's hard (or impossible) to understand the
> reason behind a "Chart planview note: ADF required". Usually that would
> be there if the LOM is needed for procedure entry, and in this case it
> would only be required for procedure entry if NORCAL can't vector aircraft
> to final for some reason. Is NORCAL able to vector aircraft to this final
> approach course at a suitable altitude? If not, that would explain the ADF
> required note. Perhaps "ADF or RADAR required" would have been more
> appropriate.
> It wouldn't be charted that way just for the sake of the LOC portion,
> because if that was the case, they would have changed the title of the
> procedure to indicate the extra equipment required for the non-precision
> final. Assuming the outer marker works, then ADF would not be required for
> the LOC FAF, because the OM would take care of that.
> The ILS doesn't need the LOM for final since it relies on glideslope
> intercept, and not the non-precision FAF.
> In this case the LOM is not required for missed approach, as the MA
> instructions give the option to go to the VORTAC.
> It would be nice if the procedure could include the reason the ADF is
> required, i.e., "ADF required for missed approach" or "ADF required for
> procedure entry when radar OTS".
>
> It appears this procedure can be completed via radar vectors to final,
> then glideslope intercept (ILS) or OM (LOC), followed by MA back to SAC
> VORTAC. Don't see a need for the ADF as long as NORCAL can vector to
> final.
>
> Guess this is just one of lifes mysteries.
>

Where do you see a need for ADF without vectors to final?

[Mark Hansen]

On 06/16/06 08:19, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "JPH" > wrote in message
> news:qAmkg.7416$f76.6314@dukeread06...
>>
>> Some times, as in this case, it's hard (or impossible) to understand the
>> reason behind a "Chart planview note: ADF required". Usually that would
>> be there if the LOM is needed for procedure entry, and in this case it
>> would only be required for procedure entry if NORCAL can't vector aircraft
>> to final for some reason. Is NORCAL able to vector aircraft to this final
>> approach course at a suitable altitude? If not, that would explain the ADF
>> required note. Perhaps "ADF or RADAR required" would have been more
>> appropriate.
>> It wouldn't be charted that way just for the sake of the LOC portion,
>> because if that was the case, they would have changed the title of the
>> procedure to indicate the extra equipment required for the non-precision
>> final. Assuming the outer marker works, then ADF would not be required for
>> the LOC FAF, because the OM would take care of that.
>> The ILS doesn't need the LOM for final since it relies on glideslope
>> intercept, and not the non-precision FAF.
>> In this case the LOM is not required for missed approach, as the MA
>> instructions give the option to go to the VORTAC.
>> It would be nice if the procedure could include the reason the ADF is
>> required, i.e., "ADF required for missed approach" or "ADF required for
>> procedure entry when radar OTS".
>>
>> It appears this procedure can be completed via radar vectors to final,
>> then glideslope intercept (ILS) or OM (LOC), followed by MA back to SAC
>> VORTAC. Don't see a need for the ADF as long as NORCAL can vector to
>> final.
>>
>> Guess this is just one of lifes mysteries.
>>
>
> Where do you see a need for ADF without vectors to final?
>
>

When told to head direct EXECC (IAF) and fly the approach pilot-nav.
Technically, EXECC is the IAF, not the VOR. However, because they are
so close, I think most pilots just use the VOR.


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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
>
> When told to head direct EXECC (IAF) and fly the approach pilot-nav.
> Technically, EXECC is the IAF, not the VOR. However, because they are
> so close, I think most pilots just use the VOR.
>

There's a feeder route from the VOR to EXECC. There's no need for ADF on
this approach, the note "ADF REQUIRED" is an error.

[Jose]

> There's no need for ADF on
> this approach, the note "ADF REQUIRED" is an error.

It may be an error, but it is an error with which the pilot has to comply.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> It may be an error, but it is an error with which the pilot has to comply.
>

It's definitely an error. How would the pilot comply with it?

[Dave Butler]

Mark Hansen wrote:

> When told to head direct EXECC (IAF) and fly the approach pilot-nav.
> Technically, EXECC is the IAF, not the VOR. However, because they are
> so close, I think most pilots just use the VOR.

Could you provide some context? Where is this? Why can't I find EXECC in my
database, or on airnav.com? Thanks. Dave

[Dave Butler]

Dave Butler wrote:
> Mark Hansen wrote:
>
>> When told to head direct EXECC (IAF) and fly the approach pilot-nav.
>> Technically, EXECC is the IAF, not the VOR. However, because they are
>> so close, I think most pilots just use the VOR.
>
>
> Could you provide some context? Where is this? Why can't I find EXECC in
> my database, or on airnav.com? Thanks.

Oh, never mind, sorry for the noise. I see it's a navaid, not a
fix/intersection. DGB

[Mark Hansen]

On 06/16/06 09:23, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> When told to head direct EXECC (IAF) and fly the approach pilot-nav.
>> Technically, EXECC is the IAF, not the VOR. However, because they are
>> so close, I think most pilots just use the VOR.
>>
>
> There's a feeder route from the VOR to EXECC. There's no need for ADF on
> this approach, the note "ADF REQUIRED" is an error.
>
>

But the VOR is not an IAF and doesn't provide a NoPT route to EXECC,
so when you get to EXECC you still need to execute the procedure turn.

