SAC ILS "ADF Required" Info

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" 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?

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 procedu 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

"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 procedu 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.