ADF or Radar Required

Hmmm...now you've got me wondering...

I found this article about "Use of GPS in lieu of DME/ADF":

Limitations

There are still three instances in which DME or ADF are still required.

NDB approaches that do not have an associated GPS overlay approach must still be flown using an ADF.

A non-GPS approach procedure must exist at the alternate airport when one is required to be filed by regulation. If the non-GPS approaches on which the pilot must rely require DME or ADF, the aircraft must be equipped with DME or ADF avionics as appropriate. GPS substitution for DME/ADF is not permitted in this case.

DME transmitters associated with a localizer may not be retrievable from your GPS until the manufacturer incorporates them in the database. Pilots are not authorized to manually enter coordinates.
Click to expand...

Maybe you're correct in that ADF must be on board and operational in order to use this approach for Alternate (or takeoff alternate) planning. The thought is that if your primary destination is only served by a GPS approach, and there is a GPS outage or failure, you can still fly this complete approach (including the missed) with an ADF(?) since you can no longer use the GPS in lieu of.

I might be in over my head on this one...

:D
 
Maddog1974 said:
Another point, usually if an approach requires a particular item of equipment then it will aither be included in the title
Click to expand...

That's only true if the equipment is required to fly final approach. From FAAO 8260.3B (TERPS):
161. STRAIGHT-IN PROCEDURE IDENTIFICATION.
Instrument procedures that meet criteria for authorization of straight-in landing minima shall be identified by a prefix describing the navigational system providing the final approach guidance and the runway to which the final approach course is aligned:
...
[non-pertinent stuff deleted]
....
A slash (/) indicates more than one type of equipment is required to execute the final approach; e.g., VOR/DME, etc. ILS procedures do not require DME to fly the final approach, even if a DME fix has been substituted for one of the marker beacons, therefore, ILS procedures shall not be named ILS/DME. If a procedure requires DME to fly the final approach, the suffix “DME” shall
[...]
​
or in the plan view it will say..."ADF Required".
Click to expand...
That's only true if the equipment is needed for procedure entry. From FAAO 8260-19D:
Determine the need for equipment notes after evaluating all SIAP segments, including missed approach.

Note: 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.

(1) Where certain equipment is required for procedure entry from the en route environment, enter the following in Additional Flight Data: “Chart planview note: ADF REQUIRED”; or, “ADF OR DME REQUIRED.”
​
This only says it in the box where the info for takeoff and alternate mins are listed.
Click to expand...
That's only true if the equipment is needed to identify a fix in the terminal area, such as the missed approach fix.
(2) Where other navigation equipment is required to complete the approach; e.g., VOR, ILS, or other non-ADF approaches requiring ADF or DME for missed approach, use: "Chart note: ADF required", or “Chart note: DME required.” When radar vectoring is also available, use: "Chart note: ADF or Radar required."
​
 
tgrayson said:
That's only true if the equipment is required to fly final approach. From FAAO 8260.3B (TERPS):
161. STRAIGHT-IN PROCEDURE IDENTIFICATION.
Instrument procedures that meet criteria for authorization of straight-in landing minima shall be identified by a prefix describing the navigational system providing the final approach guidance and the runway to which the final approach course is aligned:
...
[non-pertinent stuff deleted]
....
A slash (/) indicates more than one type of equipment is required to execute the final approach; e.g., VOR/DME, etc. ILS procedures do not require DME to fly the final approach, even if a DME fix has been substituted for one of the marker beacons, therefore, ILS procedures shall not be named ILS/DME. If a procedure requires DME to fly the final approach, the suffix “DME” shall
[...]
​
That's only true if the equipment is needed for procedure entry. From FAAO 8260-19D:
Determine the need for equipment notes after evaluating all SIAP segments, including missed approach.

Note: 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.

(1) Where certain equipment is required for procedure entry from the en route environment, enter the following in Additional Flight Data: “Chart planview note: ADF REQUIRED”; or, “ADF OR DME REQUIRED.”
​
That's only true if the equipment is needed to identify a fix in the terminal area, such as the missed approach fix.
(2) Where other navigation equipment is required to complete the approach; e.g., VOR, ILS, or other non-ADF approaches requiring ADF or DME for missed approach, use: "Chart note: ADF required", or “Chart note: DME required.” When radar vectoring is also available, use: "Chart note: ADF or Radar required."
​
Click to expand...
ok, so now his original question was can he use DME to identify the MAP Hold? i don't think so, but am not 100% sure. i couldn't find any documentation to say you could.
 
