Future of NDB/ADF

[Sideslipper]

I've heard somewhere that the CAA is considering withdrawing the need for NDBs. Can't find anything in their website.
Can anybody throw some light on this?

[LH2]

The long term plan by Eurocontrol & al. is to go 100% satnav. There used to be a presentation on it somewhere on the net. I'll post link if I can find it.

...but I'm sure bookworm will be here soon filling us in on the details.

[IO540]

I went to a Eurocontrol nav workshop recently.

There are all kinds of "plans" going around, some less bizzare than others.

NDBs are a bit of a special case because they are manifestly not needed for anything, and IMHO they will go within 10-20 years.

The UK is almost unique in requiring the carriage of an ADF for all IFR in all classes of CAS. Switzerland was the other one but it allows IFR GPS substitution, USA-style. This requirement will disappear, I am sure, within the next few years.

As regards other navaids, some must remain. Airliners (CAT) have INS but this requires DME-DME fixes for reasonable accuracy. Eurocontrol have one plan under which all navaids except DME are dismantled and most ATC radar too (because airlines want lower enroute charges) but hundreds of new DMEs are installed to provide a uniform DME coverage for CAT.

VORs are quite expensive and they may go within say 20 years.

The practical reality is that the IFR world is wholly RNAV (INS+DME, or GPS) with all flight using virtual waypoints (which occassionally are real VORs etc but almost nobody tunes in the actual navaids) and VORs/NDBs are an irrelevance except on instrument approaches.

But there remains the perpetual chestnut of what will happen if GPS fails.

"The Plan" is that CAT will use a combination of INS+DME+ATC radar, while non-INS traffic (GA, up to light jets) will use ATC radar to get back down. One perceived problem with this is that if airlines get their way and most ATC radar coverage has been dismantled and replaced with ADS-B (hey, this is Brussels) then there won't be enough ATC+radar capability for the thousands of VLJs (yes, Brussels have not yet realised that Eclipse has gone bust, the air taxi model is dead and always was, etc, etc, etc) to get back down.

Yet anybody actually working in IFR ATC will say that the chance of ATC radar disappearing is nil, which IMHO is bang on. Radar will always be needed for national security reasons.

So I don't see much changing, but I can see non-approach NDBs (e.g. WCO) disappearing, with the IFR ADF carriage requirement.

There was some subtle reason why the CAA didn't want to remove this requirement but I cannot remember what it was.

[A and C]

Interesting...................... Having used ADF in anger only twice in 10,000 hours of European flying I have to question why we have it, a bit of back up is all I can think of................... apart from being able to get the cricket scores!

However I would like to see the CAA get there act together on the requirement to have ADF for flight in controlled airspace, a number of American airlines flying into the UK don't have ADF and yet they still fly in UK class A airspace. In fact this is one of the reasons that LGW was one of the first places to get a GPS approach!

It seems a little strange that an American airliner can fly in UK class A airspace without ADF yet a British airliner cant.

Can only think this is the result of the ex-navigators still reminiscing in the aviation house canteen about the days of the HP Hastings and trips up the north sea from Finningley.

[znww5]

It may all become rather academic in the next few years as quite a few of the UK NDBs have already been withdrawn, with a few others effectively withdrawn although officially u/s. I certainly can't recall any new NDBs beng announced. Maybe we'll find the requirement removed when they realise there are no ground stations left?

Personally, considering the volume and complexity of today's CAS, I'd prefer the accuracy of VOR/DME and GPS as belt and braces back-up to visual navigation. Although the receivers are handy for thunderstorm detection - as well as the cricket!

[GIZZAJOB]

It is an interesting argument , the whys and wherefores of these miserable little bits of kit they are like marmite. I personally hate the bloody stuff .
If it wasnt for these things the IR could be condensed into about 20 hours ish.
The daft thing is if you look at the only approved gps approach in the uk (I think its the only one) Shoreham have alook at the missed approcah procedure , back to the beacon :hmm::hmm:
Bizarre

[Droopystop]

Technically NDBs are required for offshore approaches to platforms although there is no practical reason why we couldn't use GPS. Offshore we more or less have to have GPS and it is great. But we have either an on shore NDB or the appropriate rig NDB tuned at all times. It is always nice to have a spare needle pointing to where you want to go. Given we only have one GPS and often no radar or VOR coverage, the NDB is the only back up we have.

