Ndb Approaches

[thorn bird]

A question for the grey beards out there.
When should monitoring of the ident on an NDB approach commence??
Is there a Reg that states it should be monitored from top of descent to the aid?....in a jet aircraft that could be up to thirty minutes with the Ident sounding in your head set distracting you from other things??? should it be audible from the aid outbound???...should it be audible from the FAP inbound?? does it need to be continuously on from top of descent to the minima??....just wondering what the consensus is???..just had one of my pilots fail an instrument renewal because he didnt monitor the ident from TOPD...Checked the ident when he first tuned the aid, turned the ident on inbound in the holding pattern prior to the initial fix outbound.
Flew an approach within tolerance, completed the circle to land satisfactorily but failed because he didnt monitor the Ident from TOPD.
I cannot for the life of me find any reg that requires this, but its going to cost my company a couple of grand to recheck this guy...Guess if it had have been me I would have failed to!!..wondering what the rest of you think??

[The Green Goblin]

The general rule of thumb was when using it as a primary aid below the MSA.

If you do not have DME/GPS RNAV then when descending below the route LSALT after confirmation of station passage.

The way I was taught in flying school was within 25nm when using it as a primary aid.

NDBs, terrible things :=

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Common sense surely says from the moment you descend below MSA? Or practically, as you describe - over the aid or in the holding pattern.

Interesting concept though. If you are tracking to the aid using the aid - especially if there are differential MSAs based on bearings - I suppose there is a technical argument that you should always be monitoring the NDB.

UTR

[Tidbinbilla]

I would have thought something practical, like from leaving the MSA, or from the IAF (usually overhead the aid, first outbound leg).

I can't quote anything from Jepp regarding exactly when it must be done, but generally you need to monitor from when you enter the hold onwards.

Sorry I can't be more specific.

[The Green Goblin]

Thorn Bird,

I'd say there is more to the story of why he failed. These days can be passed without the NDB.

If he failed fof that reason only, then I'd take it up with CASA.

[otto the grot]

Suggest the criteria for execution of a missed approach may provide some answers

[john_tullamarine]

'twas my practice to monitor when using the NDB for tracking and absolutely so below MSA/LSA as appropriate. Otherwise one has no idea of its operational status.

I never found it distracting to have the audio turned down in the headphones to a level where I could hear it but it wasn't distracting. Of course, one needs CONSCIOUSLY to listen regularly/periodically, regardless of gain, to avoid the dits and dahs being pushed into the background hash. A few early I/F training exercises in the link where the instructor fails the aid - and the student continues on oblivious with the confidence of the needle sitting there like it was glued to the dial - usually is sufficient to get the message across.

Just a matter of practice, discipline and routine I would have thought .. like a lot of things in flying.

[Wally Mk2]

NDB's............awful things as has been said.
I am of the opinion that for en-route usage once the beacon has been identified then there is no longer any requirement to monitor it aurally until descending thru LSALT & that would normally only be during an NDB Appr. Obviously as you would not be wanting to go blw LSALT whilst en-route in IMC unless it forms a part of a DME Arr for Eg where the NDB is used as the primary lat nav aid.

So using the NDB or any nav aid for that matter en-route is for tracking ref abv LSALT & decent blw LSALT can only be done during an App or if one is visual within 30 mls by day or within the circ area of yr A/C Cat by night, say 3mls for Cat B. Once an NDB App is commenced that meaning it's use is the sole ref for tracking & yr blw LSALT then constant aural monitoring is required until the aid is no longer needed, IE visual or at the completion of the missed App & abv LSALT. Simply put once overhead the aid & station passage has been identified it's listen out:ok:


Wmk2..........thank God for FMG's !!

[John Eacott]

As Wally says.

The issue these days is that the ADF is the one instrument used for an approach which doesn't have a failure warning available, except for the aural ident. VOR, ILS, etc all give a flag warning, but unless the pilot is monitoring the NDB there is no way of knowing that the aid is working, all the way to minima. I would surmise that there may have been more to the failed test than not monitoring the ident: maybe not understanding why may have been just as important.

I used to know the reference: once upon a time .....