Do you agree that the procedure turn should be made about EXECC?

When coming from the north, the pilot is going to have to make a u-turn
at the VOR, then, while in the zone of confusion, follow the 018 degree
radial to find the LOM... whew.

Do you think we should be able to identify the fix for the PT using
the marker beacons? A marker beacon receiver isn't required. What if the
plane doesn't have one?

I think the ADF receiver makes this scenario much simpler for the pilot,
and that was the reason for requiring it to execute the approach.

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

[Mark Hansen]

On 06/16/06 10:35, Dave Butler wrote:
> Dave Butler wrote:
>> Mark Hansen wrote:
>>
>>> When told to head direct EXECC (IAF) and fly the approach pilot-nav.
>>> Technically, EXECC is the IAF, not the VOR. However, because they are
>>> so close, I think most pilots just use the VOR.
>>
>>
>> Could you provide some context? Where is this? Why can't I find EXECC in
>> my database, or on airnav.com? Thanks.
>
> Oh, never mind, sorry for the noise. I see it's a navaid, not a
> fix/intersection. DGB

Yes, it's the LOM/NDB near the SAC VOR.


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

[JPH]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>When told to head direct EXECC (IAF) and fly the approach pilot-nav.
>>Technically, EXECC is the IAF, not the VOR. However, because they are
>>so close, I think most pilots just use the VOR.
>>
>
>
> There's a feeder route from the VOR to EXECC. There's no need for ADF on
> this approach, the note "ADF REQUIRED" is an error.
>
>
Yes, but it's only a feeder route. SAC VORTAC is not an IAF nor an IF,
it's just a feeder to the IAF at the LOM. From the LOM, you need to do a
course reversal based on how the procedure was designed, and if you
don't have capability to receive the LOM, then you can't do the course
reversal.
Why do you have to do a course reversal at the LOM? Because from a TERPS
construction viewpoint, SAC VORTAC doesn't meet the TERPS criteria for
intercepting final prior to the glideslope intercept point for the ILS
(TERPS Vol IV para 2.3.1), so you can't do a straight-in from SAC VORTAC
legally. And without the LOM, you can't do the LOC because you can't
identify the FAF (EXECC is not an intersection).
Now, if SAC VORTAC was further out, then it could provide a route to
intercept the LOC further out from the FAF (minimum length for an
intermediate segment on ILS is 1 NM, and SAC VORTAC is only 0.4 NM from
the non-precision FAF and even less from the glideslope intercept and it
goes to the LOM, and not necessarily the LOC depending on how far off
centerline the LOM is).

JPH

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> By not flying the approach unless he had a working ADF.
>

What would he have to use the ADF for?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"JPH" > wrote in message
news:gAIkg.7731$f76.2544@dukeread06...
>
>Yes, but it's only a feeder route. SAC VORTAC is not an IAF nor an IF,
> it's just a feeder to the IAF at the LOM. From the LOM, you need to do a
> course reversal based on how the procedure was designed, and if you don't
> have capability to receive the LOM, then you can't do the course reversal.
>

ADF is not needed to receive the LOM.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
>
> But the VOR is not an IAF and doesn't provide a NoPT route to EXECC,
> so when you get to EXECC you still need to execute the procedure turn.
>

The issue is not on what conditions a PT is required, it's why the note "ADF
REQUIRED" appears on this IAP.


>
> Do you agree that the procedure turn should be made about EXECC?
>
> When coming from the north, the pilot is going to have to make a u-turn
> at the VOR, then, while in the zone of confusion, follow the 018 degree
> radial to find the LOM... whew.
>
> Do you think we should be able to identify the fix for the PT using
> the marker beacons? A marker beacon receiver isn't required. What if the
> plane doesn't have one?
>
> I think the ADF receiver makes this scenario much simpler for the pilot,
> and that was the reason for requiring it to execute the approach.
>

What am I required to use the ADF for if I'm cleared for this approach while
inbound on V6 southwest of COUPS?

[Mark Hansen]

On 06/17/06 16:52, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> But the VOR is not an IAF and doesn't provide a NoPT route to EXECC,
>> so when you get to EXECC you still need to execute the procedure turn.
>>
>
> The issue is not on what conditions a PT is required, it's why the note "ADF
> REQUIRED" appears on this IAP.
>
>
>>
>> Do you agree that the procedure turn should be made about EXECC?
>>
>> When coming from the north, the pilot is going to have to make a u-turn
>> at the VOR, then, while in the zone of confusion, follow the 018 degree
>> radial to find the LOM... whew.
>>
>> Do you think we should be able to identify the fix for the PT using
>> the marker beacons? A marker beacon receiver isn't required. What if the
>> plane doesn't have one?
>>
>> I think the ADF receiver makes this scenario much simpler for the pilot,
>> and that was the reason for requiring it to execute the approach.
>>
>
> What am I required to use the ADF for if I'm cleared for this approach while
> inbound on V6 southwest of COUPS?

Because from COUPS your to fly the bearing to the LOM. The notes on
the feeder route say: "1400 NoPT to LOM 015".

