Do I really need an ADF endorsement?
Thread Starter
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!
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!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: back to the land of small pay and big bills
Age: 50
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Assign them to history for mine.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Are you sure. I think a tech alternate is require for a destination with only one type of approach available.
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.
NDB is becoming more and more irrelevant as GPS & IRS navigation reliability can get you down to a bee's d#*k.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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??
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??
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
You blokes don't reckon anybody's gunna be as good as you, lol!
Not much pure flying skill on instruments needed nowadays.
Last edited by Jack Ranga; 6th Sep 2014 at 23:53. Reason: Mis-read tone, no really!
jackranga
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.
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.
What a wank, you blokes don't reckon anybody's gunna be as good as you, do you?
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.
just having a chuckle to myself, the good old days eh 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Kerikeri, New Zealand or Noosa Queensland. Depending on the time of year!
Age: 83
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Ah! those were the days
Reference 19.207
So you do need to have another ground based Nav aid for your alternate.
(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
(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
I seriously doubt that any ATO in Aus would allow any autopilot on the test.
Dr
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!
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!
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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??
finally some clarity from this bulletin board Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?