Do I really need an ADF endorsement?

[C172R]

Hi Guys, I did a search but came up with nothing.


I have recently obtained an MEIR with endorsements in GNSS,VOR and ILS. Is it worth adding the ADF? From what I hear it's not really used in NZ anymore, at least not by Nelson and Mt Cook.


Are they still using it in Aussie much?

[Defenestrator]

Probably not. But handy for alternate requirements.

D.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Every aerodrome with an NDB now has an RNAV approach - we tend to go from RNAV to RNAV now and only fly NDBs to maintain currency.

...but not sure why we bother! :ugh:

[Jack Ranga]

This is probably the first year I'd say it but no, not any more. I'm doing a blokes instrument training now and he's decided he's not doing the NDB.

[drpixie]

All good until the GPS goes pzzzsssttt .....

[CharlieLimaX-Ray]

If you not ADF endorsed on your licence, is it still be legal to tune into the nearest radio station to gain updated operational information such as the ABC news?

[Caboclo]

Good grief, a different endorsement for every navaid? :eek: And I thought the FAA was anal. God bless America.

[Car RAMROD]

Does it even matter any more because part 61 is just azimuth or CDI guidance, 2D and 3D, negating the need to be tested on an NDB now? Or wait, have we just identified another issue with the changeover?

[Cravenmorehead]

Question; if a port has NDB and DME only, no RNAV approach, can you legally do a DME arrival using the NDB for azimuth guidance? I don't think you can if you are not current or have a rating on NDB. Or even the VOR out of service.
If your GPS is pzzzzzssst as said before or RAIM not available and have to go back to ground based navaids.
I think you would be stuffed, and as stated before good for alternate.
Craven.

[Jack Ranga]

All good until the GPS goes pzzzsssttt .....

You'd better get onto ASA and all the private NDB owners and tell them not to rip all their NDB's out :ok: or their VOR's, coz they're going too :ok:

[Steve Zissou]

Mount Cook still do NDB approaches every couple of OCA cycles (I believe because CAA have told them they have to).

[scon]

My understanding is that Cook still fly NDB's, Eagle certainly do. AirNSN don't, I don't think crews at NSN are even checked/endorsed on NDB's anymore.

[Mail-man]

Car RAMROD

See 61.860 (5)

[Howard Hughes]

Get an ADF endorsement, because no one will let you fly their aeroplane unless you know how to do an NDB. Because that's how we did it when men were men! ;)

GPS? Pffft, why use modern technology when you can use a 70 year old piece of crap! :}

[Jack Ranga]

Just fly the NDB approach on the GPS :E

[c100driver]

The domestic A320 don't have an ADF fitted! The B773 and B789 don't have ADF fitted! The replacement A320 will not have ADF fitted either.

However the next job you have will probably still require NDB approaches if Airways have not pulled them out so you should really have it on your licence.

[Chocks Away]

Just did my CAANZ IFR renewal (jet/Multi crew) and the form said for Mandatory items: "GNSS and VOR OR NDB approach competency..."

Australia I think is catching up as an NDB was required a year ago but can not confirm this now.

For smaller types and regionals it would be advisable (& great practice) to be endorsed but for heavier jet types the NDB is becoming more and more irrelevant as GPS & IRS navigation reliability can get you down to a bee's d#*k.

Happy Landings:ok:

[Oktas8]

Many of the posts above are irrelevant, as the OP is in NZ. So, in NZ:

You can use any navaid you like, enroute. You don't need an alternate just because the destination only has a GPS approach. VOR approaches are available all over the country.

So, in NZ, I can see no reason to put NDB approaches on the IR, unless your next job requires it. (Which it usually doesn't.)

At least, that's the advice I used to give between about 2008 & 2011. I don't imagine NZ has gone backwards since!

Australia, different story altogether. Different advice required.

[waren9]

might not ever see a need for it legally but tracking needles is a handy skill for the tool box.

never know when you might be down to a vor needle on a rmi.