I am sure the days of the NDB are numbered, but it seems a shame to loose something which is so simple to use. Yes it is not terribly accurate and has some gottchas, but it will get you to a position where more sophisticated nav aids will get you in. Having said that the trial GPS approach for Durham Tees Valley had higher minima than the NDB approach did. Let's hope that when we finally get widespread GPS approaches the minima are at not worse than the anitque it replaces. Otherwise we'll only have backward progress.

[Sideslipper]

At present, the majority of Missed Approaches require a turn back to an NDB, even if you are using, say, an ILS/DME approach. If and when the NDBs bite the dust, will the missed approach be based on GPS? If so, what constitutes an acceptable GPS system in the a/c? As a GA/IMC pilot my hand held G96 would probably get the thumbs down:uhoh:, but would the fixed G430 be acceptable?:confused:

[goatface]

We have an ILS and NDB approach on one end and a single NDB approach to the other.
I suspect that as soon as GPS approaches are approved UK wide, we'll keep the NDB until it keels over and then it won't be replaced.
The NDB approaches are extensively used by every type of a/c, from C150s to B767s, but most operators prefer to take the ILS and a tailwind of up to 10kts if we aren't busy with departures.
From an airfield perspective, we don't technically need an NDB now, but to commit ourselves to not having one before GPS approaches are approved would require us to man 2 radar postions at all times, one for approach/LARS and the other for SRA's - that isn't going to happen in these economic times.

Word on the street is that once GPS approaches are approved in the UK and providing that each individual airfield to present a safety case, the minima will be reduced to below that of the previous NDB approach.

[Sideslipper]

Goatface,

From an airfield perspective, we don't technically need an NDB now,

Does your airfield presently use the NDB as the Missed Approach fix? If so, if you don't really need an NDB now, would you be able to accept an a/c for an ILS approach if their ADF was either inop, or not even fitted?

[IO540]

I should think that any airport with radar does not need an NDB for the missed approach, because they would vector the traffic.

You can bet Heathrow is never going to send somebody back to the NDB. Especially as, I also bet, a % of the airliners landing there right now don't have an ADF... not that it matters because the NDB will be in their GPS database.

I don't know how these things work when it comes to official navaid planning but my guess would be that NDBs will remain as approach fixes, because the alternative is a marker beacon and those have mostly vanished in Europe. But with DME you don't need an approach fix, and almost every ILS has a DME.

Is a DME cheaper than an NDB? It is probably similar, and much more useful.

I cannot believe that people flying to N Sea platforms think the NDB will be a good backup. If you get a TS nearby, the needle will point just about anywhere. And there is no "valid" flag so it is a case of "if the needle agrees with the GPS, fine, and if it doesn't agree, you ignore it".

So that leaves just the missed approach case. This can be dealt with (on the approach plate) by intercepting some VOR radial and flying a hold there - flying an "enroute" hold around some holding fix defined by a VOR is standard IR staple diet :) The VOR could be miles away; nowhere near the airport, so the airport isn't paying for it.

[Droopystop]

IO540,

I didn't say it was a good back up, it is the only (but adequate) back up nav aid. I am sure times will change. But to be honest, I don't find the NDB to be a rubbish as everyone else seems to.

[youngskywalker]

I find them useful for situational awareness, I almost always have one tuned to the airfield. As droopystop mentions, it's nice to have a needle pointing in the direction you want to go. My NDB tracking and holding abilities leave a lot to be desired however!

[LH2]

As above, I always have it tuned to the airfield's NDB if it has one. It's great in case the **** hits the fan during the departure as you are (well, I am anyway) annoyingly likely to lose spatial awareness while handling the emergency. A quick look at the needle tells you which way is back to the deck.

Of course, if you have a spare RMI or HSI (i.e., one not being used for flying the SID) you could use that instead, slaved to a VOR or GPS.

Plus, you can't listen to the news on a GPS :E

[FREDAcheck]

Pardon what might be a dumb question from an IMCR-only pilot.

In practice, on most approaches one gets radar vectors onto the final approach segment. However, in my very limited experience, if you do the full approach, most UK approaches involve an NDB as the IAF, as well as in the Missed Approach. A minority of approaches have a VOR for the IAF and Missed Approach. Or have I got that wrong? E.g. (taking a sample) Bristol, Bournemouth, Southampton, Exeter, Norwich, Cambridge, Shoreham (other than GPS), Southend, Manchester, London City... all have an NDB as the IAF. Biggin doesn't, as it's got a VOR on the field.