[thorn bird]

Greeny, mate been around to long , I check my pilots!!
This guy, grade 1 Instructor multi engine IFR, checked to line
as a training pilot, admittedly not under Reg 217, but then again who the hell could afford to do that, he knows his stuff, and from my experience with him dosnt lie, he's prepared to take his licks if he screws up, and lets face it any one of us can screw up at one time or another.
The ATO concerned is one of the last available in the Sydney basin, the pilot concerned has already had to wait several weeks unable to work because a test couldnt be done due to lack of ATO's, the company still paid him,and now has to pay an additional couple of grand to recheck him...no problem with that if it was fair, which was why I asked the question, given his recount of the test. I would have failed it, incidently the ATO concerned I trained years ago...Just a thought, but did this come from the ATO or pressure from???? you guessed it ???

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

just had one of my pilots fail an instrument renewal because he didnt monitor the ident from TOPD...

Why? The IR no longer hangs on the NDB! Did he not fly a VOR appr?

Dr :8

[thorn bird]

Hey fella's appreciate the input, pretty much the way I considered
the connundrum, always err on the side of safety, but sometimes
it goes from the sublime to the ridiculous!!

[thorn bird]

Forky,
normal renewal is an ILS, which covers VOR, which this pilot completed satisfactorily, with an NDB from the old days, but covers the Non precision, circle to land requirement.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

normal renewal is an ILS, which covers VOR, which this pilot completed satisfactorily, with an NDB from the old days, but covers the Non precision, circle to land requirement.

GPS RNAV ?

Dr :8

[thorn bird]

GPS rnav is an Add on mate, How do you listen to the ident on a GPS approach??

[John Eacott]

GPS rnav is an Add on mate, How do you listen to the ident on a GPS approach??

Why would you? You check RAIM as a pre approach check, the GPS is then 'good to go' for the period of the approach, plus you have failure warnings should the unit go TU.

If you want NDB on your licence, you have to fly the approach iaw the criteria, one of which is to monitor the audio throughout the approach as there is no other indication of a failure.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

GPS rnav is an Add on mateILS and GPS RNAV = legit renewal, "mate"!

My question was, "Did the person who was failed on their IR renewal fly a successful GPS RNAV"?

If so, the IR renewal should have been successful, with a fail on the NDB.

Dr :8

[Unhinged]

CAR 159 requires the pilot to know if a navaid fails at any time which would preclude compliance with the Regs.

So if you're using the ADF for for tracking in any phase of flight (en route, approach, DGA, MSA) you need to be able to hear the ident, because lack of the ident is the only way to know if the NDB has failed.

I don't believe that TOPD on its own matters, unless it happened to coincide with one of the above.

[bentleg]

I was taught to monitor the NDB audio from the top of descent, including in the holding pattern, as you have no other way of knowing if it has failed.

I tune and identify the NDB miles out, get the audio going when 2 or 3 miles from the aid, and keep listening until visual.

(When not being examined I also use GPS as an added safeguard when flying an NDB approach. At my home field, arriving from some directions a GPS RNAV approach would take me miles away and I can get in quicker with an NDB approach).

[PA39]

Enroute within range: Tune and Identify.

Approach: TOD

I always use QCumDent..........Qnh, Compass, Ident. Probably think its silly, but it always works for me.:\

[ConfigFull]

Is anyone taught to monitor the ident function of the NDB when using it to track under the Night VFR? The only reason I think this would be a relevant argument is that Pilot X flying NVFR sets up the ADF enroute, does the TIT (whatever) checks and voila can use the ADF to track; and is endorsed to do so on his/her night rating.

Pilot Y is flying along under the IFR, on the same aid, under the same tracking tolerances; and according to this ATO in Sydney has to listen to the ident from TOD.

One could argue that since LSALTs come into play in both cases then why should X and Y be any different?

[RENURPP]

CAR 159 requires the pilot to know if a navaid fails at any time which would preclude compliance with the Regs.


It's been a while since I used GA navaids but I sort of recall that when one fails they park in the 090/270 position?
I guess that my vary with type.
If so then once identified you would have a failure indication

On modern jets the avionics identify the ident, SY for example, is displayed on the Nav Display.
If the aid subsequently fails the needle disappears from view. There is no need or requirement to listen to the audio unless this automatic ident function has failed.

[Captahab]

I am assuming that most (if not all) of the posts here refer to steam driven cockpit indicators. On my panel if the ground station takes a rest then the needle flashes red and then takes some time off in sympathy with the ground station.
Can't do an approach with no indicator. I never monitor it except for initial ident when I dial it up.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

For what its worth,

When we (Me and my colleagues) were instructing we always had the ... -.--
very soft in the background at all times.

