According to a recent WINGS seminar by NACO, NDBs will be going out of service as they will no longer be repaired. However, they will still be marked on charts to be used as waypoints for GPS.
NDBs are Dinosaurs
- Thread starter AuntPeggy
- Start date
infotango
Line Up and Wait
Maybe it is just me, but I really like NDB's. They are easy to use and much more intuitive than a VOR.
I like the fact that they don't have an OBI knob to confuse you, the VOR is way to prone to give pilots a nice bit of disorientation when somebody forgets the third "T."
Compass locator's can give you a clear and instant picture of where you are in relation to the OM on an approach.
There is never any doubt as to which bearing you are on. Unlike VOR's there is no setting where the needle is so far off scale that you really have no clue where you are, unless you fiddle with the OBI. This also means that you have instant feedback when it comes to knowing where the plane is in relation to where the NDB is located, as soon as you tune the ADF.
They are cheap.
I'll miss 'em.
I like the fact that they don't have an OBI knob to confuse you, the VOR is way to prone to give pilots a nice bit of disorientation when somebody forgets the third "T."
Compass locator's can give you a clear and instant picture of where you are in relation to the OM on an approach.
There is never any doubt as to which bearing you are on. Unlike VOR's there is no setting where the needle is so far off scale that you really have no clue where you are, unless you fiddle with the OBI. This also means that you have instant feedback when it comes to knowing where the plane is in relation to where the NDB is located, as soon as you tune the ADF.
They are cheap.
I'll miss 'em.
Hmmmmm, I never really had problems with NDB approaches. Considering they are the only non space based approaces into a heck of a lot of places, this kinda dissappoints me. Basically, it makes IFR GPS a requirement if you want any kind of utility from your plane. What about other approaches that use an NDB as a marker or fix?
Joe B
Pre-takeoff checklist
My understanding is that the FAA has decided that it'll no longer repair NDB's. However, it turns out that a large percentage of the NDB's out there are privately owned. Airports and municipalities put them in so they could get an instrument approach. Frequently they used FAA money for this (airport improvement grants) but the airport ended up owning the NDB. So while the FAA-owned NDB's will wither away, the status of the others will be up to their various owners. The key marker to watch for will be the FAA saying "We'll no longer flight-check NDB approaches."
Regards,
Joe
nosehair
Cleared for Takeoff
I share your pain, but remember, they are not being replaced with vor's; they're being replaced with moving color maps that show exactly where you are in relationship to most any geographical or weather picture you want to see. The vor will go away soon, too.
tomcat
Pre-takeoff checklist
Really? Where are you getting this insight? One of our CAP squadron members works for the FAA, and he oversees VOR maintenance. It all depends on what the word "soon" means to you, I guess.
Dean
Pattern Altitude
If they do away with the NDB, the only approach into KUUV will be a GPS. And of all the planes there, only 4 have an IFR certified GPS.
Tristar
Pattern Altitude
Fortunatly/Unfortunatly the enevitable will eventualy happen. I personaly dont like NDBs but thats because its taking so long to get the idea of how to use one. I'm not sure about the privately owned ones but even then I'm sure the FAA has some control over how usable they can be. Although I still question how some approaches can be done. We use ours for our FAFs for a couple of our approaches into stillwater.
I'm sure in the somewhat distant future, all flying including approaches will turn to GPS or some other form of more advanced navigation. This will probably cause quite a controversy among pilots and aircraft operators/owners. If all else fails, be glad we are still able/allowed to fly aircraft with little to navigate with at all. I'm guessing part of the reason for discontinueing NDBs is they are very inaccurate to a degree. In the hayday, getting within a mile of the airport was the best thing since sliced cheese. Now, needing more precise ways to navigate, the FAA has turned to GPS which can get you within a couple feet (or so I'm told). In my opinion this is a decreased liability way to navigate, possible better aircraft seperation, easier on most pilots, and leaves the possibility open to new technology that uses GPSs aka advancement of aerial navigation itself. The rough part will probably be the need to teach pilots how to use GPSs who are so used to the older ways to navigate. I believe in using all that is available for your aircraft depending on the flight so I think its a bad idea to remove the NDBs for basic navigation although I honestly would remove them from IFR as an individual approach and as controversal as that may be.
