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