Now, as to why they did *that*, I don't know. From COUPS, I think
everyone just gets lined up on the localizer.

Here's another problem with this procedure: From COUPS, it says that
the LOM is 015 degrees. However, the VOR is 016 degrees. That puts
the LOM to the left of the VOR (when looking from COUPS). However,
it also says that the LOM is 018 degrees from the VOR. That puts it
to the right of the VOR (again, when looking from COUPS).

Is this a rounding error, or am I missing something?


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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
>
> Because from COUPS your to fly the bearing to the LOM. The notes on
> the feeder route say: "1400 NoPT to LOM 015".
>

From COUPS you fly the SAC 195 radial inbound to the LOM. Check the enroute
chart. COUPS is on V6 which is defined by the SAC 195 radial.


>
> Here's another problem with this procedure: From COUPS, it says that
> the LOM is 015 degrees. However, the VOR is 016 degrees. That puts
> the LOM to the left of the VOR (when looking from COUPS). However,
> it also says that the LOM is 018 degrees from the VOR. That puts it
> to the right of the VOR (again, when looking from COUPS).
>
> Is this a rounding error, or am I missing something?
>

016 is the localizer azimuth.

[Jose]

> What would he have to use the ADF for?

To comply with the notation on the chart "ADF required".

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
y.net...
>
> To comply with the notation on the chart "ADF required".
>

Notes like this are not regulatory, they're just reminders.

[Jose]

> Notes like this are not regulatory, they're just reminders.

I suppose this would be true, as the actual regulations are in part
something-or-other, and it is not required that one even have the chart,
just the textual description of the approach. Nonetheless, I would
expect pilots not to second-guess government publications in that
manner; after all part something-or-other might also have a misprint.

If it is an error, it should be NOTAM'd until it is reprinted. Absent a
NOTAM, I would expect pilots to rely on the government publication that
contained the putative error.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Robert M. Gary]

JPH wrote:
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> Some times, as in this case, it's hard (or impossible) to understand the
> reason behind a "Chart planview note: ADF required". Usually that would
> be there if the LOM is needed for procedure entry, and in this case it
> would only be required for procedure entry if NORCAL can't vector
> aircraft to final for some reason. Is NORCAL able to vector aircraft to
> this final approach course at a suitable altitude?\

99% of the time NORCAL vectors aircraft to final for this approach.
-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> There's a feeder route from the VOR to EXECC. There's no need for ADF on
> this approach, the note "ADF REQUIRED" is an error.

Steven, if you have any push with the FAA, any help getting this
notation removed would be very, very appreciated. This is causing
headaches for many pilots who don't have IFR GPSs (and of course most
of us put the ADF in the dumpster long ago). I was talking to a local
DE who used to be a big wig at the FSDO. He didn't even believe me
until I pulled out the charge. He said he was going to make some calls
to the FAA and thought perhaps he could help get this fixed as well.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

For those interested, this is the actual FDC that made this mess
happen...

!FDC 6/3235 SAC FI/P SACRAMENTO EXECUTIVE, SACRAMENTO, CA.
ILS RWY 2, AMDT 22B...
CHART PLANVIEW NOTE: ADF REQUIRED.
THIS IS ILS OR LOC RWY 2, AMDT 22C.


-Robert

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> JPH wrote:
>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> Some times, as in this case, it's hard (or impossible) to understand the
>> reason behind a "Chart planview note: ADF required". Usually that would
>> be there if the LOM is needed for procedure entry, and in this case it
>> would only be required for procedure entry if NORCAL can't vector
>> aircraft to final for some reason. Is NORCAL able to vector aircraft to
>> this final approach course at a suitable altitude?\
>

No he didn't.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> I suppose this would be true, as the actual regulations are in part
> something-or-other, and it is not required that one even have the chart,
> just the textual description of the approach. Nonetheless, I would expect
> pilots not to second-guess government publications in that manner; after
> all part something-or-other might also have a misprint.
>
> If it is an error, it should be NOTAM'd until it is reprinted. Absent a
> NOTAM, I would expect pilots to rely on the government publication that
> contained the putative error.
>

In what manner would you expect pilots to rely on the note "ADF REQUIRED" on
the SAC ILS or LOC RWY 2? When ADF is actually required on non-NDB
approaches the note "ADF REQUIRED" adds nothing to the approach, it simply
states a fact. When the note appears on an approach that can be flown
without ADF it only creates confusion.


FAA Order 8260.19C Flight Procedures and Airspace

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."

[Sam Spade]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Jose" > wrote in message
> y.net...
>
>>To comply with the notation on the chart "ADF required".
>>
>
>
> Notes like this are not regulatory, they're just reminders.
>
>
That is incorrect.