Is the assumption that NDBs will remain part of these approaches? Or if they are phased out, will we be required to be able to fly GPS approaches? Or will every approach need radar vectors to final approach?

[IO540]

I think the short answer is that nobody knows, because there are competing pressures.

The airlines, according to Eurocontrol, want a purely RNAV environment (which to them means INS, and loads of DMEs all over Europe so their INS works accurately; one Eurocontrol proposal was for 300 new DMEs around Europe) and they don't want radar or any navaids other than ILS. This, it is claimed, will reduce the IFR enroute charges. Eurocontrol seems to have bought into this "dismantle most radar and navaids" way of thinking - at least to the extent of talking about it, running workshops (at which the proposal is roundly rubbished, especially the radar stuff), and publishing proposals.

But the national powers to be cannot simply implement this because there is other traffic "up there" also, plus there are ICAO obligations, etc.

Then there is the gap between published approaches and what is actually flown. At any major airport, there is radar, and almost nobody is flying the published (procedural) approaches, and it is these which use the navaids. Generally, the place has an ILS and you get vectored to the localiser. ATC like it because it gives them total control, and pilots like it because they have very little to do. But there is often training traffic which tends to be banging the navaids. Or the radar could be out of service (because it's broken or due to staff shortages). Or the ILS is only on one runway direction, so the navaids have to be there for when the wind blows the other way (even if, like say Bournemouth, ATC give you radar vectors onto the "NDB inbound").

That's why the death of the NDB has been forecast for the past 50 years :)

[Bottlehead]

I used to maintain the NDB at our airfield, but now the Bureaucrats want a £1000 a year public liability insurance. :ugh: This is just to much for the club, so naturaly, taken down.

The next thing will be paying the Government for bandwidth usage. So the radio will be the next to go. No info service. I supose we will do the microlight thing and use 128.92 as a comms frequency.

NDB might not be used much but is a good back up when the weather is poor.

[IO540]

NDB might not be used much but is a good back up when the weather is poor.

When the weather is poor???

[Sleepybhudda]

Hi all
This was the CAA's consultation sent out last year about increasing B-RNAV down below FL95 (so GNS 530/430 KLN90's all around) and suggesting various stages of NDB removal.

Consultation ? Introduction of BRNAV below FL 95 | Consultations | CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1729&pagetype=90)

[scooter boy]

Like it or not we tend to follow changes made in the USA economically, scientifically, aeronautically etc...(although we hate to admit it and although those changes are not always for the best).

I remember the yanks being amazed that we were still using NDBs 5 years ago during my last type rating. What about all those NDB holds and approaches carried out during the IR? What will IR training consist of in the future?

As for DME, synthetic GPS-based DME seems an acceptable alternative.

I remember during my IR training the instructor would tell me to lift the foggles up after a procedural NDB approach where I had kept the needle centred and thought I was spot-on the centreline and had made a great job of things. When the shades were lifted I would be 2 fields off the centreline with the airport disappearing under a wing. NDB approaches are bloody awful as stand alone approaches in poor weather.

Incidentally it did make me laugh reading the preaching in this month's GASIL about not relying on GPS. I can't remember the exact wording and no longer have it as it hit the bin shortly after I read it. The anti-GPS dinosaurs are still out there, bless 'em...

SB

[FREDAcheck]

I notice in the consultation document referred to by Sleepybhudda:
5.3 OPTION 3 - Implementation of B-RNAV throughout UK en-route airspace, complete removal of NDB infrastructure.

The removal of all NDBs may accord with common sentiment, a change to the ANO to withdraw the mandatory carriage of ADF, and the ECAC Navigation Strategy. However, to propose the complete removal of NDBs from the UK at this time is felt premature as currently there are 116 NDB IAPs, which all IFR aircraft can utilise, as opposed to 8 RNAV approaches that a small percentage of aircraft can currently utilise.
Option 2 involved removal only of en-route NDBs (in total 11 NDBs, compared to the 116 terminal NDBs used as the IAF of a procedure). The report on responses said that 77% supported Option 2. If this consultation reflects current feeling, it would appear there is no immediate intention to remove NDBs in procedures.

