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