Future of NDB/ADF
I notice in the consultation document referred to by Sleepybhudda:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by FREDAcheck; 19th Apr 2009 at 21:23. Reason: Clarity
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by IO540; 19th Apr 2009 at 22:32.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maders UK
Age: 57
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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,
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
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
.
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
.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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....
Yet still, the CAA churn out "safety leaflets" which pronounce GPS as the work of baelzebub....
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.
NDBs have all but disappeared in the US of course, and no new aircraft have ADF.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
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.
There are many NDB approaches in Europe, or approaches which use NDBs as a part of an approach.
Enroute NDBs can go tomorrow...
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: .
Age: 36
Posts: 649
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: York
Age: 53
Posts: 797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
The Veloceraptor of Lounge Lizards
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: From here the view is lovely
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
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
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
You can fly a precision LPV approach down to ILS minimums these days, and every single platform could have one if they wished.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: .
Age: 36
Posts: 649
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Still quite a handy backup though, I think.
Smithy
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Londonderry
Age: 57
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: York
Age: 53
Posts: 797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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?
Yes that would make perfect sense. Is there any safety case why this can't be done?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The requirement for ADF won't be taken away as long as NDBs feature in published procedures
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
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.