I agree with scooter boy's comments about the accuracy of NDB approaches (from my humble IMC Rating viewpoint, though amazingly I managed a reasonable one on my last IMC renewal!). I think the other issue is the use of an NDB as the Initial Approach Fix for those occasions when for whatever reason you don't get radar vectors to the localiser. Perhaps all procedures could be rewritten to require vectoring, so they can scrap NDBs? I imagine that might open a can of worms.

[englishal]

ADF used to be good for finding Ireland, by tuning to 252 ;)

[IO540]

Vectoring is available at airports with radar.

Radar is very expensive, not only because the equipment is expensive but also its ongoing operating cost, and the extra higher salary of radar-rated ATCOs. ATC salaries are a huge cost, partly because they are well paid people and partly because you need a suprising number even for daytime coverage.

An airport can purchase a radar service from a nearby radar unit; for example Biggin pays Thames Radar for a radar service. I don't know how much they pay but rumour has it that it is well into 5 digits per year.

No airport is going to pay for radar (one way or another) unless they have the traffic (basically, plenty of light jets as a minimum, and Biggin supports some extremely high net worth client traffic) and the vast majority of GA airports will never have this, so procedural approaches must remain.

And, as that CAA report correctly says, very few planes have approach approved GPS kit. The approval costs the bigger part of a grand, and upwards.

But, using a NON approach approved GPS, you can fly an NDB or VOR approach ;) This is the silly paradox of navaid approaches. For safety (accuracy etc) you fly them with an IFR GPS but the GPS does not need to be approach approved because you are not officially using it.

Whereas you can fly an NDB approach using an ADF which is half hanging out of the panel and is really useless. Actually, I don't think the ANO even requires the carriage of an ADF for flying NDB approaches! Instead, it requires ADF carriage for all IFR in CAS, which takes care of it for Class A-D airports, but this leaves the question mark over NDB approaches in Class G, where no ADF is mandated. This has always puzzled me, because e.g. Switzerland mandates the carriage of an ADF for flying an NDB approach, which is at least logical. In the UK, you could fly an NDB approach using a tuna sandwich.

Almost no modern pilot flies NDB approaches in particular, using the ADF. How many pilots fly NDB/VOR approaches with the GPS without even looking at the ADF/CDI I wouldn't like to say; I do use the old stuff as a cross-check at the FAF but that's about it. However, occassionally it is easier to fly SIDs using the navaids (it's a VOR usually) because the GPS database depiction is rubbish... which is why one might use the OBS mode anyway and never use any ex-database overlays.

[scooter boy]

"it is easier to fly SIDs using the navaids (it's a VOR usually) because the GPS database depiction is rubbish... which is why one might use the OBS mode anyway and never use any ex-database overlays".

IO540,
Flying a SID with the G1000 is sooo easy.
I just have the paper copy SID available and brief it before rolling with the VORs/NDB tuned appropraitely as backup.
The G1000 actually draws the lines (radials) to intercept and if you want to be lazy you can leave the A/P in NAV mode and it will sequentially tick off the waypoints as you go past them.

Nice.

SB

[IO540]

I think, SB, that your GPS had a much better database than miy KLN94. I have overlays in mine but they are often only partial representations. Hence, I often fly navaid approaches using a DCT to the approach fix and then fly the OBS mode. It works very well... obviously one has to think where one is at any time.

If/when PRNAV (which will never be supported by the KLN94) becomes mandatory in any significant way, I will rip out the KLN94, plus one of my KX155A radios, and put in a GNS530W in there.

[Sideslipper]

Has anybody got any further information about the removal of Approach NDB (and therefore the need for ADF in a/c)?
Unless I have missed something, not much has changed since the last post.
AOPA seem to be suggesting that the IMCR is going to get at least grandfather rights, and may retained for future new issues.
Looks like numerous IMCR revalidations and new students will still be carrying out NDB approaches that they will do the best to avoid for the next 2 years:sad:.

[wsmempson]

The WOD beacon goes next year. Apparently, so do 27 VOR's in the UK over the next year.

Yet still, the CAA churn out "safety leaflets" which pronounce GPS as the work of baelzebub....

[n5296s]

Why does INS need DME? Why can't it get position fixes off GPS? GPS is already there (and I guess Galileo will be one day for those who think you daren't rely on non-European technology).