BuickCFI said:
ok, so now his original question was can he use DME to identify the MAP Hold? i don't think so, but am not 100% sure. i couldn't find any documentation to say you could.
Click to expand...

DME off what navaid? The only DME sources I see are off the two VOR IAFs. Regardless, there are no DME fixes on the approach, so DME could be used for nothing.
 
SteveC said:
Maybe you're correct in that ADF must be on board and operational in order to use this approach for Alternate (or takeoff alternate) planning. The thought is that if your primary destination is only served by a GPS approach, and there is a GPS outage or failure, you can still fly this complete approach (including the missed) with an ADF(?) since you can no longer use the GPS in lieu of.

I might be in over my head on this one...

:D
Click to expand...


You're correct, in that if the appraoch was GPS only, you'd have the "A N/A" notation.
 
tgrayson said:
DME off what navaid? The only DME sources I see are off the two VOR IAFs. Regardless, there are no DME fixes on the approach, so DME could be used for nothing.
Click to expand...

Edit: NDM to NDB

I think he is referring to using DME 17.3 off of SUG to identify KEANS. This of course can be done, then you run your time to your MAP based on your speed. However, the only form of lateral guidance on this approach is provided by the NDB. That being said, without GPS or ADF I see absolutely no way to complete this approach and agree that the DME is really used for nothing except maybe as a backup or to cross reference.

Isn't there a federal document that explains the difference between precision and non precision approachs being vertical/lateral guidance? I would think that would clear up any issues here since you can't have an approach without at least lateral guidance which DME cannot give you.
 
shdw said:
I think he is referring to using DME 17.3 off of SUG to identify KEANS. This of course can be done, then you run your time to your MAP based on your speed.
Click to expand...

Except that it's not a DME fix; it were, the DME would be measured along a particular course, which in this case would be from SUG. The DME isn't intended to be used when tracking a course off of some other navaid. Consider that there are two possible locations along the LOC course that would read 17.3.

Keans is already identifiable via the marker beacon.
 
tgrayson said:
Except that it's not a DME fix; it were, the DME would be measured along a particular course, which in this case would be from SUG. The DME isn't intended to be used when tracking a course off of some other navaid. Consider that there are two possible locations along the LOC course that would read 17.3.

Keans is already identifiable via the marker beacon.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was right, only that I think this is what they are referring to.
As for the bold, :yeahthat:
 
tgrayson said:
DME off what navaid? The only DME sources I see are off the two VOR IAFs. Regardless, there are no DME fixes on the approach, so DME could be used for nothing.
Click to expand...
in the case of this approach, yes i agree, but what about an approach that lists a dme distance off a vor in terms of a feeder route citing a course and DME? could you use DME in lieu of the ADF in that case?
 
BuickCFI said:
in the case of this approach, yes i agree, but what about an approach that lists a dme distance off a vor in terms of a feeder route citing a course and DME? could you use DME in lieu of the ADF in that case?
Click to expand...
I don't understand the question. It sounds like, "Could you use DME instead of ADF to identify an DME intersection."
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
I don't understand the question. It sounds like, "Could you use DME instead of ADF to identify an DME intersection."
Click to expand...

To my knowledge if an approach says "ADF REQUIRED," unless you have a GPS or an ADF you cannot do that published approach. So far nobody here has found anything published saying otherwise and until that day I will continue to view ADF required as just that ADF required unless I have a GPS substitute.

Buick - Can you post an example approach?
 
shdw said:
To my knowledge if an approach says "ADF REQUIRED," unless you have a GPS or an ADF you cannot do that published approach. So far nobody here has found anything published saying otherwise and until that day I will continue to view ADF required as just that ADF required unless I have a GPS substitute.

Buick - Can you post an example approach?
Click to expand...
i actually don't have any examples because all the ones in my area say ADF or DME required, so it is pretty clearcut.

the original poster was asking
We do have DME and I was told you could sub the DME and fly the approach but I am just can't find the info
Click to expand...

and we have proven that you need an ADF or GPS to fly that approach.
 
BuickCFI said:
in the case of this approach, yes i agree, but what about an approach that lists a dme distance off a vor in terms of a feeder route citing a course and DME? could you use DME in lieu of the ADF in that case?
Click to expand...

