NDB approaches in light aircraft

[thing]

Do any of the IMC holders here ever do NDB approaches other than for practise or renewal? I'm not talking about the pro flyers, just the average club members.

I have ILS and PAR at my field so obviously they are the ones I do in anger; but do any of you do NDB approaches at your own field when you have other alternatives? Or would you chose to do an NDB if ILS was available?

[Johnm]

I wouldn't do an NDB approach unless there was no alternative and then I'd fly it with the GPS not the ADF. It's long past time the useless heaps of junk were switched off then we could replace the ADF with something more useful like a CD player:ugh:

[thing]

My sentiments entirely.. I have my renewal coming up which as you know has to include two different pilot interpreted approaches. IE an ILS and an NDB. (I know SRA can be included) The only time I ever fly an NDB is at times like this.

[olasek]

On my G1000 equipped SR22 I could not even shoot an NDB approach. :hmm:

PAR approach for GA flying??:confused::confused:
None of the airport I fly to offer such a thing. I thought these days you can only see it at military airports plus who would want to use it say in the US with abundance of other approaches- it is really archaic too.
Also NDB approaches are getting very scarce these days - if someone asked me to find an airport within 200 nm of my location with an NDB approach I would have a real tough time.

[A and C]

You are correct about the PAR being a military only thing now but it is a very useful think to have in an emergency.

If you have a total electrical failure a PAR will get you on the ground with ILS accuracy using only a hand held radio........ Or may be a cell phone.

As the UK has an integrated aviation distress system in the UK it is likely that if you declared an emergency in a light aircraft you could probably find a Military PAR within 30 min flying.

[RTN11]

In a spam can with a separate ADF, either fixed card or just one you rotate yourself, and without a slaved DI, there's not a lot of point, as you will struggle to keep the 5 degree accuracy, and if you really flew it down to minima there's very little chance you'd be in a realistic place to land the aircraft.

It is however very useful for situational awareness, and a very easy (if not accurate) approach to fly when overlaid on an EFIS HSI.

[thing]

PAR approach for GA flying??I fly GA from a military field. TBH if there's a controller available I would take a PAR over anything else. All you have to do is sit there and do what you're told and I know it's a weird take on it but it's quite relaxing listening to the continuous patter of a talkdown. We only have ILS at the one end as well but PAR into both ends.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I thought these days you can only see it at military airports plus who would want to use it say in the US with abundance of other approaches- it is really archaic too

Archaic??

Given a choice of all the approaches I did in the past I would take the PAR over any of the others for ease of workload and more important accuracy.

Note:::

I am not including autoland because the pilot is not hand flying the autoland.

[porterhouse]

Archaic??Well, in fact it is, specially in areas with vast array of WAAS approaches. I would always prefer approach I can slave my A/P or F/D to over a fallible human being talking me down.

But as mentioned above PAR could have a place as an emergency solution if your electrics are down but then you have to find this military airport nearby willing to accommodate you...

[India Four Two]

I used to do PAR approaches in RAF Chipmunks. My instructor once had me continue right down to touchdown, following the controller's instructions. A very impressive system. Of course, you have to have complete faith in the controller.

I'm not talking about the pro flyersEven pros struggle with it sometimes. I watched an RAF Tristar doing what was obviously a bad NDB 16 approach at Calgary once. I was in the terminal, which is near the threshold. The Tristar was outbound from the MM Charlie beacon and at least ten degrees off track, heading straight for the terminal. At MDA, there was a sudden turn right! The rest of the crew must have been laughing their heads off!

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Well, in fact it is, specially in areas with vast array of WAAS approaches. I would always prefer approach I can slave my A/P or F/D to it over a fallible human being talking me down

Yes I understand where you are cumming from and I was not specific enough in my post...so..

I did not take into consideration the use of an autopilot or a flight director as aids in the approach and landing process......I had a momentary flashback to the days of the DC3 that did not have an autopilot nor a flight director, but our home airport did have PAR available and we used PAR whenever the weather was really bad.......as our backup we used the ILS....and the PMA system of approach and landing.

Different times and different mindsets of course.

[RatherBeFlying]

A few decades ago, I did an NDB approach for the examiner. When it was time to lift the hood, it looked like I was close to a mile off course -- and the examiner passed me:eek:

These days, you could do a better approach with a smartphone:E

[thing]

I would always prefer approach I can slave my A/P or F/D to over a fallible human being talking me down. OK maybe I should amend my opening post to read 'Not pro pilots or GA pilots flying stuff that 99.9% of us will never fly.' :)

but then you have to find this military airport nearby willing to accommodate you...




Not quite sure where you reside but there are four mil fields within ten minutes flying time of me.

[olasek]

or GA pilots flying stuff that 99.9% of us will never flyNot sure what you mean, I grant you that A/P or F/D were once quite rare in small GA aircraft but nowadays, for example in my club, people can train (and do in fact train) for their PPL in G1000 equipped SR20s or 172s. Times changed indeed.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Times changed indeed.

For sure.

But the basic laws of physics and aerodynamics remain the same and the use of flight controls to fly remain the same.

Has the gradual move to glass cockpits really improved the flying skills of pilots?

[olasek]

The right question should be: did the glass cockpit improve safety?
As we know it is a mixed bag because in GA flying a better equipment can embolden pilots to get into riskier situations.

But the last I checked Boeing, Airbus and others are not giving up glass cockpit in an attempt to improve piloting skills :}

Personally I would never give up glass cockpit - it gives me superior situational awareness and I can actually spend more time thinking about the big picture (weather, fuel, alternates, etc.). But it is just a tool and can be easily abused like anything else. But if someone questions the value of glass cockpit they should remind themselves of the recent Superstition mountain accident, a family with 3 kids hit the mountain dead on in VFR night condition. Their Turbo Commander wasn't even equipped with rudimentary Garmin 500/600 box.

[thing]

for example in my club, people can train (and do in fact train) for their PPL in G1000 equipped SR20s or 172s.Just noticed your location so fair comment (don't know what the GA scene is like in the US). Suffice to say that most club pilots in the UK will smile in grim recognition when I talk about flying on the standby because the DI has packed in again or having gear that works when there's an 'R' in the month.

Still, keeps you sharp. I expect stuff to pack up.

I suppose GA flying in the US is completely different to here. Bigger mountains, deserts, all sorts of nasty stuff so it makes sense to be kitted out with all of the good stuff. Here in the UK you are rarely 10 minutes away from anywhere and we laugh at those performce tables in the Cessna and Piper manuals with their example problems 'You are taking off from an airfield 5.000' asl and you plan for a journey of 600nm.' Ho ho. The highest airfield I've ever taken off from is 820' asl and that's a high one. 2 hours flying max either way puts you in Ireland, Scotland or France/Belgium/Netherlands.

[tmmorris]

Like thing I fly from a mil airfield (I wonder if it's the same one :) ) and would take a PAR over anything else if the chips were down. Single pilot it greatly reduces the workload.

Yes, I've flown NDB approaches in genuine IMC as well as for the biennial IMCR renewal. I wouldn't choose to, but those complaining about the inaccuracy should note that the approach is designed to cope with this. And I completely agree that in actual IMC I would always fly it on a handheld GPS or even a mobile phone in preference to the ADF needle, which I would regard as the emergency backup. On my Aera 500 you can enable OBS mode and fly it basically as if it were a VOR approach, or just set the OBS to the final approach track and fly the ADF outbound and the GPS inbound if you don't fancy fiddling with it during the base turn.

[Pace]

I would agree with another poster that having the ability to fly an NDB means your mind is working. If you can fly that accurately with strong winds then you can fly anything instead of slavishly following a GPS.

Regarding a PAR! I had an emergency years back which coincided with extensive unforecast fog.

the military base were colour code red but quickly sized up the situation and i was talked down in a twin breaking cloud at 80 feet with an RVR of 550 meters.
You could even see the fog hanging on the Hangar roofs.
Reaching minima the controller went through the usual chat of missing if not visual and then intensified the commands to cloud break.
those guys could talk you down onto the deck if need be.

but those were the days when military bases were open all hours :ok:

Pace

[thing]

those guys could talk you down onto the deck if need be.And gals too. There's a lady at our place who does talkdown who has the most gorgeous voice. It's liked being wafted down with your ears wrapped in velvet.

Like thing I fly from a mil airfield (I wonder if it's the same one :) ) No but I've flown into yours...:). Delivered some cakes last year...Incidentally there are some good fly outs this year, have you heard about them down at your place?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Personally I would never give up glass cockpit - it gives me superior situational awareness and I can actually spend more time thinking about the big picture (weather, fuel, alternates, etc.). But it is just a tool and can be easily abused like anything else.

