NDB Approaches

R

rajsingh

New Member
I had a question for the instrument rating flight test. Are you required to perform an NDB approach during your instrument rating exam? I read the Instrument Rating Practical Test Standard April 2004 version, and it said:
The required radio equipment is that which is necessary for communications with ATC, and for the performance of two of the following nonprecision approaches: VOR, NDB, GPS, LOC, LDA, SDF, or RNAV and one precision approach: ILS, GLS, or MLS. GPS equipment must be instrument certified and contain the current database.

So if you have VOR and Localizer and GPS, is that good enough and do you just end up skipping NDB?

It also said that for testing:
The examiner will select nonprecision approaches that are representative of the type that the applicant is likely to use.(Will try my best not to choose NDB). The choices must utilize two different types of navigational aids. Some examples of navigational aids for the purpose of this part are: NDB, VOR, LOC, LDA, GPS, or RNAV.

So again, will the VOR, LOC or GPS be good enough for the exam or the examiner always tests the NDB approaches as well.

Of course I've read that if you can master the NDB approaches, the rest isn't difficult. But from reading various articles, I'm getting the feeling that I'll be spending a lot of time making the wind correction angles.
 
I'm not sure if it's required that if you have an ADF equipped in your airplane then you shall be tested. However, if you have one, an NDB approach is fair game and the examiner could test you on it.
 
I'm interested to know what will become testable as VORs/NDBs are due to be phased out from 2010 - ILS/GPS will be the norm, but how quickly?

Alex.
 
Yeah, like PA44 said, if you have an ADF a NDB approach is far game. If you don't have one you won't do one.

edit: as far as the phase outs, expect everything to be around for a while.
 
If you don't want to do a NDB approach on the checkride then put an INOP sticker on it. The examiner can't make you fly off a "broken" instrument.
 
Am I going to have to be the first person to say "if you want the rating, why don't you learn how to fly up to the standards for it"? NDB approaches can be challenging, sure, but they're not exactly splitting the atom. If you can't manage to do one, maybe you shouldn't pass the checkride.
 
I agree that it shouldn't be a mystery and the concepts of an NDB approach are useful and relate to other forms of navigation.

That being said I remember there is/was an NDB approach near my home airport. It sucked pretty bad, the needle swung +/- 20 degrees most of the time. I remember shooting the actual approach with it and basically got vectors to it, the ceilings were still 800-ish so once we broke out we could see the field and navigate to it safely.

This gets back to the whole steam guages/moving map arguement. You have to have pretty good situational awareness and an understanding of navigation to make a NDB approach on a fixed card happen. Give that guy a moving map and I'd say he'd have no problem. Going the opposite direction, forget it.

Of course, if you have an ADF in the plane an NDB approach is fair game!
 
Boris Badenov said:
Am I going to have to be the first person to say "if you want the rating, why don't you learn how to fly up to the standards for it"? NDB approaches can be challenging, sure, but they're not exactly splitting the atom. If you can't manage to do one, maybe you shouldn't pass the checkride.
Click to expand...

Also, they're great for basic instrument skills.
 
Boris Badenov said:
Am I going to have to be the first person to say "if you want the rating, why don't you learn how to fly up to the standards for it"? NDB approaches can be challenging, sure, but they're not exactly splitting the atom. If you can't manage to do one, maybe you shouldn't pass the checkride.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat: I never had to do one for my checkride because ours was inop, but I specifically went up and got training on it, because I'm sure at one point I'm going to need to be able to shoot one.
 
I like NDBs, they're my kind of instrument. It points at the thing, that's it - nice and simple. You can turn wherever you'd like, and it still points at the thing (barring thunderstorms).

The best trick I have for them (this may be difficult to get across on a forum) is in an aircraft with an HSI, set the inbound course on it's CDI. Now, when both of the needles are parallel, you're on course.

As others have said, if you have one in the airplane, know how to use it as it's fair game.
 
The airplane I took my checkride in had an ADF and I did not do a NDB approach.

YMMV.
 
I want to be tested to the full in order to become a safe proficient pilot, so whatever could be tested in the IA checkride is fair game.

What needs to be developed is a strong ability to function without the glass panel/GPS when needed - just like you have emergency training to cope when the engine fails. You don't constantly train for it, as 99% of the time you're fine, but strong x-country/planning/ navigation skills are needed, without overtraining or underpreparing the student.

Alex.
 
Boris Badenov said:
Am I going to have to be the first person to say "if you want the rating, why don't you learn how to fly up to the standards for it"? NDB approaches can be challenging, sure, but they're not exactly splitting the atom. If you can't manage to do one, maybe you shouldn't pass the checkride.
Click to expand...

I've never done one in the airplane. I've done a few official ones, on a PCATD, and a bunch in flight simulator (as bad as it sounds). They aren't that bad, as long as your remember the concept of how the ADF works. Would I be comfortable doing one right now, to get out of the soup? Probably not.
 
As others have pointed out IF there is an operational ADF in the airplane and IF there is an NDB approach near by it's fair game.
For CFIIs a trick I've used to teach these since the nearest one is about 90 miles away. I utilize an AM radio station and superimpose NDB approaches from around the country on the AM radio station, only changing the frequency for the approach. Of course there is no runway when the pilot gets to the MAP. I'm also able to throw in a distraction to boot by making the pilot listen to salsa music or talk radio while simultaneously flying the approach.
 
When I was instructing, most examiners would make applicants do a VOR approach and a GPS approach, along with an ILS.

That being said, learn to fly an NDB approach. I've had to fly them in many different types of airplanes from Cessnas to King Airs. Not always fun, but sometimes the only way to get into an airport.
 
I haven't had one on a checkride (91 or 135). It is in your best interest to find the more challenging approaches and practice those thoroughly. DME Arcs, NDBs, non dme VORs, stuff that makes you work.
 
There seems to be a tiny thread creep, I'd like to point out that the "placard the ADF INOP" people are talking about being tested not the extent of training.

I like the AOPA article a couple of months back that featured an airline pilot that was given the NDB into Toronto or Montreal, albeit radar vectors.
 
Douglas said:
There seems to be a tiny thread creep, I'd like to point out that the "placard the ADF INOP" people are talking about being tested not the extent of training.

I like the AOPA article a couple of months back that featured an airline pilot that was given the NDB into Toronto or Montreal, albeit radar vectors.
Click to expand...

I think the idea is if you know it, you shouldn't be afraid of being tested on it.
 
1st - they are simple. needle always points at the station...

2nd - just learn them.

fly safe.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top