[Sam Spade]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Jose" > wrote in message
> .net...
>
>>I suppose this would be true, as the actual regulations are in part
>>something-or-other, and it is not required that one even have the chart,
>>just the textual description of the approach. Nonetheless, I would expect
>>pilots not to second-guess government publications in that manner; after
>>all part something-or-other might also have a misprint.
>>
>>If it is an error, it should be NOTAM'd until it is reprinted. Absent a
>>NOTAM, I would expect pilots to rely on the government publication that
>>contained the putative error.
>>
>
>
> In what manner would you expect pilots to rely on the note "ADF REQUIRED" on
> the SAC ILS or LOC RWY 2? When ADF is actually required on non-NDB
> approaches the note "ADF REQUIRED" adds nothing to the approach, it simply
> states a fact. When the note appears on an approach that can be flown
> without ADF it only creates confusion.
>
>
> FAA Order 8260.19C Flight Procedures and Airspace
>
> 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."
>
>
You have just proven yourself wrong. The note that results from
application of Paragraph 814 h. goes on the applicable 8260.3 or 8260.5
which is an amendment to FAR 97.

[Sam Spade]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>>There's a feeder route from the VOR to EXECC. There's no need for ADF on
>>this approach, the note "ADF REQUIRED" is an error.
>
>
> Steven, if you have any push with the FAA, any help getting this
> notation removed would be very, very appreciated. This is causing
> headaches for many pilots who don't have IFR GPSs (and of course most
> of us put the ADF in the dumpster long ago). I was talking to a local
> DE who used to be a big wig at the FSDO. He didn't even believe me
> until I pulled out the charge. He said he was going to make some calls
> to the FAA and thought perhaps he could help get this fixed as well.
>
> -Robert
>
It has already been mentioned to the proceddures folks. They will "get
around to it when they can." AOPA has a lot more juice than Steve but
they are overwhelmed fighting user fees.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Steven, if you have any push with the FAA, any help getting this
> notation removed would be very, very appreciated. This is causing
> headaches for many pilots who don't have IFR GPSs (and of course most
> of us put the ADF in the dumpster long ago). I was talking to a local
> DE who used to be a big wig at the FSDO. He didn't even believe me
> until I pulled out the charge. He said he was going to make some calls
> to the FAA and thought perhaps he could help get this fixed as well.
>

I have no push with the FAA. The TPP has an email address for notification
of charting errors on the inside front cover. I sent the following message:

I found an error on the SAC ILS or LOC RWY 2 SIAP chart. The note "ADF
REQUIRED" appears on the approach plate, but ADF is not required for
procedure entry or missed approach. Since this approach can be flown
without ADF or GPS in lieu of ADF the note is in error and must be removed.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
news:0Nxlg.179313$bm6.96676@fed1read04...
>
> That is incorrect.
>

As they can be nothing else, that is entirely correct.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
news:sOxlg.179314$bm6.172001@fed1read04...
>
> You have just proven yourself wrong. The note that results from
> application of Paragraph 814 h. goes on the applicable 8260.3 or 8260.5
> which is an amendment to FAR 97.
>

You've just demonstrated your inability to use simple logic.

[Jose]

> In what manner would you expect pilots to rely on the note "ADF REQUIRED" on
> the SAC ILS or LOC RWY 2? When ADF is actually required on non-NDB
> approaches the note "ADF REQUIRED" adds nothing to the approach, it simply
> states a fact. When the note appears on an approach that can be flown
> without ADF it only creates confusion.

.... in the same manner that pilots would deal with being given a
clearance to fly an ILS when they did not have an ILS receiver aboard.
I expect pilots to rely on the publication as accurately reflecting
facts, and the presence of "ADF Required" (which as stated upthread was
actually initiated by NOTAM) would be relied upon as reflecting the fact
that ADF is required.

I would not expect pilots to second-guess NOTAMS or approach procedures.
If it says ADF required, then an ADF is required.

So, if cleared for the approach, and no ADF is aboard, the word "unable"
or some equivalent would be legally required.

As you note, when the note is "in error", confusion results.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> I have no push with the FAA. The TPP has an email address for notification
> of charting errors on the inside front cover. I sent the following message:
>
> I found an error on the SAC ILS or LOC RWY 2 SIAP chart. The note "ADF
> REQUIRED" appears on the approach plate, but ADF is not required for
> procedure entry or missed approach. Since this approach can be flown
> without ADF or GPS in lieu of ADF the note is in error and must be removed.

It would be interesting to hear the response.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Sam Spade]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> news:sOxlg.179314$bm6.172001@fed1read04...
>
>>You have just proven yourself wrong. The note that results from
>>application of Paragraph 814 h. goes on the applicable 8260.3 or 8260.5
>>which is an amendment to FAR 97.
>>
>
>
> You've just demonstrated your inability to use simple logic.
>
>
When you are out of ideas then, in your typical fine fashion, you resort
to personal attacks.

Shoot the messenger as you so love to do, Steve.

That does not change the FACT that the note is an FAR.

[Sam Spade]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> news:0Nxlg.179313$bm6.96676@fed1read04...
>
>>That is incorrect.
>>
>
>
> As they can be nothing else, that is entirely correct.
>
>
Why can they be "nothing else?"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
news:BNylg.179320$bm6.132661@fed1read04...
>
> When you are out of ideas then, in your typical fine fashion, you resort
> to personal attacks.
>

I never resort to personal attacks. You truly have demonstrated your
inability to use simple logic. Again.


>
> Shoot the messenger as you so love to do, Steve.
>

You still don't get it. Your message is wrong.