I am presently in the beginning stage of building a Thatcher CX4 as a time building rental for young pilots between their PPL and CPL.

Here is my choice for the instrument panel.

Dynon Avionics - SkyView Displays (http://dynonavionics.com/docs/SkyView_Displays.html)

Once they have mastered airplane handling skills I want them to have the most modern situational aids available.

In my opinion it is like a gun.

I would rather have a gun I don't need than need a gun I don't have.

[olasek]

I would rather have a gun I don't need than need a gun I don't have.
That's a good way to put it.

[Johnm]

Quote:

I would rather have a gun I don't need than need a gun I don't have.
That's a good way to put it.

Only the Americas is that a good way to put it. Elsewhere the right to bear arms makes about as much sense as the right to arm bears!

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I would rather have a gun I don't need than need a gun I don't have
I was going to say that "guns that people don't need kill thousands every year, but instruments that people don't need are harmless so there's no real analogy".

But then I got to thinking about people who allegedly fly untrained into clouds containing CBs and mountains on the theory that all their flashy gizmos will keep them safe, so perhaps there is an analogy after all ...

No I would never voluntarily fly an NDB approach for real if there was an alternative, but if there's no alternative I am, in theory, capable of doing it.

[Pace]

Gertrude the W

Exactly the point you have to fly as if all your flashing Gizmos have failed and you are left with basic navigational equipment! Yes too many pilots rely on the gizmos. Anyone who can accurately fly an NDB hold offsetting for wind and then leave that hold outbound on an NDB approach again offsetting and having a good mental picture of the winds and approach and then complete an NDB approach hitting the right descent points at the right time to minima can fly anything.
i would add doing all that in IMC and turbulence! its the best training exercise you can do.

Pace

[maxred]

Well I flew one yesterday at PIK. We tracked MAC VOR, then came inbound from MAC, tracking the PIK NDB. I ended up 100 mts left of the beacon, and straight down the PIK runway. We then broke for a VFR let down. Very satisfying, and I was pleased at my tracking inbound. Once you understand your plus and minus, and get your SA sorted out, I think it is great instrument.

May well, when all else fails, get you out of a situation.

Oh, and had the 430 turned off!!!!

[Johnm]

Once you understand your plus and minus, and get your SA sorted out, I think it is great instrument.

May well, when all else fails, get you out of a situation.

Oh, and had the 430 turned off!!!!

This wrong in so many many ways........

[gemma10]

Its old hat technology, but it works. The fun really starts when you practice a hold over the NDB and try to visualise which sector you are in and then wonder which way to turn. Anyone got a MNEMONIC for the six versions. Think thats how you spell it?

[maxred]

This wrong in so many many ways........

Why exactly?

Discuss.........

[Johnm]

OK I'll bite;)

First ADF is not a great instrument, even with a RMI it's very difficult to get within 5 degrees at best and with night, mountain and CB effects you can follow the needles perfectly and be literally miles away from where you planned to be.

When all else fails a ADF might be of limited help but vectors from an air traffic controller will be far better, see discussions on SRA above.

Why on earth switch off the best tool to cross check whether your assumptions about where the ADF is taking you are correct?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Only the Americas is that a good way to put it. Elsewhere the right to bear arms makes about as much sense as the right to arm bears!

There are many places on this earth where being armed can mean the difference between survival and death.....

....back to the ADF Johnm, did you find the use of the BFO position on the ADF to be a real help sometimes?

[Croqueteer]

Pace has got it right. Outside TS there is no reason why an instrument rated pilot shouldn't be able to fly a decent NDB approach. In the past did it fairly regularly with 100 punters down the back. Its also good for situational awareness.

[Pace]

johnM

i think you are missing the whole point here! In days past yes pilots used ADF/NDB in anger and had no fancy GPS displays. even I can remember when I thought it was a luxury being able to move a VOR/DME artificially onto your track instead of getting cross cuts from VOR to VOR or even NDBs to give you a fix. They were far better pilots because they had to think on the hoof with minimal equipment instead of hitting on the autopilot pressing nav and getting the aircraft to fly fancy displays which do and show everything for you.

Of course NDBs have limitations and you would not want to use them for anything but a confirmation of your GPS but what happens if one day your super Gizmo equipt television set panelled aircraft is not available and you end up flying a basic 1980 aircraft with almost original equipment? (yes they do exist) Fly that in anger in solid IMC and yes you will be a good pilot rather than an aeroplane driver ;)

its when everything goes pear shaped that such experience will serve you well!

pace

[BackPacker]

Anyone who can accurately fly an NDB hold offsetting for wind and then leave that hold outbound on an NDB approach again offsetting and having a good mental picture of the winds and approach and then complete an NDB approach hitting the right descent points at the right time to minima can fly anything.
i would add doing all that in IMC and turbulence! its the best training exercise you can do.

This was the exact scenario I had, about halfway through my IMC training. We came back from shooting a few ILSs elsewhere. Turbulent IMC all the way. On approaching our home base we were descending to the MSA, still in IMC. Did the full NDB procedure, descended to minima, still in clouds. Was about to go around when the instructor looked down and saw the runway. So we descended visually, flew a tight circuit and landed normally.

One of the best flights I ever did. I really learned something about flying from that.

[Johnm]

I completed my IR in my Archer which was all steam gauges except for a Garmin 150 which wasn't certified. This was only possible because at that time RNAV wasn't compulsory below FL095.

I therefore flew lots and lots of NDB procedures and holds with no decent tools at all and all of it hand flown with the screens up.

The fact that I can do this doesn't make it a good thing. It also illustrates that UK IR training bears as much relationship to real world IFR flying as a course on coastal sailing does.

Those old boys flying NDB procedures in air liners weren't trying to meet PRNAV accuracy levels either!

Nope if I lose the GPS I'll get vectors and SRA thanks and if it wasn't a legal requirement to carry one the ADF would not be using valuable panel space.

[porterhouse]

Anyone who can accurately fly an NDB hold offsetting for wind ...... can fly anything.And anybody who can fly Wright Brothers Flyer can fly absolutely anything. Lets build some Wright Brothers Fliers for those who want to be 'real pilots'. :eek:

They were far better pilots because they had to think on the hoof
Your own conjecture, there is absolutely nothing to prove it.

[maxred]

OK I'll bite

Good

You are quite correct, following the needles on an NDB procedure, will get you totally lost. Fly a heading Johnm, do not follow the needles. Understand what you are doing.

Vectors from ATC, what if you are out of range, your radio fails, and all you have is your RBI?

The best tool was switched off, because we like to keep very current on all our Nav aids. Don't forget, we could have switched it back on again, but then I am very IR proficient, so was confident of my SA. The flight would not have been so satisfying. Horses for courses though...

You state you have an IR. you should know then the full range of NDB let downs, you may have do do one on your revalidation. Or does your CFI not do these?

Look, flying, in IFR, all the cockpit tools should be practiced, you should keep current on all aids, including the much maligned ADF/NDB, it may just save your life one day. But hey, with all your GPS gizmos, you would never get in trouble, would you:O

[Pace]

Porterhouse

Brilliant idea :ok: Then we might stop getting all these tragic accidents which are happening more and more to pilots driving television screens around the sky!
First sign of trouble and they fall out of the clouds like flies ! Read the accident reports on the Cirrus makes sobering reading!
So yes to good old fashioned handling abilities!

JohnM

Sounds like you had well rounded training :ok:

Pace

[RTN11]

Did my full IR in a duchess with a Garmin 430 fitted, but only one of my three instructors showed me anything about it (although I had read the manual) and the general advice I had was not to use it at all for the test.

I then pass said test, but in the debrief the examiner asks why I didn't use any of the GPS functions, as it would of helped situational awareness, and he would have "detuned" anything that I wasn't allowed to use at the appropriate parts of the test.

Same with the autopilot, he was baffled why noone was teaching IR students to use it.

[maxred]

Did my full IR in a duchess with a Garmin 430 fitted, but only one of my three instructors showed me anything about it (although I had read the manual) and the general advice I had was not to use it at all for the test.

It's funny, I also have found a real reluctance from instructors to use the GPS panel mounted units, whilst teaching, or recurrent training. (IR).

It is almost as if it is taboo to use any GPS derived aids. I also agree, a lot do not seem that proficient in it. One reason I have thought about is that most panel mounted units are on the right side, and all scan instruments are on the LHS. If concentrating on scan, then the distraction of coming away from the practiced scan, to look over at the GPS, can be awkward. Of course, a lot of the newer glass installs, have the GPS display in front of the LHS pilot.