NDBs have all but disappeared in the US of course, and no new aircraft have ADF.

[IO540]

Why does INS need DME? Why can't it get position fixes off GPS? GPS is already there (and I guess Galileo will be one day for those who think you daren't rely on non-European technology).

New jets etc use both DME and GPS for fixing-up INS errors.

My guess is that DME will remain for this purpose, for ever. I went to a Eurocontrol presentation in 2008 where they said they plan to roll out 300 new DME beacons over Europe, to guard against GPS signal loss / jamming.

Galileo has no relevance because in any scenario where Navstar is turned off, Galileo will be turned off too.

NDBs have all but disappeared in the US of course, and no new aircraft have ADF.

They still need one fitted to fly in Europe under IFR legally; same with a DME.

There are many NDB approaches in Europe, or approaches which use NDBs as a part of an approach.

Enroute NDBs can go tomorrow...

[Captain Smithy]

The days of ADF are numbered, the way things are going all stations will probably be gone within the next 5 years. VORs won't be much further behind, NATS are looking at starting to take many of them away.

Exciting to see things progress, but still a handy backup to have though.

Didn't think there were any ENR NDBs left though, I thought most left were locators.

Smithy

[Mickey Kaye]

Ok we all know NDB are on the way out. But what about the requirement to have an IR approved aircraft to have an ADF? are there any plans to scrap that requirement.

Where I work they are on about upgrading one aircrafts Nav fit to allow IFR training but the ADF is U/S and as I am sure you can imagine they don't want to shed out the best part of a grand to get something fixed. That will be useless in a couple of years.

[verticalhold]

Droopystop;

IO540 often pontificates on subjects he knows nothing of. Like you I have flown many hundreds of rig NDB approaches in the grot to a minima most pilots would find surprising (200' and .75nm), and while GPS is great that needle on the Nav. display is a very useful tool, and like anyone who is taking their aviation as seriously as those who fly offshore I am a firm believer in having every nav aid, even an antique, working for me from take off to touchdown.

I no longer fly offshore, but still fly with all the beacons going as well as the GPS, and if an NDB is the best for the route it will be used as well as GPS/INS and anything else I can find.

I recently lost an on-board GPS system due to a processor failure, due to the cockpit set up the transition to "old style" nav was quite simple.

VH

[Sir George Cayley]

NATS En-route NDBs are for the chop in a phased cull. LIC was one of the first. Some NDBs figure in missed approach procs, like Compton I think, so can't go until DAP redraw the plate using an RNAV hold instead.

CAA requirements for carriage of equipment are set out in the ANO Schedule thingyamejig 12 I think. The public consultation to lower the base of B-RNAV included the change to the ANO.

It will be enacted in the near future but is subject to DfT Legal process and backlog. Or so my man tells me.

Not long now, just a bit more patience. Just keep annotating the FPL ADF inop.

Sir George Cayley

[englishal]

IO540 often pontificates on subjects he knows nothing of. Like you I have flown many hundreds of rig NDB approaches in the grot to a minima most pilots would find surprising (200' and .75nm), and while GPS is great that needle on the Nav. display is a very useful tool, and like anyone who is taking their aviation as seriously as those who fly offshore I am a firm believer in having every nav aid, even an antique, working for me from take off to touchdown.

200' and 0.75nm over the sea is another thing, especially if you have a radar alt and pilot interpreted radar approaches????

You can fly a precision LPV approach down to ILS minimums these days, and every single platform could have one if they wished.

[Captain Smithy]

The requirement for ADF won't be taken away as long as NDBs feature in published procedures. The demise of which might not be too far off according to NATS...

Still quite a handy backup though, I think.

Smithy

[Sideslipper]

If Approach NDBs ever bite the dust, and GPS approaches replace them, then it will probably have an unfortunate impact on PPL IMCR holders.
Most flying school single engine training a/c I have come across have basic agricultural instruments in fairly ancient airframes. I can't see many school owners wanting to/being able to install fixed GPS systems that meet the required standard for approaches.
Incidentally, is flying training for GPS approaches mandatory or advisory?

[noblue]

However, to propose the complete removal of NDBs from the UK at this time is felt premature as currently there are 116 NDB IAPs, which all IFR aircraft can utilise, as opposed to 8 RNAV approaches that a small percentage of aircraft can currently utilise.