>
> That does not change the FACT that the note is an FAR.
>

Prove it.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
news:2Oylg.179321$bm6.81683@fed1read04...
>
> Why can they be "nothing else?"
>

Because that's all they can be, that should be obvious even to you. When
"ADF REQUIRED" appears on a non-NDB SIAP where ADF is actually required to
fly the approach it does nothing to alter the approach in any way. It's
only function is to alert those pilots who don't do an adequate job of
preparing for the approach. Those pilots who do prepare adequately will
understand that ADF is required without the note. When it appears on an
approach where ADF is not required, as in this case, it's meaningless and
does nothing other than cause confusion in some pilots and indicate that the
FAA is running short of competent procedures specialists to others. The
note cannot create a regulatory requirement to use ADF where ADF is not
operationally required.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
y.net...
>
> ... in the same manner that pilots would deal with being given a clearance
> to fly an ILS when they did not have an ILS receiver aboard.
>

I fail to see any similarity. An "ILS receiver" is clearly needed to fly an
ILS approach. In what manner would you expect pilots to rely on the note
"ADF REQUIRED" when they're flying an approach that does not require ADF?


>
> I expect
> pilots to rely on the publication as accurately reflecting facts, and the
> presence of "ADF Required" (which as stated upthread was actually
> initiated by NOTAM) would be relied upon as reflecting the fact that ADF
> is required.
>

But we know that ADF is not required for this approach. In what manner
would you expect pilots to rely on the note "ADF REQUIRED" when they know
ADF is not required?


>
> I would not expect pilots to second-guess NOTAMS or approach procedures.
> If it says ADF required, then an ADF is required.
>

What is the ADF required for on approaches where ADF is not required but
carry the note "ADF REQUIRED"?


>
> So, if cleared for the approach, and no ADF is aboard, the word "unable"
> or some equivalent would be legally required.
>

Is carrying an old, unserviceable ADF in the baggage compartment good
enough? If not, why not?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Steven, if you have any push with the FAA, any help getting this
> notation removed would be very, very appreciated. This is causing
> headaches for many pilots who don't have IFR GPSs (and of course most
> of us put the ADF in the dumpster long ago).
>

Check the dumpster. Perhaps there's one in there still. Put it in your
baggage compartment and go fly the approach.

[Jose]

> But we know that ADF is not required for this approach.

No, we do not know that. We know that the FAA, in its infinite wisdom,
has stated a requirement for an ADF receiver to be on board. It has
done so by NOTAM (according to a previous poster).

It all boils down to whether or not a pilot is to rely on the
publications of (or sanctioned by) the FAA for regulatory information.

For all I know (no comments from the peanut gallery!) it may be typical
for ATC to issue alternate missed approach instructions "proceed direct
to the ABC More Music station and hold until you hear Jethro Tull", and
the ADF prepares you for that.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> No, we do not know that.

Okay, all of us don't know that. But all of us that are knowledgeable on
IFR procedures know it.


>
> We know that the FAA, in its infinite wisdom, has stated a requirement for
> an ADF receiver to be on board. It has done so by NOTAM (according to a
> previous poster).
>

No, we only know that at least one not-too-sharp procedures specialist
believes ADF is required for this approach.

[Sam Spade]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> news:2Oylg.179321$bm6.81683@fed1read04...
>
>>Why can they be "nothing else?"
>>
>
>
> Because that's all they can be, that should be obvious even to you. When
> "ADF REQUIRED" appears on a non-NDB SIAP where ADF is actually required to
> fly the approach it does nothing to alter the approach in any way. It's
> only function is to alert those pilots who don't do an adequate job of
> preparing for the approach. Those pilots who do prepare adequately will
> understand that ADF is required without the note. When it appears on an
> approach where ADF is not required, as in this case, it's meaningless and
> does nothing other than cause confusion in some pilots and indicate that the
> FAA is running short of competent procedures specialists to others. The
> note cannot create a regulatory requirement to use ADF where ADF is not
> operationally required.
>
>
You should transfer to FAA legal.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

Jose wrote:
> > I have no push with the FAA. The TPP has an email address for notification
> > of charting errors on the inside front cover. I sent the following message:
> >
> > I found an error on the SAC ILS or LOC RWY 2 SIAP chart. The note "ADF
> > REQUIRED" appears on the approach plate, but ADF is not required for
> > procedure entry or missed approach. Since this approach can be flown
> > without ADF or GPS in lieu of ADF the note is in error and must be removed.
>
> It would be interesting to hear the response.
>

Here it is:

Steven,

After reviewing our records it appears that the "ADF Required" note
should be charted on ILS or LOC Rwy 2 SIAP. This ADF note was added on
the chart per TL06-09 CCP request effective 5/11/06. We would need a
revised procedure to remove the note. I have forwarded your question
onto AVN-100 Don Harmer. Hopefully, AVN-100 will evaluate your concern
and if necessary revise the current procedure.