[empacher48]

As has been mentioned here, Mt Cook do still perform NDB approaches.

If you want a job in the links, it does pay to have the NDB endorsement as it is one less thing for them to knock you back with.

[deadcut]

and NDB are the easiest approaches to do.

[C172R]

Thanks for all the great replies guys!

It seems like I'm right in that grey area of a NDB being useful and a thing of the past.

Based on the advise above and that of some friends I've decided to go ahead with it, although personally I don't think I will ever use it. It does however seem to be a good thing to have on your CV!

[mattyj]

The fact of the matter is they're unreliable, get affected by sea, lakes, hills, and CBs..it's quite possible to get interference on multiples of the frequency..ie you can hear 350 on 700..I won't do one unless I have an RNAV needle to back up what I'm seeing!

Assign them to history for mine.

[27/09]

You can use any navaid you like, enroute.
Correct

You don't need an alternate just because the destination only has a GPS approach.
Are you sure. I think a tech alternate is require for a destination with only one type of approach available.

VOR approaches are available all over the country.
Hmmmm, last time I checked there was a fair bit of the country with no VOR coverage. Everywhere north of AA, all of the West Coast of the South Island for starters. Quite a few places in between.

The nav aid you'll most likely use the least until you score a Link job will be the ILS. If I was leaving any nav aid off the list to start with it'd be the ILS.

[Oktas8]

You don't need an alternate just because the destination only has a GPS approach.
Are you sure. I think a tech alternate is require for a destination with only one type of approach available.

Yes, I am sure. 19.207 & 91.405 refer. (Part 135, my memory fails me.)

As to the availability of VORs, yes, I did forget about the Sth Island West Coast. If you work there, you'll likely be a VFR. But if IFR, you'll need ADF on the IR.

As to Northland, I planned to fly GPS approaches and was able to nominate ILS or VOR airfields on the rare occasions I needed an alternate. Worked for me, although I did have ADF as well.

Horses for courses anyway, the OP should get what he/she can afford and needs.

[Centaurus]

NDB is becoming more and more irrelevant as GPS & IRS navigation reliability can get you down to a bee's d#*k.

Which makes an instrument rating test a walk-over particularly as most of it is on autopilot. Not much pure flying skill on instruments needed nowadays.

[Nose_Wheel]

So is doing an NDB approach without an ADF in the aircraft a bad idea? Surely with multiple gps sources in the cockpit and the gps tuned to the NDB as the waypoint it would function exactly the same. Without the major risk of failure from either the station or the radio in the aircraft. Given most rnav's are a good few hundred feet lower than an NDB approach I don't see the harm in flying an NDB approach without an ADF and using your GPS waypoint on your PFD.

Tried it out in the sim today and worked really well had both the NDB and GPS tuned and the both pointed the same direction for the entire approach.

Now given that most places with an NDB approach are going to have an RNAV but if they didn't would you use this??

[Jack Ranga]

I seriously doubt that any ATO in Aus would allow any autopilot on the test. And so what if the approaches are 'less difficult' than the awesome NDB approaches you dinosaurs flew within 5 degrees including the coastal refraction crap and all the other errors. Do you reckon Smithy would fly an NDB approach if he had RNAV's at his disposal?

Not much pure flying skill on instruments needed nowadays.

You blokes don't reckon anybody's gunna be as good as you, lol!

[27/09]

jackrangaWhat a wank, you blokes don't reckon anybody's gunna be as good as you, do you?

Calm down Jack. What he said is correct.

He's not dissing the ability of anyone. Guys that flew the range back in the very early IFR days would say the same about the VOR etc.

Given the same training, newer generation pilots would be just as good at pure instrument flying skills as the older generation that cut their teeth on older systems. The introduction of newer technology isn't allowing the development of some of the skills.

Today it's moving more towards understanding and managing flight systems than hands on flying skills and it's possible the newer generation are better at understanding the flight systems.

Both pure flying skill and good systems management are needed. There's certainly evidence that pure manipulative skills have declined in recent times ala AF 447.

