UK NDB only timed approaches
 

Hi all,

Hoping someone can help with a query.

Are there an NDB only approaches left in the UK? In other words where the approach does not have a co-located DME and therefore timing must be used for a missed approach point rather than a range.
I'm just curious as I used to practice them during my IMC and subsequent IR training using the CT NDB at Coventry, but that was over a decade ago.

Thanks,
Rich

Excuse me for not having a real answer. Only in the margin:
On the general trend, NDB's are a thing of the past. In Europe at least, and probably elsewhere too, they are being phased out quite rapidly.
The UK is of course a somewhat peculiar place - by which I mean nothing negative! - but sooner or later the NDB's will be going there, too. Fazit: even if some remain today, don't count on them being there tomorrow. The future is all for SatNav (called "GPS" by some) which is cheaper both for operators and for users, and more accurate.

St Mary’s on the Isles of Scilly EGHE has one for RW 32 & 27

As mentioned earlier,

EGHE St Marys on the Isle of Scilly

Also;
EGNC Carlisle
EGJA Alderney

Links to the AIP and aerodrome approach plates
https://www.aurora.nats.co.uk/htmlAI...dex-en-GB.html

Bloody death traps. Shame on any airport that even has a published approach chart.

Before all the heroes come along, yes I can fly one. But they are dangerous by design. We can do far better in this day and age.

Quite agree. the NDB should have gone the way of the dodo decades ago.

NDB? Luxury. The RAF was still carrying out QGH letdowns into grass airfields in the 1990s. We had to, we had fly above and in cloud to instruct in SEP aircraft with no radio nav aids at all and no radar service. Looking back, madness. We used to ask for true bearings from two airfields to keep ourselves out of an airway adjacent to our local flying area.

Most published procedures include an alternative timed procedure without DME.

What a strange thing to say. Follow the procedure in accordance with the design and above all comply with the published minima. If they weren't safe they wouldn't be there.

Coastal refraction flying the NDB into Honiara was very noticeable.

That being said, design and certification would have taken that into account. So as some poster said above, any NDB approach flown as published shouldn’t be unsafe.

If they were designed i.a.w. the required standards and flown that way then they were no less safe than any other approach designed to the same standard(s).

But to address the original question, Scatsta in Shetland only had an NDB approach and an SRA approach. That airport recent lost all its customers so it may not have them published anymore. But when I was based in Shetland the NDB approach was just a normal thing.

That’s exactly the attitude I expected. Perhaps you should do a bit of research on the accident statistics of non precision approaches compared to precision approaches. I’ve flown thousands of both over the years and I know what I would prefer.

Do you think that those NPA’s that ended up in an accident we’re just being flown by people that didn’t know what they were doing? They woke up in the morning and set off flying to have an accident or incident. The simple fact is that a timed NDB is dangerous. Try flying one near a thunderstorm. Needle swinging around 10 to 20 degrees all the time. They also encourage the “dive and drive” type of approach.

They are not fit for purpose in this day and age. The world has moved on.

I read somewhere recently that the UK CAA require licensed airfields to have a notified means of location even for VFR airfields; the most basic of these means is to have an NDB on the airfield with or without DME or alternatively VDF, however some airfields have decided to de-commision their NDBs where they have a VOR/DME located not too far away, having discussed it with operators and found that very few actually use the NDB for its original purpose plus you have to pay for a license and regular maintenance or repairs (many are getting quite old) and VDF cannot be used effectively at FISO airfields as the AFISO cannot pass QDMs, only QDRs.

Scatsta is no more, closed on 30 June :uhoh:

Agreed re Safety. However, not so convinced on their usefulness particularly given some MDAs necessary to preserve Safety!! And following the needle rarely gets you to where the bit of paper suggests - certainly, via the nice straight line indicated on the chart. Recall one OPC using an NDB. ATC even asked where we were going - to which the Examiner instantly replied on my behalf and in my defence with more than a hint of tetchiness "We are following your NDB!" :ok:

Sometimes I'm asking myself if it's not better to make the NDB approach to the opposing runway by default, and then do a circle to land. Once you reach minima it seems like with a circle to land there's a lot less manoeuvering required than with a supposedly straight-in NDB. And you've got more time for that as well. And it's not going to make a practical difference to the minima anyway.