Very handy to listen out for any 'extra' tones which may indicate an aid unserviceability.....or its on standby pwr etc ....

At night, it just sounded so 're-assuring' - almost relaxing just to hear it 'beeping' away in the background - because ONE of 'us' was a 'b' who would turn the tuning knob, just a little, at a very inappropriate time.

We all thought it was good training...Don't know about a 'legal requirement' though...

Cheers:ok:

[Slasher]

NDBs, terrible things

Yep I fully agree - useless bloody aids esp for let downs. Of
all their inherent errors the worst one is a let-down (at night)
while your up to your arse in storms. You have to take the
average needle reading and disregard them when they suddenly
jump to the direction of the closer lightning flashes. At the
minimum off a straight-in, one hopes to see the flamin airport
in front of him let alone the runway!

To answer the original question, I was taught the ident has
to start being listened to when leaving the IF, and when
leaving the enroute LSA/MSA (whichever is higher).

[swh]

The requirement in the ATO manual is to pass the minimum of either the NDB or VOR during the test.

"A “pass” assessment in the flight test for the rating depends on satisfactory performance in:

1) General instrument flight
2) Use of NDB or VOR as a navigation and approach aid.

An unsatisfactory final performance in any item or procedure in these areas results in an overall fail assessment for the flight test. An unsatisfactory performance in the use of radio navigation aids other than the NDB or VOR does not result in a fail assessment."

The Instrument Rating Application (Form 645) item 34 for the NDB requires the ident to be monitored during approach. Item 57 requires the correct identification of navigation aids used.

[RENURPP]

The Instrument Rating Application (Form 645) item 34 for the NDB requires the ident to be monitored during approach. Item 57 requires the correct identification of navigation aids used.
Thats all fine and beaut, however as I said and a post or two below me have said, you do not have to monitor the aural ident in some modern aircaft as the avionics identify the aid for you. They will also indicate a fail, the needle simply dissapears from the screen.
So it is identified by confirming the identifier, i.e. using the Howard Springs NDB you would expect to see HWS on your Nav display, if it fails then HWS will dissapear AND the needle will no longer be visible. That meets the requirements above without monitoring or even listening to the aural ident.

Now I am speaking from a jet perspective, and i'm not current on light aircraft, but I believe that some of them have some reasonably good gear so maybe they do the same.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

The requirement in the ATO manual is to pass the minimum of either the NDB or VOR during the test.
"A “pass” assessment in the flight test for the rating depends on satisfactory performance in:
1) General instrument flight
2) Use of NDB or VOR as a navigation and approach aid.
An unsatisfactory final performance in any item or procedure in these areas results in an overall fail assessment for the flight test. An unsatisfactory performance in the use of radio navigation aids other than the NDB or VOR does not result in a fail assessment."

Not necessarily so!

Civil Aviation Order 40.2.1 22
4 Renewal
4.1. An applicant for renewal of a particular grade of instrument rating shall pass
the instrument rating test applicable to the initial issue of that grade of
instrument rating except that:
(a) proficiency in using 1 or more of RNAV(GNSS), ILS, LLZ, VOR, DME
or NDB may be demonstrated in a synthetic flight trainer approved for
the purpose — if proficiency in at least 1 other navigation aid is also
demonstrated in flight or in an approved flight simulator; and
(b) a demonstration of proficiency in using ILS or LLZ in accordance with
subparagraph (a) may be used to meet the proficiency testing
requirements for VOR — if proficiency in at least 1 other non-precision
instrument approach is demonstrated as part of the test; andThe GPS RNAV is a non-precision approach, therefore, a pass on the ILS (which covers for the VOR) and GPS RNAV constitutes a valid renewal!

Dr :8

[Hot High Heavy]

I just completed the MECIR at Ad Astral in WA a few weeks ago and their SOP's state that the ident needs to be listened to from 2nm to run to the aid and then left on until it is no longer being used (ie after the MAPt).

These guys have a pretty strong rep in the IF field so i'm thinking its on the mark....!

[RENURPP]

I just completed the MECIR at Ad Astral in WA a few weeks ago and their SOP's state that the ident needs to be listened to from 2nm to run to the aid and then left on until it is no longer being used (ie after the MAPt).

These guys have a pretty strong rep in the IF field so i'm thinking its on the mark....!