Thank you for your concern

Paul Spadaro
NACO



And here is my reply:

Dear Mr. Spadaro,

I did not have a question, I wrote only to point out the error on the
chart. Can you tell me what is in your records that makes it appear
that the "ADF REQUIRED" note should be charted on the ILS or LOC RWY 2
SIAP? Can you tell me why this ADF note was added on the chart per
TL06-09 CCP request? Why would you need a revised procedure to remove
the note? Since this approach can be flown without ADF it would appear
the note should never have been added, unless "ADF REQUIRED" means
something other than "ADF is needed to fly this approach". Does it?

Have a nice day.

Steven P. McNicoll

[Jose]

>>It would be interesting to hear the response.
>
> Here it is [along with my reply]:

Ah... bureaucracy in motion. Keep us posted. :)

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[JPH]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> Jose wrote:

>>It would be interesting to hear the response.
>>
>
>
> Here it is:
>
> Steven,
>
> After reviewing our records it appears that the "ADF Required" note
> should be charted on ILS or LOC Rwy 2 SIAP. This ADF note was added on
> the chart per TL06-09 CCP request effective 5/11/06. We would need a
> revised procedure to remove the note. I have forwarded your question
> onto AVN-100 Don Harmer. Hopefully, AVN-100 will evaluate your concern
> and if necessary revise the current procedure.
>
> Thank you for your concern
>
> Paul Spadaro
> NACO
>
>
>
> And here is my reply:
>
> Dear Mr. Spadaro,
>
> I did not have a question, I wrote only to point out the error on the
> chart. Can you tell me what is in your records that makes it appear
> that the "ADF REQUIRED" note should be charted on the ILS or LOC RWY 2
> SIAP? Can you tell me why this ADF note was added on the chart per
> TL06-09 CCP request? Why would you need a revised procedure to remove
> the note? Since this approach can be flown without ADF it would appear
> the note should never have been added, unless "ADF REQUIRED" means
> something other than "ADF is needed to fly this approach". Does it?
>
> Have a nice day.
>
> Steven P. McNicoll
>

Mr Spadaro was explaining why he added the note; it was initiated by CCP
request (P-Notam). The P-NOTAM is a procedure amendment and was issued
by NFPG. NACO just charts what they are told to chart, as long as it
meets charting criteria. He didn't create the note, so he forwarded your
question to Don Harmer, who is a manager at NFPG/AVN. NFPG is the only
agency that can change the note, and it would have to be an amendment to
the procedure, either via another CCP or a full-blown amendment.
I'm sure Mr Harmer will review the procedure and determine if the note
is or is not required and take action to remove it or revise it if
necessary based on FAAO 8260.3 and 8260.19 requirements.

JPH

[Steven P. McNicoll]

JPH wrote:
>
> I'm sure Mr Harmer will review the procedure and determine if the note
> is or is not required and take action to remove it or revise it if
> necessary based on FAAO 8260.3 and 8260.19 requirements.
>

If he had done that last May the note would have never appeared on the
plate.

[Jose]

> If he had done that last May the note would have never appeared on the
> plate.

That remains to be seen. Let's hear what Mr. Harmer has to say.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Sam Spade]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
> And here is my reply:
>
> Dear Mr. Spadaro,
>
> I did not have a question, I wrote only to point out the error on the
> chart. Can you tell me what is in your records that makes it appear
> that the "ADF REQUIRED" note should be charted on the ILS or LOC RWY 2
> SIAP? Can you tell me why this ADF note was added on the chart per
> TL06-09 CCP request? Why would you need a revised procedure to remove
> the note? Since this approach can be flown without ADF it would appear
> the note should never have been added, unless "ADF REQUIRED" means
> something other than "ADF is needed to fly this approach". Does it?
>
> Have a nice day.
>
> Steven P. McNicoll
>
You are bugging the wrong entity. NACO does not make judgements about
chart notes. To them, and many others, it's a regulation.

AVN-100 is the source for this stuff. That is where you should be
sending your missives.

[Sam Spade]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> JPH wrote:
>
>>I'm sure Mr Harmer will review the procedure and determine if the note
>>is or is not required and take action to remove it or revise it if
>>necessary based on FAAO 8260.3 and 8260.19 requirements.
>>
>
>
> If he had done that last May the note would have never appeared on the
> plate.
>
Unlike ATC, AVN is not a perfect organization.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

Sam Spade wrote:
>
> You are bugging the wrong entity. NACO does not make judgements about
> chart notes. To them, and many others, it's a regulation.
>
> AVN-100 is the source for this stuff. That is where you should be
> sending your missives.
>

On the inside cover of NACO charts is written:

FOR CHARTING ERRORS CONTACT:
National Aeronautical Charting Office, FAA
N/ACCI, SSMC-4, Sta. #2335
1305 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910-3281
Telephone Toll-Free (800) 626-3677
Internet/E-Mail:


If the FAA wishes to have notice of charting errors sent to AVN-100
they should change the contact information published in the charts.
Until they do that I will continue to send them to NACO.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

Sam Spade wrote:
>
> Unlike ATC, AVN is not a perfect organization.
>

You have a higher opinion of ATC than I do.