With NDBs routinely positioned on the airfield itself, your MAPt is also above the airfield itself so if you become visual just before MAPt there's no way you'll be able to land from there so you'll need to fly a full circuit...

No they don't.

You can plan or opt to do this always if you wish, a cloud break has always been the main purpose of an NDB let down..

Most airfields dispensed with their off field 4nm NDB many years ago. The cost of maintaining and paying rent to a farmer for an off field piece of land became surplus to need. An NDB beacon sited on your own airfield land is a relatively cheap piece of kit to buy and with only a minor associated cost to licence and maintain. GNSS approaches will in time replace all land based expensive systems of course but meanwhile the NDB is a great backup for initial positioning.

Although I believe it's not a published procedure, Leicester used to have one, not sure if it's still there. Might be worth giving them a ring.

Great for training spatial awareness!

I remember spending time, and much more importantly a lot of money learning how to do these on my IR course 20 years ago. NDB holds too, gate angles, all that stuff. Nonsense really in a light aircraft because if the crosswind is too strong flying the racetrack is impossible due to the low speed of the aircraft. Having said all that I can't remember ever doing one in "real life" afterwards, holds at RNAV waypoints by FMS, and approach, everywhere we went sans an ILS had at least VOR/DME or localiser or LNAV and later LPV of course. Some places though you just have to look out of the window(!) eg Samedan. A relic from the 50's and the world has moved on.

My local licensed (grass) airfield has never had an NDB, or any other method of location. It’s been there since the 1930s. I can think of another that used to have an NDB just outside it’s boundary (I always dialled it up while transitting close by) but it went off line without much warning a few years ago and seems that it’s gone forever.

Yes, the NDB “LE” on 383.5 is still there. It’s not supposed to be used other than in VMC, so not too useful.

Used to tune up Atlantic 252 on the night crossings from North America years ago. Bit of radio gaga....

We used to have one at Cranfield on 21 and the CIT. Checking, it vanished at some point I wasn't paying attention, but the footprint is I think the same if you can find an old plate.

G

Gloucester still has a published NDB approach based on timing only, in addition to the NDB/DME approaches for 09 and 27.

During my IR training I was taught to keep the NDB ident running in my audio as there was no failure flag. Not long afterwards, whilst carrying out such an approach, the audio suddenly ceased - going around I told ATC that their beacon was u/s but was surprised to be told “no it hasn’t “ followed a few seconds later by “ooops you’re right.”
Was wary of them from then on ..,

Try the dreaded EX at Exeter. No idea why it hasn't been moved on to the airfield. Character building stuff, doing an NDB approach with the beacon behind you...

TOO

For some reason the US is really fond of break away approaches and timing to the MAPt, instead of break towards approaches with the beacon on the field also serving as the MAPt.

I’ve done a fair few for real but now with GPS what’s the point? I totally agree with the Rt Hon that NPAs have a far higher historical risk of CFIT, given an equal competence of operator. LNAV/VNAV minima are almost always better and in the commercial world, CDAs are the way we fly.

Good riddance!

It must have been about 10years ago they shut down the Charlie Tango at Coventry. Then Mercia sound 1359 AM located their transmitter just down the road in line with 23 and you could ident it from the music on their repetative playlist.

Here's my thoughts on NDB's...

A couple of years ago, the VOR was off in KGS. For the whole summer. KGS seems a popular night trip. Crap runway lights and non-existent approach lighting. We were banned from doing night visuals by our "esteemed" management. Descending into a visual circuit was considered too risky. The only alternative was a cloud break NDB which left you in the middle of flipping nowhere. Have a look at the plate. The least risk option was to fly the VOR in managed, but not entirely legal as it was an overlay. Dual GPS and all the bells and whistles. Aircraft and crew RNP/AR. More than happy to fly the RNAV approaches into Innsbruck relying on the same bits of kit without raw data back up the very next day. Go figure....

