NDB approaches in light aircraft

[Johnm]

You state you have an IR. you should know then the full range of NDB let downs, you may have do do one on your revalidation. Or does your CFI not do these?

Happily the examiner who does my renewals has the same view of the usefulness of NDB as I do, so we tend to do airways trips, general handling and ILS and RNAV approaches, including holds using NDB as a waypoint in the GPS with an OBS facility. I.e. Real IFR work.

I know very well how to use an ADF to maintain a track based on a heading with wind correction, and occasionally practice it on the sim as an academic exercise, but I'd have to be pretty desperate to use one in reality.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

but in the debrief the examiner asks why I didn't use any of the GPS functions

Sounds like an inadequate pre-test briefing.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Last time I flew a NDB approach for real in IMC without at least a handheld GPS to provide track guidance was 1994

The NDB was all they had in 1930 so that is what pilots had to use, warts and all. Well 80 years later we have better technology so time to take off the rose coloured glasses and use the safest and most accurate nav aid available

That will pretty much never be the ADF

[BackPacker]

The NDB was all they had in 1930 so that is what pilots had to use, warts and all. Well 80 years later we have better technology so time to take off the rose coloured glasses and use the safest and most accurate nav aid available

I agree that an NDB approach is less accurate than a GPS approach. But if flown properly, I doubt whether an NDB approach is less safe.

Of course an NDB approach is a non-precision approach. The name implies that your flight path and go-around point are much harder to fly to accurately. And in a lot of cases, at the MAP you may see the airfield (so decide to land) but you may not be in a position to land straight ahead.

But all this is offset by higher minima. So even with all the inaccuracies that are part of an NDB approach, you should not hit anything if you fly the approach properly.

Now those higher minima also mean that the chances that you will actually be able to land off the approach are less. After all, in typical foggy weather a 600 feet minima or a 200 feet minima makes a lot of difference. For this reason alone precision approaches are far more practical than non-precision approaches.

So I think precision approaches like ILS or anything that's GPS derived are far more practical than NDB approaches. But I don't think safety is compromised in an NDB approach - as long as you apply the proper (higher) minima.

[S-Works]

If flown correctly the ADF/NDB combination is a useful and pretty accurate approach tool.

I teach them a dozen times a day down here and as students progress through the IR and actually understand the information they are getting from the ADF they fly incredibly accurate approaches.

The main issue it's the NDB approaches is that most instructors teaching it at IMC level barely understand the thing themselves and GIGO principal then applies.

We still teach the NDB more as a means to end and these days because truly understanding it aids in developing true situational awareness and helps build cockpit confidence and the ability to handle the workload. The skills leant flying an NDB properly translate directly into other forms of approach.

I would always take a precision approach over any other and the NDB is way down my list of choices when others are available.

As far as skill tests and GPS are concerned, I expect the candidate to be able to operate the GPS where fitted and approved for the job especially int he airways segments. The approaches have to be pilot interpreted so the GPS gets turned to a screen that does not provide overlay data.

[mad_jock]

I don't actually know what all the fuss is about using NDB's

I know it was stated about it being for none airline machines but to be honest apart from having a RMI instead of a RBI its not a lot different.

The problem I find is that on our machines the GPS are never the same. They are in different places on the panel some you can slave the track to the HSI others have there own track deviation display. One or two will even give you a pink string some on the units others through the EGPWS display on one of the RMI's.

So you can't really get an effective instrument scan running. I do tend to use the GPS to get the turn onto final track but after that I am just scanning the standard 6 because if I come out of that scan to have a look over its more likely I will come off profile either height or course.

In the UK NDB approaches are on the decline but there are a few places that use them when the ILS is out for service. I think they postpone it when the cloud base goes below 1000ft.

Following the GPS doesn't always work it was always a big gotcha doing a test at leeds with the 15 degree bend in the NDB if you flew the GPS you failed.

I fly about 15 NDB approaches a week at work one of them is even timed with the markers working, which was a bit of shock to the system the first time. We do use the GPS using a user point on the runway threshold for distance and the none flying pilot calls the distance out and height checks. And yes we do fly them down to mins occasionally and get in off them, there has been a few go-arounds as well.