If I understand the question, I'll copy what I said above: DME isn't intended to be used when tracking a course off of some other navaid. Consider that there are two possible locations along the LOC course that would read 17.3 DME. That said, TERPS does allow it under special circumstances:
282. COURSE/DISTANCE FIXES.
a. A DME fix is formed by a DME reading on a positive navigational course. The information should be derived from a single facility with collocated azimuth and DME antennas. Collocation parameters are defined in FAA Order 6050.32, Spectrum Management Regulations and Procedures. However, when a unique operational requirement indicates a need for DME information from other than collocated facilities, an individual IAP which specifies DME may be approved, provided the angular divergence between the signal sources at the fix does not exceed 23° (see figure 28). For limitation on use of DME with ILS, see Volume 3, paragraph 2.9.1.

​
To be used in place of an OM, the angular requirements are even more stringent:
2.9.1 Distance Measuring Equipment (DME).
When installed with ILS, DME may be used in lieu of the outer marker. When a unique requirement exists, DME information derived from a separate facility, as specified in Volume 1, paragraph 282, may also be used to provide ARC initial approaches, a FAF for back course (BC) approaches, or as a substitute for the outer marker. When used as a substitute for the outer marker, the fix displacement error shall NOT exceed ± 1/2 NM and the angular divergence of the signal sources shall NOT exceed 6° (DOD 23°).
​
When this occurs, this paragraph kicks in:
l. DME frequencies are paired with the frequencies of the VOR, localizer, or MLS. When a non-paired DME is used in a VOR/DME, ILS/DME, etc., procedure, simultaneous reception of both facilities must be assured. This requires a note indicating the DME location and the identification of both facilities: "Chart note: DME from XYZ VORTAC. Simultaneous reception of I-ABC and XYZ DME required."​
Here's an example of such an approach:

http://naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0904/05100I19CC3.PDF

Note the following:
  • the DME source along the FAC is the VOR, not the LOC;
  • the angular difference between the FAC and the DME source is very small, and
  • there is a chart note pointing out the pilot needs the DME off of the VOR.
 
Ok, so not to bust anyone else but I think tgrayson may have the best handle on this or is just the best at blowing smoke. In a couple of your replies there has been info referring to other approaches, and i may have missed the point, but on those plates the equipment "required" note was in the planview of the approach plate. Either way I may need to clarify my questions:

What does the "adf required" statement apply to that appears in the briefing strip?

There are two IAF's, one at KEANS and one at SNOWBIRD (SOT). Using SOT as an IAF is a no brainer, 'when able direct snowbird, expect the ILS rwy 16 AVL.' What equipment would be required for the IAF at KEANS?

Would the VOR indicator and a marker beacon/receiver suffice??

On a side note, the aircraft has two VOR's and DME. No GPS, no ADF, and nothing else but the standard six pack with Mag compass. ILS, LOC, and VOR approaches all day long!! I have to rent an airplane from a competitor to keep proficient on GPS IAP's!!

BTW, thanks for all the help from everyone!! Keep the info rollin!!
 
WOW, you guys are way to smart to be flying airplanes!! I had to reread all the posts again and I think I might be a little bit smarter now!

But I just want to make sure, hence the post above!
 
Maddog1974 said:
What does the "adf required" statement apply to that appears in the briefing strip?
Click to expand...

I had that embedded in one of my posts above. Let me extract it:

  • In the planview, ADF REQUIRED means that an ADF is needed to enter the procedure. That means that an IAF is an NDB.
  • In the chart notes (in the briefing strip), "ADF Required" means that the ADF is needed for some other reason, typically the missed approach holding point.
You will find the above information in the AIM.

In the present approach, you need an ADF for two reasons:

  • procedure entry (via SUG), and
  • missed approach holding point.
According to the rules I listed above, you should have two notes on the chart, one in the planview, one in the chart notes. You only have one. Either the note in the planview was inadvertently left out (this happens), or there is some policy procedure to only list a particular note once (even though I don't see such a policy in their policy documents.)

Would the VOR indicator and a marker beacon/receiver suffice??
Click to expand...
Not according to TERPS. Marker Beacons are intended to be used when you are tracking the course with which they are associated. From TERPS (FAAO 8260-3B):
c. Fixes Formed by Marker Beacons. Marker beacons are installed to support certain NAVAID’s that provide course guidance. A marker beacon is suitable to establish a fix only when it marks an along course distance from the NAVAID it is associated with; e.g. localizer and outer markers.
​
Nor is there an intersection at KEANS or a fix of any kind. The NDB is all you have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top