Oh, and no offense to anyone that listens to the news, but they've been saying they're going to shut down NDBs for years. I'll have to see a massive amount of closures and GPS installations in our training aircraft to really believe it.
I'm sure in the somewhat distant future, all flying including approaches will turn to GPS or some other form of more advanced navigation. This will probably cause quite a controversy among pilots and aircraft operators/owners. If all else fails, be glad we are still able/allowed to fly aircraft with little to navigate with at all. I'm guessing part of the reason for discontinueing NDBs is they are very inaccurate to a degree. In the hayday, getting within a mile of the airport was the best thing since sliced cheese. Now, needing more precise ways to navigate, the FAA has turned to GPS which can get you within a couple feet (or so I'm told). In my opinion this is a decreased liability way to navigate, possible better aircraft seperation, easier on most pilots, and leaves the possibility open to new technology that uses GPSs aka advancement of aerial navigation itself. The rough part will probably be the need to teach pilots how to use GPSs who are so used to the older ways to navigate. I believe in using all that is available for your aircraft depending on the flight so I think its a bad idea to remove the NDBs for basic navigation although I honestly would remove them from IFR as an individual approach and as controversal as that may be.
Oh, and no offense to anyone that listens to the news, but they've been saying they're going to shut down NDBs for years. I'll have to see a massive amount of closures and GPS installations in our training aircraft to really believe it.
Really? Where are you getting this insight? One of our CAP squadron members works for the FAA, and he oversees VOR maintenance. It all depends on what the word "soon" means to you, I guess.nosehair said:
They are already slow on repairing VORs. They probably will stop repairs within 5 years.
Last edited:
Tristan, a properly-flown NDB approach may not be a "precision" approach, but it will sure get you to a runway, and it is one heckuva lot more difficult to jam an NDB than a GPS.
In addition, the simplicity of the presentation...
...well, I guess I am an old fart, because I like the idea of having NDBs still available.
In addition, the simplicity of the presentation...
...well, I guess I am an old fart, because I like the idea of having NDBs still available.
Skip Miller
Final Approach
I don't think we will see the VOR go the way of the dinosaur until there is general agreement on a backup navigation system. What do pilots use when the GPS goes down? Seems like the VORs, with the installed equipment on the ground and in the air, should be a leading contender for a backup.
Having said that, I can see how they would reduce, perhaps significantly, the number of VORs available if it were placed in a backup role.
-Skip
jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
It really just depends what you are trying to accomplish. I'm willing to bet I could confuse the hell out of a pilot trying to do an NDB approach with little expense. They wouldn't really have any warning either. Same for ILS.
The nice thing about GPS is first off I would think most antennas are primarily looking at the sky which would make it a little trickier to jam from the ground but still quite possible. The other advantage toGPS though is you can design it to detect inconsistencies or jamming and flag the pilot.
It doesn't really matter how you do it. If you're guiding the plane in with RF jamming is going to be hard to stop. But you can at least hopefully prevent the plane from smashing itself into the ground with detection.
Last edited:
wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
Actually, it's probably just as easy. It typically requires a bit more power, and the jammer is easier to find, but one can jam an NDB quite easily. Especially with the limited range of most NDBs.
At one time in my life, I chased just such kinds of interference. VORs/ILS are probably the easiest to jam (I've seen FM converters in cars and TV antenna amplifiers jam ILS systems), but with a bit of power and a long wire antenna, one can take out an NDB, too.
The problem, of course, is that an ADF typically doesn't have a flag when the signal is invalid.
Listen and identify.
Bill
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 15,104
- Location
- Southeast Tennessee
- Display Name
Display name:
This page intentionally left blank
My II taught me to identify, and then turn the volume down, but keep listening to the beeping the whole way in. No flag in an NDB indicator.
The only thing the FAA can say is how legal they are to use. There's a bunch of homebrew instrument approaches off of NDBs, VORs, and now GPS. 5 points to whomever besides Sherri can tell me who has a homebrew uncertified ILS into their airport.
