NDB ILS DME MINIMUMS
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Prague
Age: 34
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NDB ILS DME MINIMUMS
Hello,
I recently came across a chart (especially UK) where there are ILS and NDB at one chart. In Czech Republic when we have these two combined, Jeppesen states ILS, LOC (G/S out) and NDB minimums. But for example at Liverpool chart 11-1 from Jeppesen for RWY 09 there are only two minimums (ILS and LOC G/S out). I use those LOC G/S out minimums for NDB as well. Is it correct?
I recently came across a chart (especially UK) where there are ILS and NDB at one chart. In Czech Republic when we have these two combined, Jeppesen states ILS, LOC (G/S out) and NDB minimums. But for example at Liverpool chart 11-1 from Jeppesen for RWY 09 there are only two minimums (ILS and LOC G/S out). I use those LOC G/S out minimums for NDB as well. Is it correct?
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NO! As a 'Flight Instructor' you should know the difference! Jepp do not publish an NDB approach on R09 at Liverpool so what are you planning to fly? There is an NDB approach on R27
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Same with LIDO. From what i read into it it is not a chart for both an ILS and an NDB approach but rather a chart for an ILS+NDB approach where the NDB is required because it is an integral part of the procedure. Haven't been there in a few years so correct me if i'm wrong.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Playing Golf!
Age: 46
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spot on Denti, that is exactly it.
NDB is in the procedure title because it forms an integral part of the ILS procedure at Liverpool, specifically for the missed approach as the hold for both 09 & 27 is at "LPL"
Remember no minimums no approach.... Other wise you would be making up your own procedure...
PT6A
NDB is in the procedure title because it forms an integral part of the ILS procedure at Liverpool, specifically for the missed approach as the hold for both 09 & 27 is at "LPL"
Remember no minimums no approach.... Other wise you would be making up your own procedure...
PT6A
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the avoidance of doubt, if you are looking at Jepps (who nearly always get things right - that was for Aterpster
), a 'pure' NDB approach will be annotated in the 16- series whereas the ILS will be in the 11-
), a 'pure' NDB approach will be annotated in the 16- series whereas the ILS will be in the 11-
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Prague
Age: 34
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was just flying it at Flight simulator and got confused because we (LKVO) have two approaches together (NDB and ILS) annotated 11-1 and you can fly both ILS and NDB from one chart. But now when I study it LKVO has ILS or NDB. Liverpool has NDB ILS DME and NDB only for base turn. I had to have a blackout when I was posting it and didnt notice the difference.
Bit of a drift, but Australia used to have a DME only approach ie no azimuth aid, called a 'DME Descent'. You were required to be able to home to the DME to get within 2 DME, time an outbound heading to an 80/260 procedure turn then home back to the aid, arriving again within 2 DME.
Not so difficult to bracket & home with more modern DME receivers but there were receivers for the unique, Oz developed domestic DME system that didn't have a rate of closure function. Instead you would have to time a mile or two to find ROC, adjust, re-time, adjust & re-time
A lot of places only had a single NDB or VOR, plus DME so a published DME Descent was useful to meet Oz' IFR charter requirement to have two approaches at the destination OR carry an alternate. Alternates within reasonable range (or even within range at all) weren't always available.
Not so difficult to bracket & home with more modern DME receivers but there were receivers for the unique, Oz developed domestic DME system that didn't have a rate of closure function. Instead you would have to time a mile or two to find ROC, adjust, re-time, adjust & re-time
A lot of places only had a single NDB or VOR, plus DME so a published DME Descent was useful to meet Oz' IFR charter requirement to have two approaches at the destination OR carry an alternate. Alternates within reasonable range (or even within range at all) weren't always available.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by IC
So you're saying I can't shoot just a "DME" approach using info from a ILS-DME chart?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interested in your thoughts about the validity during an instrument rating test, of using LNAV for flying an NDB approach or over-laying a localiser track that happens to coincide with an NDB inbound course and using VOR/LOC mode to maintain the NDB track.
While this combination makes the tracking of the NDB on autopilot relatively easy especially with FD operation, some may argue it doesn't really test the candidate's skill at using the ADF needles for tracking. In other words the NDB approach using LNAV cannot be honestly called a test of pilot competency at flying an NDB approach?
As an instrument rating examiner would you be happy to tick off the box that the candidate has demonstrated competency to your satisfaction that he can fly an accurate NDB approach?
While this combination makes the tracking of the NDB on autopilot relatively easy especially with FD operation, some may argue it doesn't really test the candidate's skill at using the ADF needles for tracking. In other words the NDB approach using LNAV cannot be honestly called a test of pilot competency at flying an NDB approach?
As an instrument rating examiner would you be happy to tick off the box that the candidate has demonstrated competency to your satisfaction that he can fly an accurate NDB approach?