I seriously doubt that any ATO in Aus would allow any autopilot on the test.
In NZ you generally have to show ability with and without the auto pilot. You can do the whole thing without an autopilot but then you are endorsed as "No Auto pilot" on your IR.

[Jack Ranga]

Dood, calm as a cucumber :} just having a chuckle to myself, the good old days eh ;)

[Jack Ranga]

You can do the whole thing without an autopilot but then you are endorsed as "No Auto pilot" on your IR.

Are you serious??

[Exaviator]

Just think that if you do away with the ADF you will never have the pleasure of flying an ADF Approach with one engine out, and alternating your free hand on the power lever and cranking the antenna around to solve the aural null. All whilst maintaing Class 1 standards...

Ah! those were the days :ok:

[Lindstrim]

Reference 19.207
(9) if an alternate aerodrome is required by 91.405, ensure that—
(i) the alternate is served by a fully operational radio
navigation aid with a promulgated instrument approach
procedure based on other than GPS navigation; and
(ii) the aircraft is equipped with navigation equipment
capable of using that radio navigation aid

So you do need to have another ground based Nav aid for your alternate.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

I seriously doubt that any ATO in Aus would allow any autopilot on the test.

Then you would be wrong! As I found out earlier this year - for the first time in 20+ renewals. You have to hand fly at least one approach

Dr :8

[Bankstown Boy]

Firmly believe that for the renewal you should fly at least one approach manually and one using the auto-pilot.

In real life, when I'm shooting approaches single pilot into dark holes or with clouds around the minima, I always use the autopilot to fly the aeroplane whilst I manage (command) the process and procedures - but its a real comfort to know that when the autopilot fails (and they always do - just when you really, really want them - I spent a year with my autopilot only failing when we entered cloud - apparently a g switch issue), I am just as happy to fly it myself.

Like everyone else here, it seems, the only time I do NDB approaches are in the annual renewal but there is something truly beautiful about flying an engine-out NDB approach in howling westerlies at Wollongong - and nailing the thing!

One thing the NDB approach teaches you (in my opinion) is situational awareness, that you just don't get with a moving map, or stable VOR omni.

A few years ago, whilst taxiing out at Maroochydore, the knob on my only TSO GPS broke, and I was unable to input the flight plan. The whole flight was flown IFR with VOR and ADFs, including the NDB approach in to BK.

It was just as easy as following the magenta line but somehow more satisfying.

As an aside, this was the only time ever that I was offered direct present position to Richmond, at about 4,000' on climb - with no GPS, there was no way to meet tracking requirements, so I needed to thread my way past the VORs & NDBs - Like back when I were a lad!

[Jack Ranga]

Then you would be wrong! As I found out earlier this year - for the first time in 20+ renewals.

So I was right for 19 years & wrong this last year?? Or wrong for 20 years and just didn't know it?? Or just right for 20 years and you are wrong??

[27/09]

So I was right for 19 years & wrong this last year?? Or wrong for 20 years and just didn't know it?? Or just right for 20 years and you are wrong??

Yes, as I understand it. :E

[Jack Ranga]

Thankyou :cool: finally some clarity from this bulletin board :ok:

[Nose_Wheel]

So you can or can't use autopilot for part of your test? Surely the enroute stuff you can?

[Nose_Wheel]

Would anyone recommend or condone the use of a gps in lieu of an adf in a ndb approach? Given the gps waypoint needle would function the same as an adf needle. As long as you are using the ndb as the waypoint it would function the same as an adf (except for the inherent error and reliance on a poorly maintained ground station).

I did a practice session in a sim today using the Ballarat ndb approach and had the gps and adf programmed up to see what the behaviour was on a g1000. Both the adf needle and the GPS needle on the pfd pointed to the same direction for the entire approach. Therefore. I would assume that using the gps in lieu of an adf would be as safe or safer than using an adf??

Yes I fully understand that just about everywhere there is a ndb approach they will have an RNAV. However. I am sure there are situations where you would want to fly an ndb approach and don't have an adf in the aircraft.