The other thing they are pretty good for is cloud break procedures so that you can get below MSA and visual and then just fly a circuit.

I will admit while training someone I do make them do NDB's when there are other options available and without the GPS if the cloud base is high.

It is a very good way of increasing capacity and also improving instrument scan. Just like maxred its not uncommon outside of training flights for them to ask to do it again for ****s and giggles as I do as well.

I know some of you might disagree and think it some sort of perversion but I get a lot of job satisfaction from flying a nice NDB approach to mins and looking up to find we are bang on where we are meant to be.

And its quite noticeable that the pilots that are also fellow perverts of the NDB never seem to struggle in the sim on their 6 monthly checks. The direct centre fix if they can followed by NDB/GPS approach don't have such an easy time of it especially on one engine.

So I don't know if they are really a dead form of finding the ground. I will be doing one today. And I have no option because that's all they give me for the into wind runway. I suppose I could go an addition 35 miles and use the ILS to get a circle to land but I am not going to, waste of fuel.

So I won't be using

safest and most accurate nav aid available

Tailwind ils followed by a low level circuit to land or NDB/DME approach getting the runway at 700ft. Which one is safer?

[Johnm]

Tailwind ils followed by a low level circuit to land or NDB/DME approach getting the runway at 700ft. Which one is safer?

NDB/DME with GPS support would get my vote

[Johnm]

I teach them a dozen times a day down here and as students progress through the IR and actually understand the information they are getting from the ADF they fly incredibly accurate approaches.

Yup, I did what seemed like thousands of them at Cranfield when doing my IR and could usually get within about 1/2 mile of the runway centreline at minima off CIT, I can do the same on Microsoft flight Sim into Gloucester, but a GPS approach will put me bang on the centre line with a clear picture of the world around me so what's the point?

Switch off all NDBs as they have in the States that's what I say!

I will confess at this point to having the same attitude to NDBs that CAA old stagers had to GPS, i.e. irrational prejudice

[mad_jock]

No chance would have to turn my head away from the six by 45 degrees and then my eyes would then need to refocus then turn head back and refocus again.

Most while looking away from straight ahead will take the controls with them so if they look right they will bank right. Look up and they will pitch up.

Anyway for me the plane ends up at a position which I can land safely off just using the needles. Maybe the reason while people are struggling with NDB's is because they are actually trying to use the GPS. Its completely knocking their instrument scan out. So would actually get better results by ignoring it.

And the NDB bashing of approaches does a whole lot more to the student than your appreciating. Its not only the NDB approach, its also capacity, instrument interpretation, situational awareness, control finesse. So yes as such its an exercise but it develops the pilot. If you can fly a NDB approach well you can fly all the approaches well be it PAR,SRA,VOR,ILS. But it also translates to other areas of the flight.

Yes you already have it now and like riding a bike you may get a bit wobbly if you haven't done it for a while but you still know how to do it.

So when your trying to land in Barra with exercise joint warrior in full flow with FRA up jamming the hell out of the GPS signal it won't be a major issue. Last year it even made it to parliament about the jamming because the fishermen were getting lost and not finding there fishing grounds. If you have never been taught it and not been through the development curve it forces you to go through it will be a bigger issue.

[ShyTorque]

Many posters seem to have missed the point that an NDB approach is classed as a non-precision approach. It was never supposed to bring you to the runway threshold, unlike precision approaches such as a PAR or ILS (or more recently, a GPS approach). It was only designed to get the aircraft to a place from where a visual final landing can be made, hence the higher required minima.

It would be more appropriate to compare an NDB approach to an SRA, or a QGH letdown. I wonder how many folk here have experience of either of the latter.

[mad_jock]

SRA's done quite a few of in anger but mostly for controller currency same with PAR's.

QGH is a name only to me. I wouldn't have a clue what I was doing with one of them.

[maxred]

We should also highlight that NDB' s are not only positioned at airfields. Some are in the middle of nowhere, and are used as a Navigation, or waypoint position aid.

And I realise that GPS has far outweighed the usefulness of these as credible, on route, positioning tools, but they are there if the need arose.

[thing]

and you end up flying a basic 1980 aircraft with almost original equipment?

I dream of flying aircraft that are that new. Not joking either.

