FAA IR ADF Requirement
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,071
Likes: 0
From: EGYD
The short answer is No. If it's not in the aircraft then it can't be tested upon. Same goes for GPS approaches. If it's there you can be asked to use it!
The PTS (Practical test standards) require a precision approach and a non-precision approach. The non precision could be ANY approach which doesn't provide vertical guidance so therefore could just be a VOR or a localiser approach.
The PTS also requires an "approach with loss of primary flight instrument indicators" ie partial panel as it is generally referred to in the JAA world.
The PTS (Practical test standards) require a precision approach and a non-precision approach. The non precision could be ANY approach which doesn't provide vertical guidance so therefore could just be a VOR or a localiser approach.
The PTS also requires an "approach with loss of primary flight instrument indicators" ie partial panel as it is generally referred to in the JAA world.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
You don't need an ADF for the checkride but if one is fitted then the examiner is entitled to make you fly an NDB based procedure.
Same with a GPS.
One does need an ADF, DME, etc etc to be in UK CAS under IFR...
Same with a GPS.
One does need an ADF, DME, etc etc to be in UK CAS under IFR...
Why do it if it's not fun?
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,782
Likes: 12
From: Bournemouth
And if an ADF is fitted, to what extent would an FAA examiner expect the candidate to be able to understand it?
For example, it is perfectly possible to fly an NDB approach without ever having heard of "dip". I know I did it when I first got an IMC rating, and subsequently my IMC students did too. But a JAR IR candidate wouldn't stand a chance with a CAA examiner if dip wasn't well understood and compensated for. What's the FAA stance on this?
FFF
--------------
For example, it is perfectly possible to fly an NDB approach without ever having heard of "dip". I know I did it when I first got an IMC rating, and subsequently my IMC students did too. But a JAR IR candidate wouldn't stand a chance with a CAA examiner if dip wasn't well understood and compensated for. What's the FAA stance on this?
FFF
--------------
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
I doubt they care about the dip. They just want to see you can fly a plane, and fly it well. I have flown countless NDB approaches and have no idea which way the "dip" goes.
Same with the turning effects on the compass. In turbulence you do timed turns; can't read the compass anyway.
Same with the turning effects on the compass. In turbulence you do timed turns; can't read the compass anyway.
Joined: Jan 1999
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 899
Likes: 42
From: Slowly decaying (disgracefully)
ADF "dip" is an antenna effect caused by the aircraft structure; it causes the ADF head to have an error (towards the lower wing) equal to approx half the bank angle. This is why the aircraft seems to be on the correct inbound track when you've still got 60 degrees of heading change to go, but how magically it all works out when you roll wings level.
It's pretty hard (and rather confusing) to fly decent NDB holds without understanding dip and there's no reason not to mention it during IMC training - it makes it easier (accepting that accurate holds aren't an essential part of the IMC rating).
HFD
It's pretty hard (and rather confusing) to fly decent NDB holds without understanding dip and there's no reason not to mention it during IMC training - it makes it easier (accepting that accurate holds aren't an essential part of the IMC rating).
HFD
