To be fair in the UK it's more normal for the NDB to be on the airfield, so at least the error diminishes as you get closer to the runway. (NDB is then also MAPt.) NDB is still IAF (and hold) with a teardrop course reversal or extended racetrack with DME or timing for the FAF.

NDBs on the approach like that have mostly disappeared though I know they are common elsewhere.

I fly a fair number of NDB approaches in fact coupled with the occasional NDB/localizer approach it's pretty well all that I fly.

OK they might not be the worlds greatest aid but they do work and I tend to find most of my inaccuracies due to my flying.

They are also a lot of them about. Off the top of my head I can't think of a single airfield with an instrument approach that doesn't also have an NDB approach as an option and frequently forms the only approach onto the "non into wind" runway.

I'm also under the impression that the operational costs of an NDB approach is low. Hence they may well be around for a lot longer yet.

They've just about all disappeared in the US. Even VOR approaches are disappearing (the one at Stockton, of fond memory from training and currency practice, was just removed). They only remain, as "NDB or GPS", where there is so little traffic that it's not worth resurveying a proper GPS/LPV approach (like KSIY, the world's most improbable NDB approach).
Hard to see how anything could be cheaper than GPS.

There is no doubt that the pilot world is de-skilling fast, I would hardly have called doing an ADF approach a nightmare, it was light relief after a VDF approach.

What concerns me the most is the enhanced situational awareness that modern systems give seems to have taken the situational awareness out of the modern pilots brain and put it on the screen.......... so what happens when the screen goes blank and the pilot just has a bunch of needles for navigation ?

I fear that is on point the main thread for the immediate future.
I am less afraid of that, because I do have some hope the buried reboot function of pilots brain activity will hold due to Adrenaline shooting, but I am more concerned when the technology gods decide to put faulty data on screen, or somebody ill minded puts some wrong information on the screen. Will the pilot realize fast enough doing something wrong and inconsistent?

You can't retrieve something that was never there. A new generation of pilots will never have flown NDB procedures on an RBI and a stopwatch.

Except you're still forced to do all that during training...

I don't see it as de-skilling, it's evolution. How many pilots were competent in using GNSS 10-15 years ago compared to now?

Evolution would be the replacement of NDB with GPS approaches, until then accepting pilots who don't have the skills to use the available approches is de-skilling.

Thank guys, some interesting responses.

It sounds like it is not an actual requirement either for training or logging IFR. That will help in my search for a share.

You do need some way of doing single needle work during the training though, but it doesn't have to be an actual ADF.

For example, you could use the AUX pointer on an MFD to track a GPS waypoint.

Stevelup

It matters not how you look at this there are places that you can't fly to IFR without ADF & DME if you want to stay within the law.

While I am very pro GPS ( my aircraft was fully leagal for NP GPS approaches back in late 2007 ) I am not so obsessed with the GPS that I will chuck out the ADF & DME during the current upgrade to WAAS GPS. For the forseable future all of this equipment will have its place for IFR flight in Europe.

That was also my impression, but how does it reconcile with an earlier point that the 787 and latest 737s can't be fitted with ADF? Are airlines really flying them illegally into Moldova or wherever?

A and C - I'm not arguing with you, I was replying to felixflyer's specific point about training.

Whenever I (seldom) fly one for work, they are often annotated overlay approaches only. This means we have to display one side at least raw data needles.

Always flown from the box, of course, that way we get a VGP (virtual glide path) and fly to a DH, hence we still need an ADF.

It's not just Boeing. Airbus dropped the DDRMI from their aircraft standard fit about 5 years ago.

n5206s
 

Boeing may have dropped the ADF as standard fit from some of its aircraft but the problem is that it will result in the aircraft not being able to land in some European destinations if the weather is not VFR.

Just because an aircraft manufacturer decides no to fit a bit of kit this does not automaticly change the rules.

I really find that hard to believe. Especially because if this is a regulatory issue, it's not just a question of the weather - in the US at least (and I'm pretty sure elsewhere) if you don't have required equipment for IFR, you can't even file IFR. And I can't believe that airlines would buy aircraft that can't operate under IFR in their own country! Since the only 100-200 seat aircraft on the market are the 737 and the 32x, that would end up being the case.

There must be more to this...

Indeed. I understand BA have even removed or inop'ed on all their older A320s. (I stand to be corrected)

I would display a needle if it formed any part of the procedure, but still fly it from the FMS. Again, you can legally use FMS as long as you are displaying raw data.

From one of my past types (EMB 500),

n2596s
 

It took me a while but a bit if digging about in the Boeing 787 flight manual and I find talk of Left And Right ADF and how to display the bearings.

Clearly it is a Boeing option and is likely to be chosen by those who need it, this seems to be reflected by reports that BA are not supporting ADF on their A320 fleet ( I shall check this ). BA are a Big airport operator and don't go to the smaller Southern European holiday destinations and so ADF is likely to be of limited use.

As the B737max has a lot of B787 technology I would expect ADF to be an option for those customers who want it.