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