Might not have anything to do with it though.

[Johnm]

You state you have an IR. you should know then the full range of NDB let downs, you may have do do one on your revalidation. Or does your CFI not do these?

Happily the examiner who does my renewals has the same view of the usefulness of NDB as I do, so we tend to do airways trips, general handling and ILS and RNAV approaches, including holds using NDB as a waypoint in the GPS with an OBS facility. I.e. Real IFR work.

I know very well how to use an ADF to maintain a track based on a heading with wind correction, and occasionally practice it on the sim as an academic exercise, but I'd have to be pretty desperate to use one in reality.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

but in the debrief the examiner asks why I didn't use any of the GPS functions
Sounds like an inadequate pre-test briefing.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Last time I flew a NDB approach for real in IMC without at least a handheld GPS to provide track guidance was 1994 :ok:

The NDB was all they had in 1930 so that is what pilots had to use, warts and all. Well 80 years later we have better technology so time to take off the rose coloured glasses and use the safest and most accurate nav aid available

That will pretty much never be the ADF :rolleyes:

[BackPacker]

The NDB was all they had in 1930 so that is what pilots had to use, warts and all. Well 80 years later we have better technology so time to take off the rose coloured glasses and use the safest and most accurate nav aid available

I agree that an NDB approach is less accurate than a GPS approach. But if flown properly, I doubt whether an NDB approach is less safe.

Of course an NDB approach is a non-precision approach. The name implies that your flight path and go-around point are much harder to fly to accurately. And in a lot of cases, at the MAP you may see the airfield (so decide to land) but you may not be in a position to land straight ahead.

But all this is offset by higher minima. So even with all the inaccuracies that are part of an NDB approach, you should not hit anything if you fly the approach properly.

Now those higher minima also mean that the chances that you will actually be able to land off the approach are less. After all, in typical foggy weather a 600 feet minima or a 200 feet minima makes a lot of difference. For this reason alone precision approaches are far more practical than non-precision approaches.

So I think precision approaches like ILS or anything that's GPS derived are far more practical than NDB approaches. But I don't think safety is compromised in an NDB approach - as long as you apply the proper (higher) minima.

[S-Works]

If flown correctly the ADF/NDB combination is a useful and pretty accurate approach tool.

I teach them a dozen times a day down here and as students progress through the IR and actually understand the information they are getting from the ADF they fly incredibly accurate approaches.

The main issue it's the NDB approaches is that most instructors teaching it at IMC level barely understand the thing themselves and GIGO principal then applies.

We still teach the NDB more as a means to end and these days because truly understanding it aids in developing true situational awareness and helps build cockpit confidence and the ability to handle the workload. The skills leant flying an NDB properly translate directly into other forms of approach.

I would always take a precision approach over any other and the NDB is way down my list of choices when others are available.

As far as skill tests and GPS are concerned, I expect the candidate to be able to operate the GPS where fitted and approved for the job especially int he airways segments. The approaches have to be pilot interpreted so the GPS gets turned to a screen that does not provide overlay data.

[mad_jock]

I don't actually know what all the fuss is about using NDB's

I know it was stated about it being for none airline machines but to be honest apart from having a RMI instead of a RBI its not a lot different.

The problem I find is that on our machines the GPS are never the same. They are in different places on the panel some you can slave the track to the HSI others have there own track deviation display. One or two will even give you a pink string some on the units others through the EGPWS display on one of the RMI's.

So you can't really get an effective instrument scan running. I do tend to use the GPS to get the turn onto final track but after that I am just scanning the standard 6 because if I come out of that scan to have a look over its more likely I will come off profile either height or course.

In the UK NDB approaches are on the decline but there are a few places that use them when the ILS is out for service. I think they postpone it when the cloud base goes below 1000ft.

Following the GPS doesn't always work it was always a big gotcha doing a test at leeds with the 15 degree bend in the NDB if you flew the GPS you failed.

I fly about 15 NDB approaches a week at work one of them is even timed with the markers working, which was a bit of shock to the system the first time. We do use the GPS using a user point on the runway threshold for distance and the none flying pilot calls the distance out and height checks. And yes we do fly them down to mins occasionally and get in off them, there has been a few go-arounds as well.

The other thing they are pretty good for is cloud break procedures so that you can get below MSA and visual and then just fly a circuit.

I will admit while training someone I do make them do NDB's when there are other options available and without the GPS if the cloud base is high.

It is a very good way of increasing capacity and also improving instrument scan. Just like maxred its not uncommon outside of training flights for them to ask to do it again for ****s and giggles as I do as well.

I know some of you might disagree and think it some sort of perversion but I get a lot of job satisfaction from flying a nice NDB approach to mins and looking up to find we are bang on where we are meant to be.

And its quite noticeable that the pilots that are also fellow perverts of the NDB never seem to struggle in the sim on their 6 monthly checks. The direct centre fix if they can followed by NDB/GPS approach don't have such an easy time of it especially on one engine.

So I don't know if they are really a dead form of finding the ground. I will be doing one today. And I have no option because that's all they give me for the into wind runway. I suppose I could go an addition 35 miles and use the ILS to get a circle to land but I am not going to, waste of fuel.

So I won't be using safest and most accurate nav aid available

Tailwind ils followed by a low level circuit to land or NDB/DME approach getting the runway at 700ft. Which one is safer?

[Johnm]

Tailwind ils followed by a low level circuit to land or NDB/DME approach getting the runway at 700ft. Which one is safer?

NDB/DME with GPS support would get my vote :ok::)

[Johnm]

I teach them a dozen times a day down here and as students progress through the IR and actually understand the information they are getting from the ADF they fly incredibly accurate approaches.

Yup, I did what seemed like thousands of them at Cranfield when doing my IR and could usually get within about 1/2 mile of the runway centreline at minima off CIT, I can do the same on Microsoft flight Sim into Gloucester, but a GPS approach will put me bang on the centre line with a clear picture of the world around me so what's the point?

Switch off all NDBs as they have in the States that's what I say!

I will confess at this point to having the same attitude to NDBs that CAA old stagers had to GPS, i.e. irrational prejudice :p:E

[mad_jock]

No chance would have to turn my head away from the six by 45 degrees and then my eyes would then need to refocus then turn head back and refocus again.

Most while looking away from straight ahead will take the controls with them so if they look right they will bank right. Look up and they will pitch up.

Anyway for me the plane ends up at a position which I can land safely off just using the needles. Maybe the reason while people are struggling with NDB's is because they are actually trying to use the GPS. Its completely knocking their instrument scan out. So would actually get better results by ignoring it.

And the NDB bashing of approaches does a whole lot more to the student than your appreciating. Its not only the NDB approach, its also capacity, instrument interpretation, situational awareness, control finesse. So yes as such its an exercise but it develops the pilot. If you can fly a NDB approach well you can fly all the approaches well be it PAR,SRA,VOR,ILS. But it also translates to other areas of the flight.

Yes you already have it now and like riding a bike you may get a bit wobbly if you haven't done it for a while but you still know how to do it.

So when your trying to land in Barra with exercise joint warrior in full flow with FRA up jamming the hell out of the GPS signal it won't be a major issue. Last year it even made it to parliament about the jamming because the fishermen were getting lost and not finding there fishing grounds. If you have never been taught it and not been through the development curve it forces you to go through it will be a bigger issue.

[ShyTorque]

Many posters seem to have missed the point that an NDB approach is classed as a non-precision approach. It was never supposed to bring you to the runway threshold, unlike precision approaches such as a PAR or ILS (or more recently, a GPS approach). It was only designed to get the aircraft to a place from where a visual final landing can be made, hence the higher required minima.

It would be more appropriate to compare an NDB approach to an SRA, or a QGH letdown. I wonder how many folk here have experience of either of the latter.

[mad_jock]

SRA's done quite a few of in anger but mostly for controller currency same with PAR's.

QGH is a name only to me. I wouldn't have a clue what I was doing with one of them.

[maxred]

We should also highlight that NDB' s are not only positioned at airfields. Some are in the middle of nowhere, and are used as a Navigation, or waypoint position aid.

And I realise that GPS has far outweighed the usefulness of these as credible, on route, positioning tools, but they are there if the need arose.

[thing]

and you end up flying a basic 1980 aircraft with almost original equipment?

I dream of flying aircraft that are that new. Not joking either.

Some good stuff posted (as I hoped!). I don't have anything against NDB approaches per se but it's interesting that the guys who are upholding them are mostly instructors who do them several times week. I haven't done one for two years and now have to get my head around them again. You may say that it's lax on my part but why spend money doing an approach that you are probably never going to use against spending money staying sharp on approaches you use all the time?