That may well be their SOP, they may also have old avionics in their aircraft. At the end of the day it depends on the avionics on board as to IF and when you monitor the aural ident.:rolleyes:
Having said that if you are using old gear then I suggest monitoring the aid below the LSALT/MSA is a more appropriate option than waiting for an arbitary 2nm.
If I am relying on one of these aids I would like to know if it failed, and they do.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Apart from renewals and currency, why would anyone fly an NDB approach? Is there anywhere in Oz that has an NDB approach and not a ILS, VOR or GPS RNAV ?

Dr :8

[TriMedGroup]

Apart from renewals and currency, why would anyone fly an NDB approach? Is there anywhere in Oz that has an NDB approach and not a ILS, VOR or GPS RNAV ?

Unfortunately if not equipped with TSO 145/146 GNSS gear, then having to remain current on either NDB or DGA is a necessity when planning for alternates. On the subject of DGA's, having an ADF in the aircraft makes life a lot easier at destinations only served by the 1 GNSS approach.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Having an ADF, being current on it, and using it for alternate requirements is quite different from chosing to actually fly an NDB appr in anger! Hard to imagine any flying IFR these days doesn't at least have a TSO 129 GPS available to them.

Dr :8

[TriMedGroup]

Point taken, yes if it was a ****ty rainy night you would more than likely take the extra 30 or so track miles to fly the GNSS approach. However the only way to stay current when not in the big city is to actually fly one. I havent flown one since my last renewal due to not being ADF equipped 99% of the time.

And as for people not having suitable gear in the aircraft well you may be surprised... Many that are equipped don't have up to date databases (due to stingy operators), and if flying a mixed fleet then the 3 on type in VMC and 1 in the previous 6 months requirement doesn't make it any easier - yes i realise that GNS430's are pretty much the industry standard these days.

Can we just have GNSS approved for azimuth tracking on DGA's please??

[Jabawocky]

http://www.beechtalk.com/forums/images/smilies/rofl02.gif

Its coming........one day! :ooh:

[Wing Root]

Out there in busted-ass GA land NDB approaches are an everyday occurrence in winter for pilots of operators who

A. Refuse to install IFR GPS units properly (Remote annunciators and HSI connection)
B. Refuse to keep databases current
C. Refuse to train / endorse pilots on GPS/RNAV approaches

There are still plenty of places out there where DME/GPS arrivals just won’t get you in with the higher circling minima and the NDB is the only option. When you do them regularly enough you get used to making corrections for the ADF errors, and let’s not forget even a Garmin 100 is worth its weight in gold for that "Bearing to Station" information. As for the ident in all my renewals and checks it has been SOP to monitor the ident during the approach. I don't remember ever monitoring it from TOD, only prior to passing the IAF.

[1a sound asleep]

I failed a renewal because I was using the NDB on route and turned the volume down. Theres no way of knowing if a NDB has failed except via audio

[swh]

Thats all fine and beaut, however as I said and a post or two below me have said, you do not have to monitor the aural ident in some modern aircaft as the avionics identify the aid for you.

As part of an initial or renewal of a instrument rating an applicant is required to demonstrate "identification of navigation aids by recognition of their morse code identifiers", see CAO 40.2.1. Appendix 1, Para 1.1 (f), even with a wizz bang glass cockpit.

The GPS RNAV is a non-precision approach, therefore, a pass on the ILS (which covers for the VOR) and GPS RNAV constitutes a valid renewal!

Care to share a route you think would enable a person to qualify for a renewal doing only that ?

Apart from renewals and currency, why would anyone fly an NDB approach?

Could be a whole lot quicker, and is not subject to head office or equipment generated RAIM predictions.

Is there anywhere in Oz that has an NDB approach and not a ILS, VOR or GPS RNAV ?

Still a handful of places in Australia that only have an NDB approach.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Care to share a route you think would enable a person to qualify for a renewal doing only that ?Not sure I understand the question but - how about Townsville down to Bowen for the GPS RNAV and back to TL for the ILS ??

Could be a whole lot quicker, and is not subject to head office or equipment generated RAIM predictions.
If a decision is made early to track for the appropriate GPS RNAV approach, I think there would be relatively few instances where the NDB is "a whole lot quicker".

Still a handful of places in Australia that only have an NDB approach.
I was hoping for a few fr'instances!

Dr :8

[Jack Ranga]

I failed a renewal because I was using the NDB on route and turned the volume down.

You must have had an absolute ahole of an ATO?