While an NDB is not a precision approach, the fact of the matter is, is it's just as accurate as any GPS approach that doesn't have vertical guidance. Is it as simple, in actuallity, yes. There's a bit more "feel" and art to stabilizing the track line for your crosswind correction, but once you get a feel for it, it's simple and reliable. I've been using GPS since the beginning of it's civilian release (about a decade before it was used for civil aviation), and it has its faults as well, and they are the most unreliable when you need them most, when the weather is at its worst. They are succeptable to atmospheric conditions.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
John Travolta? I mean, he's got everything else, and it sure would make it easier to get that 707 down.
I can see how to do homebrew approaches off NDB's, VOR's and GPS, but how the heck do you homebrew an ILS?
AirBaker
Pattern Altitude
Does this count?
From Eric of the Beech List:
Some years ago I bought some land at VA42 in Fredericksburg, VA (a
private-use residential airpark), then for one reason or another
decided not to build there and sold the land a year later. At the
time KRMN, about two miles NNW, was under construction, with an ILS
planned for runway 33. The ILS would have put an aircraft almost
right over the top of VA42 at about 600 AGL, I think it was. Voila
... built-in instrument approach to VA42 with a 600-foot MDA and a
built-in alternate at KRMN.
I've lost track of the activities down there but I've often wondered
how that worked out for them, after KRMN opened for business... quite
the stroke of luck for residents there, unless the FAA figured out a
way to disallow it...
Last edited:
AirBaker
Pattern Altitude
No offense, but I disagree. At least in terms of lateral navigation. Now... It might be that the minimums don't change, but GPS is definitely more precise.
Last edited:
As long as the ceiling allowed for it, I always found my runway with the NDB, considering the same ceilings applied, that makes them just as accurate in my book.
You have the equipment with no cert, and I don't know if JT has one or not. If he does, it's not the one I'm thinking of.
From Eric of the Beech List:
Some years ago I bought some land at VA42 in Fredericksburg, VA (a
private-use residential airpark), then for one reason or another
decided not to build there and sold the land a year later. At the
time KRMN, about two miles NNW, was under construction, with an ILS
planned for runway 33. The ILS would have put an aircraft almost
right over the top of VA42 at about 600 AGL, I think it was. Voila
... built-in instrument approach to VA42 with a 600-foot MDA and a
built-in alternate at KRMN.
I've lost track of the activities down there but I've often wondered
how that worked out for them, after KRMN opened for business... quite
the stroke of luck for residents there, unless the FAA figured out a
way to disallow it...
Nah, that would count as a localizer approach though I guess. N o, the one I'm thinking of takes you to the runway intended.
Jesse, when I was taught to fly an NDB approach (and it is good fun, IMHO), I was taught that you first ID it, and then keep the audio on to monitor it during the approach so that, if it fails or is switched off, you'd know.
I agree that you could fire up a more powerful transmitter nearby and overpower it, but since it's not FM, there's no selectivity in the receiver, and you'd be sure to get at least some of the characteristic squeal from heterodyning to alert you to the unreliability of the signal.
AirBaker
Pattern Altitude
Ok... I can agree with that.
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
I think that's BS Henning. If the NDB is on the field, you
should be able to get pretty close to the airport but your alignment with the runway (assuming the final approach course is actually close to the runway heading) depends entirely on the accuracy of your compass. For an approach with the NDB at the FAF, y.our chances of actually seeing the airport with visibilities at or near mins for the approach are significantly dependent on your heading accuracy even if you fly the needle perfectly. There's a good reason that the minimums for most NDB approaches are higher than those for a VOR or LOC at the same airport.
But the comparison isn't with a VOR or LOC, it's with a GPS approach that lacks vertical guidance. You are correct in that I have to often make course changes and circle on some NDB approaches, but the mins typically allow me to do that with no issue. Personally I prefer an ILS. I have nothing particular against GPS approaches, but I don't yet have the faith in them to leave them as my only way down. In the continental US, if you loose GPS, you don't really have a problem because even if you cant get into the airport you want, there will be a nearby alternate with an ILS to get you down. That doesn't hold true everywhere else though. My concern is that in the not to distant future, we may be stuck with only celestial guidance for budgetary reasons, and it will lead to some ugly situations.
nosehair
Cleared for Takeoff
I don't think accuracy has any thing to do with it. NDB stations require LAND. Precious, ever-increasing expensive LAND. As well as mechanical maint. GPS's are owner-expense. You do the math.