Why on earth not simply authorize GPS overlay approaches, thus accommodating aircraft with both old and more modern avionics? This could be done quickly, unlike the glacial speed of the roll out of the pitiful number of available RNAV approaches.

[tmmorris]

Too simple...

Tim

[Mickey Kaye]

"Why on earth not simply authorize GPS overlay approaches, thus accommodating aircraft with both old and more modern avionics? This could be done quickly, unlike the glacial speed of the roll out of the pitiful number of available RNAV approaches."

Yes that would make perfect sense. Is there any safety case why this can't be done?

[IO540]

The requirement for ADF won't be taken away as long as NDBs feature in published procedures

I wonder if those two issues are even connected... ?

The ADF requirement is only for IFR in CAS, but there are loads of ILS, VOR and NDB approaches in Class G.

Why on earth not simply authorize GPS overlay approaches

They are not illegal now. As a private pilot, you can legally fly a VOR or NDB approach using a GPS. Only AOC operations, with an approved procedures manual, may specify what equipment should be used in a given situation.

Most pilots fly NP approaches using a GPS... usually using the OBS mode because many overlay procedure depictions are less than complete, or the depiction is somewhat confusing when related to the Jepp plate.

[tmmorris]

Am I right though in thinking that you must have an ADF to fly an NDB approach?

Quite agree that I wouldn't use one..!

Tim

[Captain Smithy]

I think so, yes.

[Artificial Horizon]

pah,

When I did my ATPL subjects 10 years ago we were told not to worry too much about NDB's as NATS and the CAA where about to phase out NDB's. Still using them in my A320 today!

[IO540]

Am I right though in thinking that you must have an ADF to fly an NDB approach?

From a few years ago, I recall reading an analysis of the then UK regs, and in Class G it was unclear that you had to carry an ADF for flying an NDB approach. The approach plate merely shows a navigation path to follow; it does not say you have to use those instruments. (In the USA, I recall, it was thought mandatory to carry the kit implied by the plate).

For a Class D airport it was clear enough because it is CAS and you are obviously IFR so the enroute equipment carriage regs deal with the issue.

It is possible that the reason the CAA is clearly deliberately dragging its feet on removing the enroute ADF requirement (IFR in CAS) is because there is no reg specifying equipment carriage when flying an approach. They would have to add one into the ANO, otherwise they would be opening an obvious and highly visible hole enabling the use of "any" GPS for all approaches.

Still using them in my A320 today!I know you have to carry an ADF but precisely how and when do you use it for navigation?

[Captain Smithy]

Often an NDB approach is used when ILS is unavailable. Have heard it in use a few times at my home base (which at the moment still has two approach NDBs).

[IO540]

Well, yes, there are masses of NDBs around Europe and I cannot see them disappearing.

The UK may have privatised ATC etc so there is a drive to dismantle as much infrastructure as possible, but this is not the case in most of Europe where the stuff is firmly nationalised.

This is why I think an IFR aircraft without an ADF is not useful for European IFR - unless one takes the view that using GPS is better, which is quite true as a practical proposition, but any electronic device can pack up, and if your GPS packs up, then you are down to the ADF...

[Big Pistons Forever]

I was browsing through my log book and as near as I can figure the last time I flew a for real NDB approach in IMC without GPS supplemental track guidance, was 1994 :ok: Ever since then I have always broken out of the cloud with the runway at straight ahead and with the track of the aircraft aligned with the runway centerline thanks to the magic of GPS. Thank God for better living through high technology. The ADF is 80 year old technology, there are still ludites that insist it has value but the advantages of modern nav aids are so compelling I can not see how they will not be able to hold on to the ADF requirement much longer. In this area the bean counters are actually out friend as making the case to continue to spend money maintaining NDB's will be harder and harder in this economy.

[Jan Olieslagers]

The UK may have privatised ATC etc so there is a drive to dismantle as much infrastructure as possible, but this is not the case in most of Europe where the stuff is firmly nationalised.

NDB's are slowly disappearing from my country, too. WW at EBAW went a year ago or so, and so did the comparable short-range NDB at EBCI. I think those were meant for 2-NDB approaches in Russian style. And if my dusty memory is any good, there was an NDB at BRUNO but when the VOR was moved, the NDB was simply discontinued.