Thoughts?

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

So I was right for 19 years & wrong this last year?? Or wrong for 20 years and just didn't know it?? Or just right for 20 years and you are wrong?? Huh!

Let me try that again!

Earlier this year I did my IR renewal with my usual muchly experienced ATO.

ATO: You can use the AP during the flight, including approaches, but you have to hand fly one approach.

Dr: You have never told me that before!

ATO: Its always been that way! I just assumed you loved hand flying the sweetest flying aeroplane ever made.

Dr: Thanks for nothing! :E OK, I'll hand fly the ILS! :ok:


(OK, so maybe I made up the "sweetest flying aeroplane" bit!)

[Jack Ranga]

Would anyone recommend or condone the use of a gps in lieu of an adf in a ndb approach?

You are in Australia mate :ugh: The skull would have you locked up for such foolishness :cool:

I believe overlays are legal in the States?

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Would anyone recommend or condone the use of a gps in lieu of an adf in a ndb approach?As I understand it - legal in the US, not so in Oz.

Maybe we can get Dick onto that one too!

[Jack Ranga]

My comments regarding use of the autopilot DONOT refer to the legalities of use of it in a test or renewal. My comments refer to whether the ATO would be happy letting you use the autopilot. My initial issue was no autopilot for either enroute or approaches. He wanted to see me track via NDB/ADF and fly every approach. None of my renewals have I used the autopilot.

Nosewheel, on your initial issue plan on not using the autopilot on any of the approaches, he may allow enroute :E

[skkm]

Would anyone recommend or condone the use of a gps in lieu of an adf in a ndb approach?
As I understand it - legal in the US, not so in Oz.

Legal here too - if you're Qantas! :ok:

CASA 157/14 - Instructions ? GNSS as primary means of navigation for NDB and VOR (overlay) approach (Qantas Airways Limited) (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2014L01045/Explanatory%20Statement/Text)

Nosewheel, on your initial issue plan on not using the autopilot on any of the approaches, he may allow enroute
At my school, we were encouraged to use the A/P whenever practical, especially enroute, but in the end it was u/s for my test so the whole thing was hand-flown.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

My initial issue was no autopilot for either enroute or approaches.

The aircraft I did my initial issue in didn't have a AP - so the question didn't arise! :E

[Jack Ranga]

Is the aircraft you did your initial issue in 20 years ago still available for hire? For double the price you could rent a Cirrus in the States?

[Nose_Wheel]

Legal here too - if you're Qantas!

How do we get an instrument for all ifr operations. It makes common sense yes? Oh that's why it can't be done. Answered my own question.

[Jack Ranga]

How do we get an instrument for all ifr operations.

Now, nose wheel is a relative newcomer to Australian aviation..................

Who's gunna tell him??

[Centaurus]

It's a pity if NDB approaches are going to disappear. They are a lot of fun and very satisfying when you get them right. They're a good test of instrument flying skills,

Apologies for the war story but I must say it is lovely to have all this modern stuff like LNAV and VNAV and GNNS’s and all singing and all dancing autopilots and copilots who read checklists, and speak up about Threat and Error management and are multi-fingered switch flickers who type at 80 words a minute but can’t fly but are real whips at “monitoring” every single action the pilot makes.

But we had more fun in my day when undergoing the annual instrument rating test in a venerable RAAF Dakota at the RAAF Central Flying School at East Sale. Much of the test was on limited panel since the suction gyro driven artificial horizons and directional gyros of that era would topple at over 55 degrees angle of bank
The NDB approach was conducted as a single pilot operation, with one propeller feathered, no autopilot, no artificial horizon (limited panel) and using the manual loop in aural null mode. For those unfamiliar what that meant it meant one hand in the cockpit roof twiddling a rotating knob while listening intently into your headset for an aural null when the loop aerial was 90 degrees to the radio beacon. It wasn’t an automatic direction finder for the exercise.