[a320.sim.melb]

Guess if it's a requirement of your instrument training then there's not much choice.

In a practical sense, the NDB is pretty useless, but it's still interesting to know.

[mad_jock]

Its all how you attack these things.

Now yes we could do ILS's all the time where available.

If you turn it on its head and instead of always going for the easy option go for the apparently hardest. I am not talking about always going for a NDB but if your not tired the cloud base is 500ft above your mins just go for the NDB. You only have to do it 3-4 times a year to keep your hand in. Also you might find you also get into the this isn't so bad zone and start enjoying doing them well. Then this whole subject will become a none issue to you and you might get into the mind set like some off us of what's the problem with NDB approaches they do a job and its just another tool in the box to use when you want to or have to.

[maxred]

Thing...I am not an instructor, but am very keen to develop and keep current in all aspects of my flying. You get can very lazy, and complacent by just plugging in, Direct to.

I actually get great satisfaction from flying a good ILS, a good VOR hold, or an accurate NDB/DME. When doing it in training mode, it can be a great leveler when you make a total mess of it, and then wonder where it all went wrong.

I struggled for some time to get my head around Instrument flying, but as others have said, one day it clicked with me, and the one instrument that I found assisted, was flying the NDB/DME. I find it does give you an total insight into SA, and from that, the other procedures fall into place.

[ShyTorque]

In my days as a SAR helicopter pilot in the Far East all crews were put on standby as typhoon warnings reached a certain level. If off shift we were allowed home but had to remain immediately available to respond. I used to listen to local ATC on my air band scanner at such times, in case it became apparent that we were going to be recalled en masse .

One night a very big typhoon came in and went right by the airport, causing a total wind direction reversal. The holding stack was already full and many aircraft had diverted. Things were getting critical when ATC announced a runway change. Worse when they realised the ILS wouldn't come on line at the other end. One aircraft was offered a PAR instead. The pilot twice asked for the message to be repeated. After a pause he declined and said that the aircraft "was not equipped for a PAR".

I don't ever want to fly with certain airlines..... :ugh:

[thing]

I actually get great satisfaction from flying a good ILS, a good VOR hold, or an accurate NDB/DME.So do I, I think I've mentioned before that I actually enjoy instrument flying. The point that I'm failing to make..:) is that NDB approaches are gradually going to go offline so I would rather spend my money, little that I have, staying current on approaches that are relevant to me. If I flew from an NDB field then I would stay proficient at NDB approaches.

Yes I understand I could divert to an NDB only field etc etc. I don't particularly have a problem with NDB approaches, I'm sure I could shoot a fairly good one today if I had to, they just seem a bit anachronistic to me.

[mad_jock]

Most commercial pilots who trained in the last 10 years won't have a clue about PAR's or for that matter SRA's shy.

The majority only bang out the test route stuff required.

I was in the same boat the first time I did one was going into Coningsby with the ILS tits up. They gave us it I looked at the FO he said I haven't done one either. Thought o well we just do what we are told don't we and went for it popping out of the clouds at 220ft. The RT was a lot to be desired but we got on the ground with minimal fuss which was more to do with the controller than us.

Same with SAR's it was an ILS tits up that made me do my first one live.

The rest of Europe has even less clue than the Brits unless they are ex mil pilots or German.

The point that some of us are trying to make thing is that the NDB approach is a means to an end. It doesn't just test you on that approach type it gives benefits across the whole breadth of your flying. I haven't done anything but NDB approaches on any checks for 6 years now. As such I haven't been tested doing VOR or LOC approaches for that period. Its just that the examiners know that if you can cut it on a NDB you can't cut it on all the rest.

[thing]

There you go then, people who stay proficient at NDB approaches are good at them, people who stay proficient at PAR's are good at them! As I've already said, I would take a PAR as first choice over anything else, it's like falling off a log and they are uber accurate, bearing in mind my MD is 500' and I don't have to fly them onto the deck, although I would have no qualms about doing so.

[mad_jock]

If you are proficient at NDB approaches you are proficient at all the none precision approaches.

I haven't done a PAR for 3 years now, and wouldn't hesitate to take one if offered and you wonldn't know it had been 3 years.

Three years not having done any NDB work only ILS to ILS and it wouldn't be pretty in fact it would be downright ugly.

[ReverseFlight]

Feel proud of yourself at having done NDB instrument approaches, especially in IMC conditions.

I recently interviewed a 12,000 hour jet pilot who'd never done an NDB approach ever in his entire life. :ugh:

He didn't get the job.

[sapco2]

If he is a 12,000 hour jet pilot, I'd be surprised if he hadn't been tested on NDB approaches during every other 6 monthly recurrent check. In my airline we have to demonstrate proficiency at least once a year, sometimes on single engine.

I take it the guy doesn't fly for a British airline ReverseFlight?

[mad_jock]

Different country's have different ways of testing and if the TRE can't fly one himself they won't give one to the person being tested.

In theory EASA should stop this but as the test item is none precision approach some just use a loc approach due to being talent limited themselves.

[sapco2]

My thoughts exactly mad_jock, its got to be someone who has flown for an overseas airline somewhere because here in the UK it is a VOR or LOC approach on one 6 monthly check but then it must be an NDB on the next 6 monthly. We do of course also fly them in anger from time to time. NTS is regular.

[ShyTorque]

Most commercial pilots who trained in the last 10 years won't have a clue about PAR's or for that matter SRA's shy.

Looking back, it does seem crazy that in a previous life we were routinely required to depart into IMC from our grass airfield in the Midlands with no ground based aids, climb to altitude and carry out basic instruction above cloud in an SEP with no cockpit navaids whatsoever! The outbound climb was made on a "free lane", into Class G, using heading information gleaned from ATC using "back bearings" from our RT transmissions.

Once out of the lane on top (or sometimes not) we were on our own. We used to keep a mental plot of position by requesting a couple of "true bearings" from local military airfields. For recovery we used to ask for a homing to the overhead (done on the DF screen) followed by a QGH letdown.

A QGH involved flying from the airfield "DF overhead" on an outbound heading corrected for estimated wind by the ATCO. After a timed outbound leg and initial descent, a level turn onto the inbound heading was flown. A further descent was then made to approach minima (650 ft IIRC).

The QGH pattern was fixed, the runway in use wasn't.....so sometimes a circling approach had to be made after sighting the airfield. Again, not easy because it was a grass field and the runways weren't strikingly obvious to pick out at the best of times, let alone in bad weather during a low level circuit.

Anyone else here done a DECCA letdown?

[thing]

Looking back, it does seem crazy that in a previous life we were routinely required to depart into IMC from our grass airfield in the Midlands

Not Newton by any chance?

[ShyTorque]

Quite a good chance....

[FC80]

NDB approaches aren't the be all and end all of piloting skill that will magically turn you into some kind of Skygod if you can fly one, like some here are making out. It's just a skill, like any other, that isn't particularly difficult if done regularly but will perish if not.

I've flown plenty on LPC/OPCs, a few in anger and some just for the hell of it and the only thing I can meaningfully conclude from all this is that NDBs are useless.

Sometimes they work fine and you end up just where you want to be. Sometimes you fly the thing like a pro and pop out at minima a mile or so from where you were last time you flew the approach - even though the needles are reading the same. Sometimes you can be flying one nicely and the needle suddenly decides to take a 20 degree swing due to one of the myriad errors these archaic pieces of kit are prone to.

So... in conclusion, you'd be mad to use one where you have better options and it's about time they were phased out.

:zzz:

[ShyTorque]

So... in conclusion, you'd be mad to use one where you have better options and it's about time they were phased out.

Yes, I hate this new fangled equipment... ;)

[Big Pistons Forever]

The fact that the NDB is taught in the initial IF course is IMO irrelevant. I teach IFR and absolutely we do some ADF work for all the good reasons MJ and others have brought up, it builds the core skills of aircraft control and Situational Awareness. But that doesn't change the fact that it is an obsolete approach aid that is the last choice for flying an actual approach.

Operationally I have not done a raw data NDB approach in 20 years. Fortunately North America is much more enlightened than Europe when it comes to the adoption of GPS approaches so there are very few (any ?) airports that have only an NDB approach without also having the option of at least an LNAV approach.

I think Europe is where North America was in the late 1990's. GPS was out there but the regulators had not caught up. At that time Canada had lots of little airports with only NDB approaches. For those, I would make a GPS user waypoint at the runway threshold. This gave me distance to touch down to manage the descent and avoided the requirement to dive and drive, and also gave accurate track guidance. If the ADF needle said I was right of track and the GPS needle said I was left of track than I would turn right. If they both agreed I would enjoy the happy coincidence.