[Sam Spade]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>>You are bugging the wrong entity. NACO does not make judgements about
>>chart notes. To them, and many others, it's a regulation.
>>
>>AVN-100 is the source for this stuff. That is where you should be
>>sending your missives.
>>
>
>
> On the inside cover of NACO charts is written:
>
> FOR CHARTING ERRORS CONTACT:
> National Aeronautical Charting Office, FAA
> N/ACCI, SSMC-4, Sta. #2335
> 1305 East-West Highway
> Silver Spring, MD 20910-3281
> Telephone Toll-Free (800) 626-3677
> Internet/E-Mail:
>
>
> If the FAA wishes to have notice of charting errors sent to AVN-100
> they should change the contact information published in the charts.
> Until they do that I will continue to send them to NACO.
>
Oh very well. But, this is not a charting error. If it is an error at
all, it is a source document error. That is not in NACO's purview no
matter how much you may wish it to be.

[Jose]

> On the inside cover of NACO charts is written:
>
> FOR CHARTING ERRORS CONTACT:...

Perhaps that note is an error.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

Sam Spade wrote:
>
> Oh very well. But, this is not a charting error.
>

"ADF REQUIRED" on charts for IAPs that do not require ADF is not a
charting error?


>
> If it is an error at
> all, it is a source document error. That is not in NACO's purview no
> matter how much you may wish it to be.
>

It appears the FAA wants notice of charting errors reported to NACO.
Do you understand that?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

Jose wrote:
>
> Perhaps that note is an error.
>

Perhaps. I wonder where notification of that possible error should be
addressed?

[Sam Spade]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>>Oh very well. But, this is not a charting error.
>>
>
>
> "ADF REQUIRED" on charts for IAPs that do not require ADF is not a
> charting error?
>
>
>
>>If it is an error at
>>all, it is a source document error. That is not in NACO's purview no
>>matter how much you may wish it to be.
>>
>
>
> It appears the FAA wants notice of charting errors reported to NACO.
> Do you understand that?
>
Yes, far better than you do.

[Sam Spade]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> Jose wrote:
>
>>Perhaps that note is an error.
>>
>
>
> Perhaps. I wonder where notification of that possible error should be
> addressed?
>


http://avn.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=nfpo/qoab

[Steven P. McNicoll]

Sam Spade wrote:
>
> Yes, far better than you do.
>

Impossible, and you're welcome.

[Sam Spade]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>>Yes, far better than you do.
>>
>
>
> Impossible, and you're welcome.
>

It's becoming increasingly apparent that you are delusional.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> That remains to be seen. Let's hear what Mr. Harmer has to say.
>

I received a response from Mr. Harmer. ADF is required to identify the FAF.
Apparently marker beacons cannot be used to determine position along track.
His response and my reply follow.



>
> Paul
>
> I will try to clarify this issue because it is more than a bit confusing.
>
> When a procedure isn't absolutely clear on what equipment is required to
> fly the approach then we have to add notes as necessary so the pilot knows
> exactly what equipment is needed. For this particular approach the VOR
> and
> NDB are used for the procedure and are depicted in the plan view. Their
> close physical proximity as depicted on the planview could lead a pilot to
> believe that he could do the hold in lieu pattern using the VOR, but that
> is not correct. The VOR is only used on the procedure as a feeder and a
> missed approach holding fix.
>
> Now to try and explain. This approach has 2 parts, the full ILS and then
> the LOC only which must be addressed separately for clarification. There
> are 2 IAFs identified on this approach, first the hold in lieu at EXECC
> LOM
> and secondly the NoPT segment from COUPS INT to EXECC LOM; and 1 feeder
> route, SAC VORTAC to EXECC LOM. When an aircraft is shooting the full ILS
> approach from COUPS INT it does not require the use of ADF to fly the
> final
> (the precision FAF is based on an altitude not the LOM) or missed approach
> because 2 missed options are provided. But should the glideslope fail and
> he has to transition to the LOC only approach, or when flying the LOC only
> approach, then ADF is required to identify the FAF. The missed approach
> provides the pilot with 2 possible holding options either going to the SAC
> VORTAC or the EXECC LOM to hold so ADF required doesn't apply. Mr
> McNicoll
> is correct is stating that he is allowed to substitute GPS for ADF in
> certain circumstances. However we have to consider the least possibly
> equipped aircraft shooting this approach and that requires that we place
> an
> "ADF REQUIRED " note on this approach.
>
> I hope this will answer the question for Mr McNicoll. Feel free to
> contact
> us anytime
>
>
>
> Don Harmer
> Air Traffic Organization-W
> Western Flight Procedures Team
> Lead, Western Pacific Area (AJW-324)
> 405-954-9930
>
>


Dear Mr. Harmer,

I received your response through Paul Spadero explaining why ADF is required
on the SAC ILS or LOC RWY 2 approach. You indicated that ADF is required to
identify the FAF when flying the LOC only approach. The FAF is EXECC LOM,
why must the pilot use ADF to identify station passage of the Compass
Locator? Why can't the Outer Marker be used to identify EXECC?

Steven P. McNicoll
De Pere, WI

[Jose]

> Mr
>> McNicoll
>> is correct is stating that he is allowed to substitute GPS for ADF in
>> certain circumstances. However we have to consider the least possibly
>> equipped aircraft shooting this approach and that requires that we place
>> an
>> "ADF REQUIRED " note on this approach.