Of course we all knew it was a far-fetched useless exercise but if nothing else it was a wonderful instrument scanning exercise and many of us retained that basic scanning skill into airline flying.
As the man said in the highlight, NDB approaches were very satisfying when you got them right. I’ll go along with that.

[pilotchute]

Did my renewal a few months ago. The only AP use was holding over MB and getting vectored onto the EN ILS.

What I want to know is which of the rather old GA aircraft I have done a renewal in have been capable of flying coupled approaches?

[gerry111]

FTDK wrote:


"... the sweetest flying aeroplane ever made."


Please pardon my rather obvious bias..

:ok::ok::ok::ok::ok::ok::ok::ok::ok::ok:

[27/09]

Would anyone recommend or condone the use of a gps in lieu of an adf in a ndb approach?
You are in Australia mate The skull would have you locked up for such foolishness

I believe overlays are legal in the States?

I'm not sure it's an overlay in the strictest sense that's being asked about here but substituting what nav aid the bearing pointer is selected to. In other words instead of having the bearing pointer selected to the ADF it is selected to GPS and the NDB is the active waypoint on the GPS. So you're not flying a GPS track, you still need to track the needle, except it's not waving around nor affected by coastal refraction etc

This method does work well and I have used this to back up the fixed card ADF indications. I believe one of the Air NZ Link operators used to select the No2 EHSI pointer to the GPS on the non flying pilots side to monitor the accuracy of the ADF signal.

I doubt it's legal to us the GPS bearing pointer as your primary means of shooting an NDB approach. If you did use the GPS waypoint as a back up you do need to be very very sure that you have the correct waypoint as the active waypoint on the GPS.

It's not like an NDB where if you got the wrong frequency it's highly unlikely you'll get a a valid signal plus you should be monitoring the morse signal anyway. A bearing pointer selected to GPS will pointer very nicely no matter what waypoint is active.

[Jack Ranga]

No, what he's talking about is not an overlay. But I'm not sure whether the US definition of overlay is the same as the AUS definition, just thought I'd mention it :ok:

[27/09]

No problem.

The US was quite big on overlays a while back not sure they are anymore, perhaps they are. I'm not aware of any overlays being used in other parts of the world.

If I recall correctly one issue with the overlay was the GPS didn't scale at the final fix, in some cases there was no final fix any way.

[Nose_Wheel]

From CASA...


Thank you for your email about overlay approaches. Advice below from CASA’s airways section:


CASA legisltaive instrument 157/14 CASA 157/14 - Instructions ? GNSS as primary means of navigation for NDB and VOR (overlay) approach (Qantas Airways Limited) (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2014L01045)
permits an overlay approach because it is approved by the aircraft manufacturer and that capability is included in the Aircraft Flight Manual. If your aircraft has that capability and it is included in the flight manual then he would be able to apply to CASA for an approval.

The explanatory statement in CASA 157/14 has the following:

“The current GNSS rules allow the use of GNSS for primary means navigation under I.F.R. and Visual Flight Rules. In addition, modern RNP-capable aircraft have provisions in their flight manual that allow non-precision approaches using RNP capabilities of the aircraft without the specific approach aid being installed in the aircraft. This instrument contains instructions that allow Qantas Airways Limited (the operator) to reduce dependence on ground-based systems.”

[RequestAsymmetrics]

I was practicing for my renewal on a G1000 equiped A/C a while ago. I used the GPS to overlay the tracks on the MFD through the use of the OBS mode. I had the ADF as my primary source. The NDB signal was quite bent, took me initially 10 degrees to the right of track before deciding to swing around putting me out of tolerance within a couple of seconds... I wouldn't be keen to fly the approach with an examiner anymore if its going to do that... will keep my recency flights to the sim.

[Nose_Wheel]

That was my thinking jack. Have asked CASA for some further advice. Will advise. If it works out I might do an NDB endorsement after all.

[Berealgetreal]

Flying an RPT Jet with RNP-AR capability and still required to NDB approaches as part of my sim checks. So if you intend to live in Australia I say yes you need it.