But one thing never changed unlike the bad old days, pre GPS, the aircraft was always lined up with the centreline of the runway when I broke out.:ok:

[thing]

Yes, I hate this new fangled equipment

We have a Cessna which still has one of the old Bendix 12c's with the manual tuner. I feel like I should bin the DC's and get a leather flying helmet and goggles sometimes.

[Big Pistons Forever]

We have a Cessna which still has one of the old Bendix 12c's with the manual tuner.

Ironically, for GA gear at least, the older the ADF the better it works. The old stalwarts like the 12C and the KR 85 seem to work much better than the fancy new digital ones like the KR87. :confused:

[thing]

Oh it works fine, I just feel like I'm climbing into a Wellington bomber.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

For sure the older ones worked best, especially the ones with a B.F.O. function.

[porterhouse]

Not quite sure where you reside but there are four mil fields within ten minutes flying time of me.I often fly out of the Bay Area, Travis is the nearest military field, frankly a bit far, why would I go to Travis if I have 6 other airports much closer with various precision/non-precision approaches. Plus frankly I doubt Travis would just offer me PAR on a silver plate, I would probably have to declare some sort of emergency. While in PPL training my instructor explained to me that Travis would be strictly emergency airport for me, yes it has a very long nice runway but so does SFO or OAK Intl. When I fly out of Paso I would have no clear choice as to a moderately convenient military airfield.

[Pace]

No one is promoting the wonders of NDB approaches in this modern world!
I am for one saying that flying an accurate NDB approach will give you fantastic spatial awareness and ability to constantly read winds!
If you are competent at flying an NDB approach no other approach will give you the slightest trouble as all the required skills are there in the NDB approach!

Pace

[olasek]

Since none of the aircraft I fly is equipped with ADF perhaps I could play with Microsoft Flight Simulator to practice some NDB approaches and this only IF I thought it was worth my time. :(

[mad_jock]

don't bother with MSFS it doesn't do ADF dip.


Well you will all be pleased to know I survived my NDB approach this evening sans looking at the GPS which is mainly because it screws with my scan. And it was bleating about RIAM being out and it could only see 3 satellites. The fo got a sore finger from cancelling the message button. We got the lights at 600ft agl and landed in a snow shower.

Now home for tea and scones.

[Croqueteer]

If you were stuck in cloud low on fuel and the nearest strip only had an NDB and you had an ADF, I think you would consider it worth your while! Why can't people just accept it as another "Get out of jail" card in their tool-box?

[olasek]

Why can't people just accept it as another "Get out of jail" card in their tool-box? Because some people operate in realities of practical world around them, I am not aware of a single NDB approach within 250 nm radius of my home base (frankly I doubt there is one left in my whole state of CA though I could be wrong). Yes, IF I were on low fuel and IF and IF ... there would have to be convergence of lot of IFs for me to ever consider NDB approach. And since FAA is decommissioning more and more NDBs every year it becomes almost a statistical impossibility that I every have a chance to shoot NDB, I probably have a higher chance finding myself at the North Pole. Also some people try to limit what's in their tool box to what actually they have a chance to practice in real aircraft.

[mad_jock]

The practical world doesn't stop at the US border. And there is loads of the things else where.

You have a license to operate world wide. The fact you don't use this ability is neither here nor there its still one of the basic skill sets you need to have to be able to operate globally.

[thing]

If you were stuck in cloud low on fuel and the nearest strip only had an NDB and you had an ADF, I think you would consider it worth your while! Why can't people just accept it as another "Get out of jail" card in their tool-box? I don't think anyone is disputing that. It's not a 'I don't do them/I do do them' issue.

I might add that if you were low on fuel and stuck in cloud then some decision making processes had gone seriously wrong somewhere.

[olasek]

have to be able to operate globally. I am going to disappoint you - I have zero ambition to operate 'globally'. Nobody pays me to fly, I pay out of my own pocket which further limits the radius of my flying.

[mad_jock]

Well lobby the FAA to give you a instrument rating which is US only and doesn't require NDB knowledge then.

[thing]

I am going to disappoint you - I have zero ambition to operate 'globally'. Nobody pays me to fly, I pay out of my own pocket which further limits the radius of my flying.

I share your sentiments, I feel that the majority of people who read or post here think the same. It's great to have pro pilots here sharing their experience, it's priceless really but I sometimes think that it's forgotten that the vast majority of us fly because it's fun and we pay top dollar for it. I fully envisage myself in ten years time still popping down to Fenland for a baguette on a nice summers day, the same as I shall be fishing the same spot on the Trent. I do it because I like it, not because I have to get the mail to Reno in a blizzard.

[porterhouse]

Well lobby the FAA to give you a instrument rating which is US only and doesn't require NDB knowledge then.
FAA no longer requires NDB approach in their IFR practical exam. And why on earth we would want to 'lobby' FAA to impose more 'restrictions', the last I checked AOPA is lobbying for this or that but not to 'restrict' or 'limit' :ugh:

[RTN11]

The UK test only requires a non-precision approach, could be VOR or localiser DME, but NDBs are still in the syllabus, and should be taught properly and fully understood.

Is that the case in FAA, or are NDBs not even in the syllabus?

[olasek]

Is that the case in FAA, or are NDBs not even in the syllabus?
Yes, they are still in textbooks and you might see a question or two on the written test. But since in vast parts of the country there would be no way to even practice such approaches you can fill in the rest ...

[Desert185]

I pulled the ADF out of the 185 a few years ago. Even though going through Canada to AK and back might allow its use, I found myself only using it for talk radio. With GPS and no interest in going IFR (I do that enough at work to satisfy any cravings), I decided to lighten the EW by 10#.

Fixed card or RMI, I always enjoyed doing an NDB approach, but there is no practical need for it anymore, at least in my world. The indicator does make a nostalgic bookend, though. :ok:

[Big Pistons Forever]

The practical world doesn't stop at the US border. And there is loads of the things else where.

You have a license to operate world wide. The fact you don't use this ability is neither here nor there its still one of the basic skill sets you need to have to be able to operate globally.

The reality is the requirement to be able to use an ADF has now become unnecessary for flying in North America if your airplane is equipped with an approach approved GPS, and very few North American GA pilots are every going to fly in Europe; if only because your regulators have made it such a PITA.

I must ask how often you practice with the astro compass, a required skill in order to fly in the high arctic and a necessary skill if you are to maintain your ability to truly operate "world wide". ;)

[olasek]

and very few North American GA pilots are every going to fly in Europe;True, might add there are FAA-licensed pilot flying on N-registered aircraft in Europe on spanking brand new Cirruses without ADFs and though they are not operating 'globally' they are operating significantly outside of US borders. I personally know a few such pilots flying in Poland. Somehow they manage to survive with no ADF in the part of the world where it still could be helpful but I bet they don't read this forum to tell them what they should have or know ...:}

[Desert185]

I must ask how often you practice with the astro compass, a required skill in order to fly in the high arctic and a necessary skill if you are to maintain your ability to truly operate "world wide".

Astro compass? GPS should do the trick. Yes?

[porterhouse]

Astro compass? GPS should do the trick. Yes? As far as I know GPS coverage/accuracy over North Pole is not very good, for example Garmin warns in their manual that no pilot should attempt to use their flagship G1000 product at latitudes over 70 deg. Perhaps this number is overly conservative but in fact you better have inertial navigation at some point close to a Pole.

[mad_jock]

It falls over above 65N especially when there is moderate activity and above.

Also we do polar grid nav during the ATPL's. I believe they use laser INS's these days and portable NDB beacons for the strips. And if your operating commercially there is qualification you need to have I believe which kicks in at 70-75 N/S.

Cirrus doesn't need a ADF it has a Handle in the ceiling in cases of a NDB approach requirement.

[Johnm]

I must ask how often you practice with the astro compass, a required skill in order to fly in the high arctic and a necessary skill if you are to maintain your ability to truly operate "world wide".

Not as often as I should..... I also have bubble sextant and don't keep up to scratch on that either, though it wouldn't be a lot of use in IMC, but my aircraft isn't cleared for flight into known icing anyway:)

[India Four Two]

I remember I had a lot of trouble tracking outbound when I was learning NDB approaches, until my instructor gave me a very good piece of advice.

He pointed out that it's only a few miles to the threshold, so just fly the drift-corrected heading from the inbound leg and failing that, use the published track as the outbound heading. You won't be far off at the threshold.