Kind of like you are driving the most bang up to date car with your precious family onboard. But you are about to descend the Stelvio Pass. At night. It's wet and maybe slippery. Who would pull over and replace their bright and shiny Bi-Xenon headlights with the Lucas light bulbs from 1971? While you are it, disable the ABS. Why stop there? Traction control is for pussies. Airbags? Pah! You get the idea.

The world has moved on. Everyone of us (from IR students in a C152 to experienced crews in a Boeing or Airbus) deserve better than NDB approaches. They belong in history.

In the grand old days of instructing it was necessary to hold at least a IMC rating. To upgrade from Assistant Flying Instructor (AFI) to Flying Instructor (FI) it was necessary to undertake an upgrade test. It was commonplace prior to this assessment to complete a course to teach applied instrument flying (IMC rating). On day one of my course the FIC instructor asked me what the main basis of my IMC training was: "NDB sir" I replied. His comment: "thank God for that, you will have spatial awareness, the VOR/ILS lot never know where they are".

What tells us much of yesterday times is the term given to the NDB onboard equipment that is: Automatic Direction Finding (ADF) radio. Hardly that of course in todays meaning of the words.

You called a civilian instructor Sir ????

I think that NDB approaches have value, maybe for SA, although I'm not altogether convinced by your argument that they give better SA than other systems - I don't think it gives me anything I don't get from, say a VOR/DME.

But the NDB is the most basic bit of navigational technology imaginable. It costs a fraction to install and maintain what a VOR or ILS does, an NDB basically needs a few hundred pounds worth of hardware and a power supply. I'd argue that it's the best possible backup to GPS because it's the cheapest and most robust. Yes, it is also very hard work to fly, but on the other hand once you've flown a timed NDB approach, everything else is easy - so it's not a bad training tool.

G

That’s a very strange thing to say. If it was that easy for people to just follow the procedure then there would never have been a crash involving an NDB. In the same way that if people just took off and landed properly there would never have been an incident during those phases of flight. The reality is, as you know, NDBs are harder to fly with far more opportunity for screwing up than an ILS or an RNav approach.

Assume you don’t wear a seatbelt when you drive? What would be the point, just don’t crash.

Genghis

CIT still on current Cranfield charts and, as far as I am aware, is still part of four of the procedural approaches. I haven't used it in a while though.

But perhaps you're saying Cranfield had two at one time?

Its not going to happen that NDB procedures will be introduced at places where they do not currently exist. For the future GNSS procedures are becoming the norm and costing circa £30,000 per approach. NDBs will naturally fade out as the replacement parts become harder to find and the units become obsolete. Where an ADF radio can be found they are also likely to be refurbished units and can cost as much to install in an aeroplane from scratch as some WAAS enabled GPS units so an unlikely choice.

Tragically deaths involving the ILS are not unknown. Sometime ago at the 1000ft (QFE) check I was far too low (calculated using the DME readout) and so stopped the descent. I spent some time maintaining the localiser but remained puzzled before instinctively tapping the indicator glass, the crossbar sprang to life upwards and banged hard against the stop. I regained the glideslope, continued, broke cloud and landed safely. The indicator was, of course, removed and sent to maintenance. Before DME we had the NDB as the outer (and btw inner markers at MDH/A) marker which also served for the NDB let down. The NDB was ubiquitous in serving as an airfield locator and an approach aid. GNSS also does all of this of course plus more.

Spatial awareness was always and remains the most critical skill of instrument flight whatever the kit in use. I often hear of the cross bars being referred to as "command" indicators. They are not and never intended to be, they are simply: course deviation indicators (CDI)

When I did my IMCR at EGTC I was regularly flying a timed NDB approach on the CIT, that approach is now only an NDB/DME approach, which arguably isn't very helpful as whilst easier to fly, it does require a working DME in the aeroplane and they had the same footprint so could be run in parallel. So why they withdrew it, I've no idea.

G

The AIP still has a timed option for runway 21 at Cranfield

Ah, I've just spotted it in the small print at the bottom of the plate, I stand corrected.

G

To differentiate between speaking to him as the FIC instructor/examiner as opposed to speaking to him as the pretend student.

I think your being optimistic. I am hearing stories of upwards of 200K being spent on getting GNSS approach approval and it’s still not approved after some 6 years.