Why not "ADF OR GPS required"?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[JPH]

Jose wrote:
>> Mr
>>
>>> McNicoll
>>> is correct is stating that he is allowed to substitute GPS for ADF in
>>> certain circumstances. However we have to consider the least possibly
>>> equipped aircraft shooting this approach and that requires that we place
>>> an
>>> "ADF REQUIRED " note on this approach.
>
>
> Why not "ADF OR GPS required"?
>
> Jose

Good question. I'm sure that will be an option in the not too distant
future, but right now you can't mix and match ground-based systems with
GPS on published procedures due to TERPS requirements. That's another
set of guidelines that allows substitution with GPS in some
circumstances, and already you may have seen NOTAMS stating "Procedure
NA except for IFR certified GPS equipped aircraft" where the NOTAM
specifically allows substitution for DME or ADF ancillary equipment.

John

[Mark Hansen]

On 06/29/06 15:17, JPH wrote:
> Jose wrote:
>>> Mr
>>>
>>>> McNicoll
>>>> is correct is stating that he is allowed to substitute GPS for ADF in
>>>> certain circumstances. However we have to consider the least possibly
>>>> equipped aircraft shooting this approach and that requires that we place
>>>> an
>>>> "ADF REQUIRED " note on this approach.
>>
>>
>> Why not "ADF OR GPS required"?
>>
>> Jose
>
> Good question. I'm sure that will be an option in the not too distant
> future, but right now you can't mix and match ground-based systems with
> GPS on published procedures due to TERPS requirements.

Huh? The AIM has a complete section called "Use of GPS in lieu of
ADF and DME"


> That's another
> set of guidelines that allows substitution with GPS in some
> circumstances, and already you may have seen NOTAMS stating "Procedure
> NA except for IFR certified GPS equipped aircraft" where the NOTAM
> specifically allows substitution for DME or ADF ancillary equipment.
>
> John



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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Why not "ADF OR GPS required"?
>

No need for that, GPS can substitute for ADF in this case anyway. But why
not "ADF REQUIRED FOR LOC RWY 2"?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"JPH" > wrote in message
news:TjYog.11140$f76.5031@dukeread06...
>
> Good question. I'm sure that will be an option in the not too distant
> future, but right now you can't mix and match ground-based systems with
> GPS on published procedures due to TERPS requirements. That's another set
> of guidelines that allows substitution with GPS in some circumstances, and
> already you may have seen NOTAMS stating "Procedure NA except for IFR
> certified GPS equipped aircraft" where the NOTAM specifically allows
> substitution for DME or ADF ancillary equipment.
>

It's an option now. See AIM para 1-1-19.f.:

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/AIM/Chap1/aim0101.html#1-1-19

[JPH]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "JPH" > wrote in message
> news:TjYog.11140$f76.5031@dukeread06...
>
>>Good question. I'm sure that will be an option in the not too distant
>>future, but right now you can't mix and match ground-based systems with
>>GPS on published procedures due to TERPS requirements. That's another set
>>of guidelines that allows substitution with GPS in some circumstances, and
>>already you may have seen NOTAMS stating "Procedure NA except for IFR
>>certified GPS equipped aircraft" where the NOTAM specifically allows
>>substitution for DME or ADF ancillary equipment.
>>
>
>
> It's an option now. See AIM para 1-1-19.f.:
>
> http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/AIM/Chap1/aim0101.html#1-1-19
>
>
I realize that GPS can be used as a substitute, and pointed that out in
my message.
His question was why the ground based procedure didn't have a chart note
"ADF or GPS required". What I was stating is that TERPS criteria does
not yet allow combining ground based and GPS on the chart, that's why
the procedure does not say "ADF or GPS required" (A temporary NOTAM can
address GPS but the chart can not). As I said, you can use GPS to
substitute in some situations based on regulations other than TERPS, but
TERPS criteria does not yet allow GPS notes to be charted on ground
based procedures (except on the old GPS overlay procedures).
TERPS criteria still requires ground based procedures to be built based
only on ground based equipment, so your not going to see a "GPS
required" note on a ground based procedure.

JPH

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"JPH" > wrote in message
news:EEmpg.11443$f76.5591@dukeread06...
>
> I realize that GPS can be used as a substitute, and pointed that out in my
> message.
>

You did? Where?


>
> His question was why the ground based procedure didn't have a chart note
> "ADF or GPS required". What I was stating is that TERPS criteria does not
> yet allow combining ground based and GPS on the chart, that's why the
> procedure does not say "ADF or GPS required" (A temporary NOTAM can
> address GPS but the chart can not). As I said, you can use GPS to
> substitute in some situations based on regulations other than TERPS, but
> TERPS criteria does not yet allow GPS notes to be charted on ground based
> procedures (except on the old GPS overlay procedures).
> TERPS criteria still requires ground based procedures to be built based
> only on ground based equipment, so your not going to see a "GPS required"
> note on a ground based procedure.
>

"ADF OR GPS REQUIRED" would just add unnecessary clutter as it's already
understood that GPS can substitute for ADF in cases like this.