[ollie_a]

Locations with only an NDB approach:

Bromelton, QLD
Camooweal, QLD
Georgetown, QLD
Gibb River, WA
Jervois, NT

[swh]

Not sure I understand the question but - how about Townsville down to Bowen for the GPS RNAV and back to TL for the ILS ??

A lot of the ILS approaches in Australia use a NDB for the hold associated with the procedure, YBTL is one of the few locations where the hold is defined by a NDB and VOR. Entry into the hold, and a holding pattern is a test item for the ILS.

CAO 40.2.1 says the holder may act as pilot in command or co-pilot of an aircraft being flown under the I.F.R. only if each navigation aid or procedure that is used to navigate the aircraft during the flight has been endorsed in his or her personal log book.

General instrument flight and the use of at least the NDB or the VOR as a navigation and approach aid also needs to be tested. So some enroute VOR tracking should be included (item 23 on the test form) to cover the VOR as a navigation aid. This could be easily covered on that route with a Bowen 2 SID where you are required to intercept the outbound track by 20 or 30 DME TL depending on the runway in use on the day.

[Xcel]

Even on steam driven gear won't your rmi show flags when the ndb drops out and point 090/270?

Agree on the only requirement being to listen below lsalt or passing the iaf...

Even for the tracking After reaching topd wouldn't you be tracking on gps?
You could of even been tracking dr... Nothing stopping you flying approaches ifr in vmc...

Had a few renewals where I have been told to "turn off that god aweful noise" one of those times being a Cp check (yes it was 8/8's bluesky) so if your mate is telling the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth feel he might of been screwed a little...

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Locations with only an NDB approach:
Bromelton, QLD
Camooweal, QLD
Georgetown, QLD
Gibb River, WA
Jervois, NTInteresting group of holiday destinations there!

Bromelton - nowhere to land there!
Camooweal - landing is currently restricted to RFDS only. Not a problem cause I can't imagine anyone really wants to go there anyway! :E
Georgetown - OK, you got me. Not registered or certified so no GPS RNAV approach, but I have landed there a few times so I guess someone may want to go there occassionally.
Gibb River - I think the only reason that there is an NDB there is that it is too remote to go there an pull it out!
Jervois - Not registered or certified so no GPS RNAV approach. NDB is historical only! Like Gibb River, maybe the only reason there is an airstrip there was to service the NDB.

I wonder what % of Oz pilots can get through their entire careers without the need to ever go to these places, let alone fly an approach in IMC?

Dr :8

[Captain Nomad]

There's plenty of places that have just one aid (NDB) plus RNAV. Sure, if you go there in IMC you will probably pick the RNAV approach to fly before the NDB, but try going out to some of these places and see what it would be like legally meeting requirements if the NDBs were removed and your delightful machine of choice is not TSO146! On top of that, what about non-IRS equipped IFR en-route position fixing requirements? On top of that, I'm sure I'm not the only one to have had GPS do funny things at inappropriate times. Always nice to have a ground based aid to revert to.

[bentleg]

Gibb River - I think the only reason that there is an NDB there is that it is too remote to go there an pull it out!

Really? At that airstrip is the station homestead and the Ngallagunda community (http://picasaweb.google.com/czelnick/Ngallagunda#).

Jervois - Not registered or certified so no GPS RNAV approach. NDB is historical only! Like Gibb River, maybe the only reason there is an airstrip there was to service the NDB.

On Google Earth it appears to be a well maintained station airstrip.

[PLovett]

I think Jervois was originally installed to service a mine out that way. I doubt anyone has done an approach out there since 2006 when one of our chaps did his MECIR renewal and did the NDB part out there. He needed a bit of time in the aircraft which was why I suggested Jervois. Don't think the CP/ATO was too happy with the time it took to get there from Alice Springs. :uhoh:

[bentleg]

Gibb River was more than likely put in as a waypoint between Derby and Wyndham. (It's 11 nm off the direct track YDBY - YWYM)

[QSK?]

bentleg:Gibb River was more than likely put in as a waypoint between Derby and Wyndham.You're half right, I think. The GIB NDB was originally installed to service the navigation needs of DC3s involved in the Air Beef Scheme in the late 1940s, early 50s, before the Gibb River Rd was constructed.