[sapco2]

That is an extremely valid training point JohnM has just made about his aircraft not being cleared into known icing conditions.....

If you don't have the means to de-ice in flight, then steer well clear of any cloud where the temperature inside is likely to fall below freezing would be my humble advice.

The UK restricted IR (IMC rating) is a very nice add-on qualification to boost a pilots confidence but it is only any good to him/her if its limitations are fully appreciated and adhered to.... also I wonder how many of us who teach the syllabus stress that point to our students?

No matter how good an instrument pilot you may have become, you could find yourself in BIG BIG trouble if you ignore icing levels where visible moisture is present in flight.

[Pace]

Olasek

It's easy just overlay created GPS points over the NDB approach and bingo you are in business :ok:
But I stress I am not promoting the NDB as some brilliant aid but having the ability to fly one accurately and read the winds from one track to another will make any other instrument approach a piece of cake

Pace

[AirborneAgain]

mad_jock:
don't bother with MSFS it doesn't do ADF dip.
Do you know if X-plane does?

(I haven't checked but I would hope so as it seems to be careful with other fine points. It appears to do magnetic compass accelerations/turn errors correctly and even shows ram rise on the OAT gauge.)

[Desert185]

Porterhouse and Mad_Jock

GPS continued to work in Antarctica. The primary nav was INS/GPS at True below 60S, but the handheld worked.

[maxred]

Cirrus doesn't need a ADF it has a Handle in the ceiling in cases of a NDB approach requirement.

Quality as always MJ, quality:D

[cessnapete]

I think the GPS message does get through amongst some CAA examiners. On my last SEP IR renewal I was allowed to use all the a/c aids. For all ADF tracking I used the Garmin 750 touch screen GPS / moving map obs selection, and flew the magenta line. I of course had the ADF needle displayed for 'legality'.
Exactly as the airlines carry out an NDB app if ever needed.

[maxred]

[QUOTE][ and flew the magenta line./QUOTE]

Cessna, I know it is very pedantic, and I fully understand, and indeed would share the view, that the reval/examiners should shoot into the 21st Century, but I still come back to the issue, particularly for GA, Glass cockpit flying, that to follow the magenta line, with not much ref to anything else, not inferring here, could get some people into difficulty.

A lot of anecdotal evidence about, that a reliance on GPS only, glasss technology, very likely linked to an AP, flying, can lead to trouble, particularly for the low houred, individual. The initial discussion has brought out a lot of good and detailed dialogue, relating to the outdated NDB, but, the fact remains that the cockpit has a number of tools and navaids, that require to be fully understood, and practiced. The NDB, as stated earlier, can be a real aid to understanding SA, and flying them, sharpens exponentially the skill set for IR flying.

[bartonflyer]

You can't get the football results on a GPS, long live the ADF receiver!!

[Genghis the Engineer]

It falls over above 65N especially when there is moderate activity and above.

Also we do polar grid nav during the ATPL's. I believe they use laser INS's these days and portable NDB beacons for the strips. And if your operating commercially there is qualification you need to have I believe which kicks in at 70-75 N/S.

Tends to specific approvals within a company's AOC procedures, and based upon their company aircraft equipment. Usually linked to known AMUs rather than a standard latitude.

Cirrus doesn't need a ADF it has a Handle in the ceiling in cases of a NDB approach requirement.

Mad-Jock for president :D

G

[Chuck Ellsworth]

The NDB, as stated earlier, can be a real aid to understanding SA, and flying them, sharpens exponentially the skill set for IR flying.

However the accuracy of the information an ADF can give you can be very inaccurate.

On long oceanic trips the least valuable aids we had were the ADF and HF transceivers.

We maybe should wring our hands wishing we had the radio ranges back...after all, all you need then is a cheap portable AM receiver stuck to your ear.

[maxred]

Beats 40k for a GTN750 install:cool:

[mad_jock]

Sod that Chuck get decca back.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Sod that Chuck get decca back

Or better still get GNS back.

I don't know of you read this story I wrote a long time ago but what the hell here it is again.

Arcturus, Missing Hours and Fate - By Chuck Ellsworth

Finally after over a week of just plain tough flying weather the stars came out and we would depart Johnston Point on Banks Island for what should be an easy flight. This flight would turn out to be remembered forever as one of the closest calls I have ever had in almost fifty years of flying. The year was 1975, late February. We were flying supplies to a cat train that was shooting seismic lines for oil exploration on Banks Island in the high Arctic.

Johnson Point, an oil exploration base camp with a paved runway, was the main airport for supplying the western Arctic. In these very high latitudes winter means total darkness for months and navigating in that very hostile environment is difficult at the best of times. We had just gotten our first twin otter equipped with a new navigation aid called Global Navigation System. G.N.S. was based on very low power radio transmitters located in various parts of the world. In order for the computer to be able to navigate it had to acquire at least three G.N.S. transmitters.

Latitude and longitude had to be entered, for both our departure and destination points, in the computer. This entry was done with little wheels to select the numbers and other information for each trip. A further limiting factor with G.N.S. was that we had to have accurate positions or the computer to navigate to wherever we set it. Cat trains are always on the move, consequently requiring a navigator with each train to take celestial shots whenever he could to accurately keep track of their new location.

Once the G.N.S. stations were acquired and the trip was set up it was so accurate we could fly several hundred miles and then return to our parking ramp at the airport without a hitch. To us G.N.S. was like having died and gone to heaven. Being able to navigate so accurately in the high Arctic, where the magnetic compass always points strait down, was a "god send". This particular trip to the seismic train was uneventful with no cloud cover at all just the stars from horizon to horizon. After the last week of flying all our trips from takeoff to landing on solid instruments while relying on two radar altimeters one in front of each pilot for our landing decision height this one had been easy. The only visibility restriction we had was the complete loss of forward visibility in the snow which blew up when we went into reverse to stop on the short runway, which had been ploughed for us, on the ice.

Sometimes these strips were not much over 1000 feet long due to the location of the cat train at that time therefore, reverse was a necessity to stop before we ran off the landing strip. With clear weather and no rush to get back to Johnson Point we went to the cookhouse, had a leisurely meal, listened to the tape recorder playing music such as North to Alaska, which we of course changed to South to Alaska. Finally, off to the airplane we went where we decided to hell with waiting to reset the G.N.S. Instead, with such a clear night, we would fly back to home base using the astro compass. After lighting up the two P.T.6's we taxied back to the runway and lined up with the flare pots. We got the almanac out and shot Arcturus. It is one of the easiest stars to identify and shoot due to its position and brightness in the sky. Arcturus is the first bright star out from the handle of the Big Dipper. We read our heading on the astro compass, set our direction indicators (gyros) and off we went for Johnston Point. Once leveled off in cruise there was nothing but the sound of the engines and the big canopy of stars that ended in a faint white blur which was the endless Arctic snow just barley visible below us in the faint starlight.

Sitting in the warm cockpit with only the sound of those dependable turbine engines and no sense of movement through the dark night I slowly became aware that something was wrong but could not quite figure out what it was. I remember asking the co-pilot to see if Johnson Point was showing up on the A.D.F. After a few minutes he had no luck, now I came wide awake and said, "This doesn't look right. Let's get another shot on Arcturus.". Once more I gave him the time and he read the almanac to set the astro compass. Again there was no change in our D.I. settings. All of a sudden a possibility came to me and I asked him what time he had. When he read his watch we both knew we were really in trouble as there was almost three hours difference between our watches. I will never forget the feeling of real fear when I realized that we had departed the cat train with a D.I. setting that was almost forty-five degrees in error.

The sudden realization of just how serious our position was made it very difficult to convert the position of the stars versus what I figured they should look like. Now there was no doubt, in my mind, we were far off our track for Johnston Point, so far in fact I knew we might never be found.

Time was now critical. We had to decide which watch was right. Making a quick position guess based on nothing but the time we had flown on this heading and instinct we turned ninety degrees to the right starting a slow cruise climb for better fuel burn. All we could do now was wait and hope.

In this part of the high Arctic, at night, there is absolutely nothing but endless white, to try to recognize any feature below you is hopeless. Now both of us were really worried, questions and doubts started. Whose watch was set wrong? Had we turned the right way? Why had we not noted the runway heading after landing? Why had we not written the heading down so as to be able to confirm our star shot? Why did we not check both of our watches, especially in that the clock in the airplane did not work which in these temperatures was normal? Radio reception was so poor we could not raise anyone on H.F. or V.H.F. then all of a sudden the A.D.F. came alive and there was the Johnston Point N.D.B. strait ahead. Soon we could see the lights of our destination on the horizon. For some time I had been quite concerned about our fuel state. Seeing the lights in the distance was just to good to be true. However, to be on the safe side we stayed at eleven thousand until we could definitely make the airport as distances can be so deceiving at night in the high Arctic.