Bill M.
Pre-takeoff checklist
Well maybe, if you factor out unpredictable wind, slightly inaccurate wet compass, erroneous groundspeed, AM interference, and fussy ADFs with old antennas and jumpy needles. There are some NDB approaches that have inherent error despite flying them perfectly on a windless day. HKY for example will always put you about 1/2 mile north of the runway every time.
That said, I like NDB approaches and have always considered them to be a gold standard in IR training.
I took special pride in my ability to get 'em right, even in a crosswind, and I have nearly lost it because of the paucity of ADFs in the planes I fly. Flew a full-procedure NDB with a missed and hold a few weeks back - in a sim- and did OK.
AirBaker
Pattern Altitude
Not sure if its necessarily property rights, or just more specifically someone else paying the bill like you've said.
The MATH!!!! Satellite system = BILLIONS of dollars. NDB system = a million MAX nation wide. You think satellite systems don't need maint and replacement? Nothing cheaper about running GPS, that's for sure. It's just out of a different budget at the government level, at the tax payer level, it makes no difference, we pay for it regardless if it's DOT or DOD. It's not that I mind, I think GPS is a great thing, but don't try to sell it on system economics, that dog don't hunt.
Joe B
Pre-takeoff checklist
Land has nothing to do with it. NDB stations are tiny and easily fit in the open space at most airports. But you are somewhat correct about "owner-expense". This is all about other people's money. Why should the FAA or a local airport authority spend a penny maintaining an NDB when the GPS constellation exists and works? Well, it would be nice to have an alternate means of navigation but that arguement doesn't seem to get much traction these days.
Regards,
Joe
K
KennyFlys
Guest
In thinking about it, although NDBs are not as widely used these days, they are a low-cost alternative to GPS. They're there for those without a GPS receiver and they are a low-maintenance backup to GPS. I say keep them going. What's more easy than a simple, low power, omni-directional transmitter on a long wire? If the government finds them expensive to maintain, somebody is spending way too much money on BS. Heck, contract with some ham operators to maintain them. They'll probably be more efficient.
AirBaker
Pattern Altitude
On a pure # of $$'s level, yeah GPS is expensive. But what is your audience?
-Pilots
-Ships captians
-Hikers
-EMS services
-Folks with GPS in their cars
-Military
It's a sunk cost in many ways. You're already going to keep it. Why not use it. I can't remember the last time my car told me to turn left past the NDB.
tonycondon
Gastons CRO (Chief Dinner Reservation Officer)
another interesting thing to consider. i know in minnesota a lot of the AWOS/ASOS's are broadcast over the navaid at the airport, if there is one. Quite often this means you listen to the NDB to get the weather. GPS only? I guess you get it from center (If IFR) or hope that there is someone at the FBO. Also adds more cost to decommissioning the NDB, as they would have to build a transmitter for the AWOS/ASOS
AirBaker
Pattern Altitude
K
KennyFlys
Guest
Those I can think of around here, if AWOS broadcast on an NDB then the plate calls for altimeter from a nearby airport.How do folks without ADF get the AWOS currently?
Example:
http://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/20070215/SE-4/ajr_ndb_rwy_06.pdf
This one is on the NDB but no alternate is given. So your only option is nearest airport or whatever ATC gives you which is most likely the nearest:
http://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/20070215/SE-4/jzp_ndb_rwy_34.pdf
I have ASOS at GVL but Atlanta TRACON will often give me Atlanta altimeter for approach. That could be for convenience to them or it's late in the hour and local altimeter has likely had a substantial change.
AirBaker
Pattern Altitude
It was somewhat of a rhetorical question, but I get mine from XM weather.
K
KennyFlys
Guest
It's really a legitimate question. You can't depend on XM* satellites for the sole source of weather data any more than GPS as the sole means of area navigation.
*The number of satellites may expand if the XM and Sirius merger gets past the congressional BS hurdle.
AirBaker
Pattern Altitude
True... but its pretty obvious you can't get NDB AWOS info without an ADF. Therefore look elsewhere. FSS, ATC, etc.