ADF required for IR(R) and IFR?
Hi
I am thinking of going down the CB-IR route and one option is to get a share in an aircraft. I could then do my IR(R) training in it and use it to fly IFR to build the hours before doing the E-IR test (I take it that's the correct way for the CB-IR? I'm still confused about this one). I have seen a nice PA28 and it has everything except an ADF. Is this a requirement for what I am planning? Any other pointers or experiences with the CB-IR would be welcome also. Happy new year! |
ADF is a tricky issue nowadays. In reality it is outdated and almost completely useless, but there are quite some procedures in Europe where you need to have one - at worst only for MAP ... similar is true for DME. Lets keep fingers crossed that CAA&EASA finally start to accept GPS in lieu of ADF and DME, as many other already do.
For now, I see ADF and DME as mandatory for training, but that may change any day. Hope dies last. |
No is the answer. ADF cannot be mandatory for IFR as it is not now mandated for carriage in those conditions.
Officially you are of course restricted to Approaches and Holds not requiring an ADF. In the real IFR world for ADF procedures, you would select the radio aid from your GPS database, and use the OBS facility to select and fly the inbound Course of the Hold or Letdown on your CDI or map display. . Much easier and of course safer than the wandering ADF needle. Re DME the slant range errors vs GPS are negligible during an approach,as the FAA have long mandated, and thousands of FAA IR pilots accept and safely use daily. |
@cessnapete: you are perfectly right for the FAA, but Europe is a different animal. There are so many odd things, last I saw was mandatory DME even when never used as requirement to enter local airspace under IFR (no idea how in the world this can ever be enforced), when flying around and it is only slowly turning towards the FAA light at the end of the tunnel. Yes, in reality you do use the GPS, but may have to carry the dead load equipment anyways.
|
Chickenhouse
The CAA is not going to "see the light " as you put it about replacing DME with GPS distance as long as there are multiple identical ident for radio aids closely placed in Europe.
The USA & Canada don't have his problem so GPS distance substitution for DME is safe, in Europe it is an invitation to fly into the side of a hill. |
With the proposal to add a GTN 650 to the PA28 I fly (YES PLEASE A and C) I've been looking at the approaches for places I have been into recently in IMC. I was a bit surprised to see how common it is after a GPS RNAV approach to find the missed approach is a climb to an NDB (Shoreham, for example...)
How many people actually fly that is another matter... |
With the proposal to add a GTN 650 to the PA28 I fly (YES PLEASE A and C) I've been looking at the approaches for places I have been into recently in IMC. I was a bit surprised to see how common it is after a GPS RNAV approach to find the missed approach is a climb to an NDB (Shoreham, for example...) How many people actually fly that is another matter... |
Don't worry Tim, the ADF & DME stays ! We don't cheapskate on IFR kit.
|
If you buy a factory new Cirrus or Diamond aircraft, needless to say - IFR certified, there is no DME and no ADF installed. Even in Europe.
|
Avionimc
What is the use of an IFR Cirrus or Diamond that is not capable of flying 70% of IFR approaches in Europe.
DME is essential in Europe, ADF is optional but very useful. ( I suspect that most European IFR Diamonds have both DME & ADF both via remote boxes ). |
I imagine they just get on with it and no-one really cares.
|
I am told it is impossible to order a Boeing 787 or the new 737 Max with an ADF. None has ever been or ever will be certified on those aircraft. so how are they flying IFR in EU airspace ? The debate is already over and it is inevitable that GA is going to get pulled into the 21 st century, no matter how much kicking and screaming comes from the Luddites
The ADF is ancient unreliable technology that IMO should be banned as unsafe. |
Not sure how many airfields in Europe that can take a 737, let alone a 787, have an NDB approach with no alternative RNAV approach to the same runway.
|
The CAA is not going to "see the light " as you put it about replacing DME with GPS distance as long as there are multiple identical ident for radio aids closely placed in Europe. |
n5296s
You are quite correct with the VOR that you state...... the distance in not plauseable the problem is that a number of radio aids within a few miles of each other have the same ident.
This did not matter in the old days when one was a VOR one a DME and One an ADF because you can't tune a DME using your ADF, the problem in Europe is you can put an ident into an area nav and it is likely to send you to the wrong place, especially if the distance is plausible. |
Not sure how many airfields in Europe that can take a 737, let alone a 787, have an NDB approach with no alternative RNAV approach to the same runway. You are quite correct with the VOR that you state...... the distance in not plauseable the problem is that a number of radio aids within a few miles of each other have the same ident. Problem is that regardless of what the xAA says, the danger is there already. I'm sure there are lots of people flying by GPS who never tune a VOR or NDB, regardless of what the rules say, even if they do have the equipment. Moral of the story is to look carefully when your navigator says "do you mean XXX Little Snorington VOR or XXX Greater Snorington NDB?". |
In the world of FMSs, the NDB is obsolete - not so the DME. DME/DME updating is very accurate, particularly if 3 stations are in good geometry. I would opine, it is still a valuable back-up to GNSS.
|
Mary Had + Roast Beef = Mary Barfed
Sooner they do away with ADF's the better, made studying for my IR rating a nightmare. |
The last non training NDB approach in IMC conditions I flew where I did not use GPS track information to attain and maintain the NDB final approach track was in 1994.
Before 1994 I would break out with the needle showing on track and the runway was seldom directly in front of me. After 1994 the flight path of the airplane was always lined up with the centerline of the runway and the continuous distance information and ground speed made descent planning and accurately locating the MAP much better and safer Now that there are few good rock and roll AM radio stations left, the ADF is truly useless. |
I'm kind of amazed that anyone has ever found a runway using an NDB approach. It's just simple arithmetic - if you take a classic NDB approach with an NDB say 5 miles off the end of the runway, used first as an IAF, then a procedure turn then as the FAF with a 5 mile segment post-NDB. Let's say that your compass is accurate to 1 degree (trying not to laugh here) and you can fly to an accuracy of 1 degree also. Then the mean error is about 1 degree. So 5 miles from the NDB, your mean misalignment with the runway is about 5*6080*(1/57) - about 500 feet. Now use realistic compass accuracy and flying skill and you'll be lucky if you're within 1000 feet.
Actually on my IR checkride I flew an NDB (there were still some back then) and DID have the runway on the nose. I was quite pleased with myself, but it's pure luck. |
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 are also a lot of them about. I'm also under the impression that the operational costs of an NDB approach is low. |
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 ? |
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 ? |
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. |
you can't fly to IFR without ADF & DME if you want to stay within the law. |
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. |
Originally Posted by n5296s
(Post 9628709)
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?
|
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. |
it will result in the aircraft not being able to land in some European destinations if the weather is not VFR. There must be more to this... |
Originally Posted by n5296s
(Post 9628988)
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... |
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), The Garmin integrated avionics system makes extensive use of GPS. ADF and VOR DME procedures are flown as GPS overlay procedures. Display of the primary source upon which a procedure is based is required. VOR/DME and ADF can be selected manually and displayed on the HIS. |
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. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 19:25. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.