Descending through one thousand feet the low fuel light came on telling us we had eleven minutes of fuel left in the front tank. I really don't remember how much fuel remained in the rear tank. Of course, how much fuel there was in the rear tank is now a mute point. It really doesn't matter, because like in Earnest Gann's great book "Fate is the Hunter", that night so many years ago the hunter did not find my young co-pilot, whose name I cannot even recall, and me. Had we turned left instead of right we would have been so far off course it is possible no one would have ever found the airplane or us in those millions of square miles of ice and snow. After landing and going into the Atco Huts, that were our accommodations, we finally found out it was my watch that was wrong. To this day I do not really know why I chose to make the decision it was my watch, even stranger the damn thing worked just fine after this what should have been an uneventful trip.

That just leaves fate as the best explanation for my decision to turn right that night. Isn't it strange how words like Arcturus, Missing Hours and Fate can have such chilling meaning when flying airplanes?

[mad_jock]

What is high artic definition?

[olasek]

It's easy just overlay created GPS points over the NDB approach and bingo you are in business http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif
But I stress I am not promoting the NDB as some brilliant aid but having the ability to fly one accurately and read the winds from one track to another will make any other instrument approach a piece of cakePace - and how many times have you said the same thing by now, it is getting a bit repetitive.
And what kind of business I would be in? Business of flying an approach that no longer exists in my part of the world or looking at a needle which isn't there?. Some of you simple can't get over the basic facts that we either don't care for NDB or we simply have no chance of flying one even if we desperately wanted one. There are plenty of VORs left, plenty of VOR/DME approaches, they completely got overlooked in this discussion, if I need to feel like a macho pilot I can fly one, they are still commonplace.

[mad_jock]

you could slave a RMI needle to a GPS waypoint.

Get creative ;)

Its what I do when the tossers have taken the airport locator beacon away.

oh and I don't have a clue about x plane. The only one I know has it is RANT. If the software is American they tend not to included it because it doesn't occur according to the FAA I believe.

[Desert185]

Chuck

The problem with GNS is solar flare activity and bad fuselage mapping for proper antenna positioning. When we had them at the airline, it was sometimes impossible to fly Hono to the west coast. I remember having to do a lane resolution coasting out from AK on the way to Asia. We came really close to doing a turnback before the :mad: thing resolved it's location. There were also issues with determining which one was the most accurate on the other side of the pond. Too easy to be tagged with a nav error on the coast-in.

I'll take INS/IRS with GPS update any day over GNS...or an astro compass and a cheap watch. Shoot, my iPad does better than a GNS...and I can scrape the ice off my windshield, too. :ok:

I still miss flying the Twin Otter.

[porterhouse]

Do you know if X-plane does?No, no 'dip' in X-Plane but neither you will find in rather expensive Frasca 142 trainer.

[Superpilot]

For $30 you can get some very realistic navigation gauges for MSFS (http://www.reality-xp.com/flightsim/fln/index.html). I've used these for about 7 years and they've never failed me for IR renewals. They also simulate dip very nicely. In fact, this was the reason I bought them!

[Chuck Ellsworth]

What is high artic definition?

In Canada the arctic starts at 60 degrees of Lat.

We always referred to the high Arctic as anywhere north of the mainland ....the Arctic Islands.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

That just leaves fate as the best explanation for my decision to turn right that night.
Or there's the simple point that if you had turned left you wouldn't be telling us this story, so for us to be reading the story you had no choice but to turn right!

[I could never really quite get my head around all this probability and/or anthropic principle stuff.]

[thing]

Anthropic principle is simple enough. The reason you are reading this is because of anthropic principle. Only a universe capable of sustaining sentient life will be observed by that same sentient life, thus any universe will tend towards sustaining sentient life otherwise it would to all intents and purposes cease to exist if there were no life forms capable of acknowledging it's existence. There would be no point to it.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I am reasonably sure that some inner voice has compelled me to take a certain course of action on several occasions during my flying career Gertrude because there really is no other explanation...

.....maybe there is some vague middle ground between divine intervention and pre. destination??

[Flying Tooth Driller]

Earlier posts going on about the GPS in the centre stack breaking up the scan.
I did a lot of IR training in PA28s with the old Bendix King KR86 - the one with the tuner and dial in the same bit of kit. That was placed neatly in front of the co-pilot's seat. Now that didn't exactly help your scan!!!:rolleyes:

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I could never quite wrap my mind around this " Scan " thing.

What is the time frame between interrupting your scan to look at something not directly in front of you..??...Will the airplane suddenly just go completely out of control if your " Scan " gets interrupted?

[mad_jock]

If they were all in the same place and of the same make displaying the same format it would help.

But you have to look for it then hopefully it will have a make the numbers match.

If its stable winds no it won`t go anywhere in that period. If your wrestling with the sod since you went below MSA with rotar and itblowing a gale its just easier a bit lik getting fully reconfigured before your decent point.

And our gps is usually on the vertical line of the fo`s left knee so its a definate head turn not just a move the eyes job. Sometimes at the top sometimes near the bottom.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

My difficulty with understanding the focus on a " Scan " mad_jock comes from the way I was trained to fly by reference to instruments only.

We were not taught a " Scan " we were taught to control the airplane by checking the picture the instruments as a group gave us, in other words the picture was not focused on any one instrument for the information we needed...we were taught to use peripheral vision of the other instruments to note any change of the airplanes attitude we had not commanded.

Therefore to me " Scan " really has no real meaning.

For example if I am looking at say an approach plate in level flight and in my peripheral vision I note the altimeter needle is not straight up I know the airplanes flight path is changing and I then quit reading the approach plate until I correct the reason the flight path has changed.

[India Four Two]

Chuck,

A great story about your Banks Island trip. For a moment or two, I thought you were supplying "my" seismic crew, but then I remembered that the seismic data I worked on was from Prince Patrick Island.

I never got that far north, but I once jump-seated in a 748 from Calgary to Inuvik (with intermediate stops at Edmonton, High Level and Norman Wells - it was a long trip!). I was very impressed that when we got to Inuvik, the Omega display was only 1 nm out. Not bad for a trip of nearly 1200 nm.

[westhawk]

Chuck, thanks for the story! Makes me want to go back and re-read Les Maike's online memoir The Big Chill, Tales of an old aviator. Any pilot who hasn't will probably find Les' stories to be enjoyable reading, even though the circumstances under which they were written are rather sad.

I have never felt I did as well as I should have at shooting NDB approaches. I did well enough to pass check rides, but honestly, every time a runway appeared at the MAP I was a little surprised to see it there! The NDB at Sun Valley did get me below the clouds a couple of times in the Westwind before we had GPS though, so it has it's utility. The ADF also got us into some Latin American airports that didn't have any other navaids too...

These days the only way you'll ever have to do an NDB approach on an FAA check ride for a rating is if the airplane you use is equipped with a functional one and the examiner has a thing for ADFs. Any other navaid that can be used to fly an NPA satisfies the check ride requirements.(GPS, VOR or LOC) My last company still had NDB approaches in their approved training manual so we had to demonstrate at least one at each recurrent. Observing other pilots as a check airman taught me that I wasn't the only pilot who had to work harder at maintaining proficiency at NDB approaches. If you don't do very many, they don't get easier. I agree with the poster above who said it's good for your skills.

As for the "scan", I was initially taught the two methods the FAA instrument flying handbook recommends, but later came to think of it differently. To me it's all one big picture that you have to look at in pieces. Each bit of information as you need it. A constant updating of the big picture you "see" in your mind. But I promote the idea of teaching students by the recognized "book" methods and suggesting to them that their scan will become less "mechanical" and more intuitive as they build experience. PFDs have made this allot less work than it was on round dials, even with the FD and AP off. Fixation on one parameter to the exclusion of all else is still the biggest challenge to overcome for the trainee instrument pilot.

The ADF and the NDB approach won't die as quickly as some people think (or wish!) so it's a good idea to continue training it (even in the USA) if for no other reason than it "works" your "scan" or "information gathering" skills to a high degree and gives a pilot abilities beyond that which will usually be required to shoot GPS and ILS approaches. And in many parts of the world, that still may be all you have available or are authorized to use.

So enjoy!

westhawk

[porterhouse]

These days the only way you'll ever have to do an NDB approach on an FAA check ride for a rating is if the airplane you use is equipped with a functional one and the examiner has a thing for ADFs
Might add a third condition - there is an NDB approach anywhere in the area.