Glenroy station at the time was one of the largest abatoirs in the region (if not Australia) and DC3s and Bristol Freighters used to land to uplift beef products to Wyndham port for onwards shipping to the southern states and internationally. The Gibb NDB was an enroute aid to facilitate navigation between Glenroy and Wyndam. Talking to some of the older pilots involved in the Air Beef Scheme, my impression was that there were numerous flight each day into/out of Glenroy Station at the time.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Glenroy station at the time was one of the largest abatoirs in the region (if not Australia) and DC3s and Bristol Freighters used to land to uplift beef products to Wyndham port for onwards shipping to the southern states and internationally.

No, the Glenroy Meatworks was actually very small. and unfortunately the Air Beef Scheme was interesting, but ill conceived and doomed to fail.

"The Glenroy Meatworks" was capable of handling up to 60 bullocks per day, with the abbatoir treating up to 2000 caracasses for the neighbouring stations per season.

[Clearedtoreenter]

I think. The GIB NDB was originally installed to service the navigation needs of DC3s involved in the Air Beef Scheme in the late 1940s, early 50s,

Says it all about NDB's!

Even on steam driven gear won't your rmi show flags when the ndb drops out and point 090/270?

Might be true of a modern ADF, (not that there is such a thing) but there are still a lot of pre-steam supposedly IFR ADF's that dont have any indication of failure, flying in the state of the art Australian GA fleet .

[boofhead]

The ident is not a good warning of failure because it is not positive. Losing a signal is not going to wake you up like a warning tone would, or a flag. Most pilots would miss it, especially if there was something else going on that had their attention.
If you monitor the needle, you can tell it is working because it gives a consistent bearing. A needle that was stationary would attract my attention even if it was identing.
I had a Nav in a C47 tune the ADF (Radio Compass in those days!) in Auto then switch it to Antenna because that was the procedure he was used to, although in the airplane he usually flew the positions of the switch were reversed. So even though I could hear a fine ident, the needle was absolutely steady on the nose. I was feeling pretty good at how well I could fly a course until the error was picked up! It was pitch black and we were about 1000 feet below the tops of the nearby hills at the time, so it was a lesson well learned.
Many years later I was the only one of about 4 company 747s that landed in Taipei when the power failed at the airport in bad weather and the only aid still working was the NDB. The other crews were never taught how to fly the approach and they all diverted.
Sometimes the old ways still work. How long since you have done a GCA?

[gretzky99]

There's plenty of places that have just one aid (NDB) plus RNAV. Sure, if you go there in IMC you will probably pick the RNAV approach to fly before the NDB

Having an ADF, being current on it, and using it for alternate requirements is quite different from chosing to actually fly an NDB appr in anger! Hard to imagine any flying IFR these days doesn't at least have a TSO 129 GPS available to them.

That is if you're RNAV endorsed. There's still those like myself that even after 3 years in FNQ, for some reason, haven't got that box ticked off yet. In fact, less than half my work mates are RNAV endorsed. So it's the good old ndb approach, all over the cape and gulf for us. Mind you when actually in the soup, tracking and guidance is almost entirely off the gps anyway.

[Delta_Foxtrot]

Georgetown - OK, you got me. Not registered or certified so no GPS RNAV approach, but I have landed there a few times so I guess someone may want to go there occassionally.


RFDS Kingair used to be there every week for a clinic while I was working there five years ago.

[Tinstaafl]

Something I particularly like about NDB approaches is that I always know where the beacon is w.r.t. to me. Not the same at all with a VOR. GPS is similar although can only give position in relation to track made good and not immediate heading. Bad luck in a 50 or 100 kt wind.

[Tmbstory]

Tinstaafl:

I agree with you, not only does it always point to the beacon but in some countries the NDB is at the inner locator position at the end of the runway so it is saying " look here is the end of the runway,dumb dumb."

Rgds

Tmb

[Xcel]

Just turn the fmc to select fms or vor and it can show bearing too...

Rmi's also have a vor needle

gps can also change track to relative bearing - track made good - track required or even distance off track - and that's just the old garmin 100's

the worst approach ever is Darwin locator with thunderstorms all around typical tropical bs - it's already a bananna curve approach that can see you almost a mile outise of the intended splay let alone the allowable 5 degrees and the errors of passing weather. Lucky there aren't any high rises or towers between hws and dw or out over the coast...

Hurry up and decommision them I say...

Mind you there is something satisfying about doing a night circling ndb reversal with strong wind on those rare occasions you get the needle to just sit and obey your evey command ... About that time I wake up fro my dream though and realise oh yeah it's notamed u/s no wonder I didn't hear audio ...

Oops

cheers
r