Some good stuff posted (as I hoped!). I don't have anything against NDB approaches per se but it's interesting that the guys who are upholding them are mostly instructors who do them several times week. I haven't done one for two years and now have to get my head around them again. You may say that it's lax on my part but why spend money doing an approach that you are probably never going to use against spending money staying sharp on approaches you use all the time?

[a320.sim.melb]

Guess if it's a requirement of your instrument training then there's not much choice.

In a practical sense, the NDB is pretty useless, but it's still interesting to know.

[mad_jock]

Its all how you attack these things.

Now yes we could do ILS's all the time where available.

If you turn it on its head and instead of always going for the easy option go for the apparently hardest. I am not talking about always going for a NDB but if your not tired the cloud base is 500ft above your mins just go for the NDB. You only have to do it 3-4 times a year to keep your hand in. Also you might find you also get into the this isn't so bad zone and start enjoying doing them well. Then this whole subject will become a none issue to you and you might get into the mind set like some off us of what's the problem with NDB approaches they do a job and its just another tool in the box to use when you want to or have to.

[maxred]

Thing...I am not an instructor, but am very keen to develop and keep current in all aspects of my flying. You get can very lazy, and complacent by just plugging in, Direct to.

I actually get great satisfaction from flying a good ILS, a good VOR hold, or an accurate NDB/DME. When doing it in training mode, it can be a great leveler when you make a total mess of it, and then wonder where it all went wrong.

I struggled for some time to get my head around Instrument flying, but as others have said, one day it clicked with me, and the one instrument that I found assisted, was flying the NDB/DME. I find it does give you an total insight into SA, and from that, the other procedures fall into place.

[ShyTorque]

In my days as a SAR helicopter pilot in the Far East all crews were put on standby as typhoon warnings reached a certain level. If off shift we were allowed home but had to remain immediately available to respond. I used to listen to local ATC on my air band scanner at such times, in case it became apparent that we were going to be recalled en masse .

One night a very big typhoon came in and went right by the airport, causing a total wind direction reversal. The holding stack was already full and many aircraft had diverted. Things were getting critical when ATC announced a runway change. Worse when they realised the ILS wouldn't come on line at the other end. One aircraft was offered a PAR instead. The pilot twice asked for the message to be repeated. After a pause he declined and said that the aircraft "was not equipped for a PAR".

I don't ever want to fly with certain airlines.....

[thing]

I actually get great satisfaction from flying a good ILS, a good VOR hold, or an accurate NDB/DME.

So do I, I think I've mentioned before that I actually enjoy instrument flying. The point that I'm failing to make.. is that NDB approaches are gradually going to go offline so I would rather spend my money, little that I have, staying current on approaches that are relevant to me. If I flew from an NDB field then I would stay proficient at NDB approaches.

Yes I understand I could divert to an NDB only field etc etc. I don't particularly have a problem with NDB approaches, I'm sure I could shoot a fairly good one today if I had to, they just seem a bit anachronistic to me.

[mad_jock]

Most commercial pilots who trained in the last 10 years won't have a clue about PAR's or for that matter SRA's shy.

The majority only bang out the test route stuff required.

I was in the same boat the first time I did one was going into Coningsby with the ILS tits up. They gave us it I looked at the FO he said I haven't done one either. Thought o well we just do what we are told don't we and went for it popping out of the clouds at 220ft. The RT was a lot to be desired but we got on the ground with minimal fuss which was more to do with the controller than us.

Same with SAR's it was an ILS tits up that made me do my first one live.

The rest of Europe has even less clue than the Brits unless they are ex mil pilots or German.

The point that some of us are trying to make thing is that the NDB approach is a means to an end. It doesn't just test you on that approach type it gives benefits across the whole breadth of your flying. I haven't done anything but NDB approaches on any checks for 6 years now. As such I haven't been tested doing VOR or LOC approaches for that period. Its just that the examiners know that if you can cut it on a NDB you can't cut it on all the rest.

[thing]

There you go then, people who stay proficient at NDB approaches are good at them, people who stay proficient at PAR's are good at them! As I've already said, I would take a PAR as first choice over anything else, it's like falling off a log and they are uber accurate, bearing in mind my MD is 500' and I don't have to fly them onto the deck, although I would have no qualms about doing so.