[westhawk]

Might add a third condition - there is an NDB approach anywhere in the area.

True enough porterhouse!

Don't know about up there in near Paso or elsewhere in the Norcal area, down here in SoCal there's still a couple.

westhawk

[porterhouse]

down here in SoCal there's still a couple.
Could you name just one, I am curious.

EDIT: there is one at El Monte and Alamitos.

I am not aware of a single one anywhere in the NorCal (could have missed something)

[westhawk]

porterhouse:

I looked up all of Cali just to be sure. I may have missed some but here's what I found.

Airports currently served by NDB approaches (according to the NACO terminal procedures) in Socal include: EMT(El Monte), WJF (Lancaster), SLI (Los Alamitos Army Airfield) and SBD (San Bernadino,formerly Norton AFB).

Up your way, it appears you'll have to fly all the way up to SIY(Siskiyou county) to find one. Yeah they've really cleaned out NorCal of NDB approaches!

westhawk

[Croqueteer]

This is getting a bit US orientated. The UK has many NDB approaches. My nearest is 5 miles away where I fly to get my fuel.
PS my Jodel doesn't have an ADF!

[On Track]

As a pilot who is not based in either the UK or US, I have been reading this thread, and in particular the last few posts, with interest.

The fact of the matter is the that ADF/NDB way of doing things is dated, crude, unreliable and basically a pain in the arse.

I respect those who've mastered NDB holding patterns and approaches just as I respect our predecessors who mastered celestial navigation.

However the fact of the matter is that this is the 21st century and there are better ways of doing things.

I know of no valid reason why every airport on the planet should not have a published GNSS approach procedure.

[India Four Two]

I know of no valid reason why every airport on the planet should not have a published GNSS approach procedure.

I know one - cost!

[Pace]

On track

Sadly in the UK historically nothing changes fast :{
Even the JAA ATP exam structure was based from the past and there is a reluctance to change anything from overhead joins instigated in non radio days right through the whole system! Yes we still have a lot of NDB approaches and a resistance to change anything !
I agree with other posters that they are old hat and unreliable but still hold that if you can master the NDB approach you can master any IFR procedure because it is a demanding approach to fly accurately and requires a lot of spatial awareness and reading of winds and descent points!
Much harder than getting radar steers until two needles cross :ok:

We also have a lot of procedural approaches too which means the pilot has to work much harder and think much harder ! Not a bad thing :E

Pace

[porterhouse]

I know one - cost! Cost? What cost?
You mean a cost of bureaucrats who should be doing their job and not sitting on their arses finding excuses of not charting approaches. If there is already an NDB approach charting a simple overlay approach over it is very easy, doesn't even require getting up from the desk.

your way, it appears you'll have to fly all the way up to SIY(Siskiyou county) to find one.

westhawk - I tip my hat to you for this find!

[On Track]

India Four Two, cost is usually the reason given for shutting down NDBs.

[Croqueteer]

In relative terms, an NDB costs about 2/6d a week to maintain. I did it as a lad when the Tx1154 was used.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Over here on this side of the pond we lost one of the best airways marker systems ever invented sometime around 1960 when they shut down the airway marker beacons that were put there for the early mail pilots....

...for me it was quite traumatic to lose both the airways beacons and the radio ranges......but I can still close my eyes and see the airway marker beacons ahead of me in the night and know soon the flight would end successfully when I skillfully hit the cone of silence in my headset..

Aahhhh the good old days.......but we still have the ADF to bring us back in time...:D:D:D

[jecuk]

No-one does an NDB approach by choice. Those who have to do one use a GPS which effectively makes it an LNAV.

[Oatey]

Yes
25 renewals
from class 3 in 80s through to CIR SEA.
I think I fly a pretty good approach but with advent of flight tracking I notice that I am not as good as previously thought!
I often look at the truncated approaches and out of tolerance aircraft who fly out here from Melbourne and shoot the HML ndb approach in a quartering tailwind…it’s complicated.
but as is stated GPS RNAV negates the need. That is like in gulf war they de rated the GNSS and a friend ferrying ended up 200 miles off track.
I also saw debate in the news of derating the Norfolk Island NDB back to half power.
I find myself wondering about the backup nav systems and how people will fare?
Could not help noticing the lawsuit arising from flight into non vmc…by a vfr pilot…
wondering if gps is giving a false sense of situational awareness..
certainly my training on ndb and vor approaches developed my sense of winds, drift and accuracy.
which served me over my lifetime of flying..
I flew many approaches for real down to the circling minima and learned aircraft low level circling approaches in poor vmc below cloud.
never had an issue in 8000 hours 1000 approaches..,
my old green license is signed by past CASA and CFIs some long since passed
it reads like a who’s who.
every renewal involved completing an ndb approach as mandatory to pass..
but I am now an old not so bold pilot 1980-2020 single engine ppl IFR..

[BillieBob]

All these new fangled gizmos - you used to be able to go anywhere with an RBI and an OBS.

[ShyTorque]

Years ago, in Germany, we were required to transit IFR (DOM - BOTTROP - LIMA?) between Gutersloh and the “Clutch” airfields (Wildenrath, Laarbruch and Bruggen).

It was quite tricky, bearing in mind that the route included an NDB and our aircraft didn’t have a receiver (or, for that matter, Mode C, only a single non Y channel VOR and a separate DME). We used to get marked out of ten for our DR by some Clutch Radar controllers because it didn’t take them long to suss it out that we had to bluff our way along.

[India Four Two]

It’s interesting to see this thread resurrected.

I remember when I was learning instrument flying, I got pretty good at flying NDB holds - “triple the drift on the outbound leg” and all that stuff.


However I found tracking outbound from the beacon very difficult until my instructor pointed out that once you crossed the beacon on final approach, don’t change the heading. You will be close enough to see the runway environment when you break out at the MDA.

[Geriaviator]

Ah, those were the days! My ex-CFS instructor said if I could fly NDB approaches and holds I could fly any procedure. I used to practise under the screens dozens of times (with a safety pilot) using the local radio station which was six miles away. Eventually I could fly a few holds, descend in our own procedure and 'break cloud' at 250ft in a position to make the main runway. After that the IR with its 500-600ft DHs was easy. Aerobatics were taught for similar reasons, I was taught to recover from unusual attitudes (IMC or visual) and even more important, not to get into them in the first place.

I'm sorry to see that these old-fashioned skills are no longer being taught, though with today's congested airspace and eye-watering costs it's no wonder. They would have avoided the two stall-spin fatal accidents in our local area within the past five years but weather-related accidents still seem to top the listings.

[MrAverage]

I still insist our IMC students get taught at least the basics of ADF/NDB, even though it's not a requirement. After all, should an IMC holder be backed into a corner and have to do a procedural ILS in the UK (without any GPS) he or she would need to make a fist of flying outbound with the magic needle. To that end, virtually all of them agree to doing a couple of NDB approaches during the training..

[Geriaviator]

Well done for teaching the basics, sir, but Desmond (ex Catalina WW2 instructor, ex CFS postwar) also warned that a little learning can be dangerous too. I thought I had it sussed but after a dozen exercises I realised I hadn't, and it took plenty of practice in my own Arrow with our handy radio station until I became proficient, though all I had was the basic ADF equipment -- no way could I have afforded an RMI. With today's flying costs plus approach fees and landing fees I could just about afford flying to the beacon and back to land again.

Looking back over decades since then I think the IMC rating should be regarded as minimum to get oneself out of IMC or even better a good fright so one avoids it in the first place. I knew all about icing until the first time I encountered it for real (one inch a minute) at FL80. As the engine shook itself out of its mountings and the controls became sloppy I was absolutely terrified even though I knew FL was around 3000ft where it thawed in seconds and I never risked going near such conditiions again. Not so a friend with the IMC rating who set off in his RNAV-equipped Cherokee 180 with an offset waypoint, whatever that was. He evidently did not know either as they found him next day on a foggy hillside, fortunately without the three passengers he was due to collect in his pre-Wingly charter operation.

[POBJOY]

Many years ago the BBC (I think it was) use to produce a nice little blue book with all their radio frequencies (and locations).
Not exactly to be used for a min app aid, but very handy to 'assist' a 'field find' in locally poor conditions in a strange area.
However one must bear in mind the various 'limitations' of this non vhf aid which the Nav instructor at Oxford would confirm 'always pointed to the nearest thunderstorm'. Has its use's if used with care, but really only a cloud break with a high min. Good training for single pilot workload, as once mastered sets you up for the future.