Can anyone point me to data regarding the proportions of the US GA
IFR-capable fleet that have:

A Both an ADF and an approach-approved GPS
B An ADF but no approach-approved GPS
C An approach-approved GPS but no ADF
D Neither
?

Either piece of equipment counts only if it is serviceable.

Alternatively, would anyone like to take a guess at the %ages? This is
Usenet after all, and we shouldn't let facts cloud the issue. ;-)

Thanks

Julian

All Cirrus planes from the factory fall into category C. While it is
the best selling single, I don't know what proportion of the US GA
fleet it represents.

"Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message ...
> Can anyone point me to data regarding the proportions of the US GA
> IFR-capable fleet that have:
>
> A Both an ADF and an approach-approved GPS
> B An ADF but no approach-approved GPS
> C An approach-approved GPS but no ADF
> D Neither
> ?
>
> Either piece of equipment counts only if it is serviceable.
>
> Alternatively, would anyone like to take a guess at the %ages? This is
> Usenet after all, and we shouldn't let facts cloud the issue. ;-)
>
> Thanks
>
> Julian
>

I don't really know, but I doubt there's any comprehensive data for that.
Be prepared for 'guesses' to be your only guidance.
FWIW, I'm in group A, because I saw no reason to remove my ADF
when I added my GPS, MFD, new transponder, and new radar.
I did remove my old LORAN and my old VOR/DME RNAV at the time.
I continue to find good utility in the ADF, and I'm glad I retained it.

I'm not aware of any requirement that an aircraft owner report to any
government entity just what avionics are installed in his plane.

Now there are places in this world, Julian, that license televisions...who'd
have imagined such a thing? <g>

Bob Gardner

"Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message
...
> Can anyone point me to data regarding the proportions of the US GA
> IFR-capable fleet that have:
>
> A Both an ADF and an approach-approved GPS
> B An ADF but no approach-approved GPS
> C An approach-approved GPS but no ADF
> D Neither
> ?
>
> Either piece of equipment counts only if it is serviceable.
>
> Alternatively, would anyone like to take a guess at the %ages? This is
> Usenet after all, and we shouldn't let facts cloud the issue. ;-)
>
> Thanks
>
> Julian
>

On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 17:43:24 GMT, "Julian Scarfe" >
wrote:

>Can anyone point me to data regarding the proportions of the US GA
>IFR-capable fleet that have:
>
>A Both an ADF and an approach-approved GPS
>B An ADF but no approach-approved GPS
>C An approach-approved GPS but no ADF
>D Neither
>?
>
>Either piece of equipment counts only if it is serviceable.
>
>Alternatively, would anyone like to take a guess at the %ages? This is
>Usenet after all, and we shouldn't let facts cloud the issue. ;-)
>
>Thanks
>
>Julian
>

I don't think there is data for that in the US. I am in group A because
even after I installed a CNX80, I still required my ADF receiver to obtain
my home airport altimeter setting (it is not available through ATC or any
other source) and use the lowest minimums.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

and there are places in this world that have informative, unbiased,
commercial-free television channels. Who'd have imagined such a
thing? <g>

Tim.

On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 14:20:29 -0800, "Bob Gardner" >
wrote:

>I'm not aware of any requirement that an aircraft owner report to any
>government entity just what avionics are installed in his plane.
>
>Now there are places in this world, Julian, that license televisions...who'd
>have imagined such a thing? <g>
>
>Bob Gardner
>
>"Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message
...
>> Can anyone point me to data regarding the proportions of the US GA
>> IFR-capable fleet that have:
>>
>> A Both an ADF and an approach-approved GPS
>> B An ADF but no approach-approved GPS
>> C An approach-approved GPS but no ADF
>> D Neither
>> ?
>>
>> Either piece of equipment counts only if it is serviceable.
>>
>> Alternatively, would anyone like to take a guess at the %ages? This is
>> Usenet after all, and we shouldn't let facts cloud the issue. ;-)
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Julian
>>
>

I am in Cat C. My ADF was belly up when I bought the plane and the unit
was beyone economical repair. I pulled it out. At the time I had a VFR
only GPS. I replaced it with a IFR approach certified GPS. A lot of
approaches still require ADF, even newly commissioned ones. Go figure.
So you need one or the other. There are a couple of approachs around
here that you can find the holding point over the OM and don't need an
ADF or GPS, but that is not the way the approach plate is shown.

Ross
KSWI.

John R. Copeland wrote:

> "Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message ...
>
>>Can anyone point me to data regarding the proportions of the US GA
>>IFR-capable fleet that have:
>>
>>A Both an ADF and an approach-approved GPS
>>B An ADF but no approach-approved GPS
>>C An approach-approved GPS but no ADF
>>D Neither
>>?
>>
>>Either piece of equipment counts only if it is serviceable.
>>
>>Alternatively, would anyone like to take a guess at the %ages? This is
>>Usenet after all, and we shouldn't let facts cloud the issue. ;-)
>>
>>Thanks
>>
>>Julian
>>
>
>
> I don't really know, but I doubt there's any comprehensive data for that.
> Be prepared for 'guesses' to be your only guidance.
> FWIW, I'm in group A, because I saw no reason to remove my ADF
> when I added my GPS, MFD, new transponder, and new radar.
> I did remove my old LORAN and my old VOR/DME RNAV at the time.
> I continue to find good utility in the ADF, and I'm glad I retained it.
>

> I'm not aware of any requirement that an aircraft owner report to
> any government entity just what avionics are installed in his
> plane. [...]

But perhaps it can be approximately inferred from an archive of IFR
flight plans. /G is obvious (subject to slight .. exaggeration .. by
vfr-gps folks); suspect ADF if filed destination/alternate are not
both served by other navaids.

- FChE

"Tim Auckland" > wrote in message
...
> and there are places in this world that have informative, unbiased,
> commercial-free television channels. Who'd have imagined such a
> thing? <g>
>
> Tim.
On what planet?

> Can anyone point me to data regarding the proportions of the US GA
> IFR-capable fleet that have:

> A Both an ADF and an approach-approved GPS
> B An ADF but no approach-approved GPS
> C An approach-approved GPS but no ADF
> D Neither

As with others, dunno. I have both and did both a GPS & NDB approach today.
---
Ken Reed
N9124X

"Peter" > wrote in message
...

> It does suprise me how readily U.S. owners appear to chuck out the old
> equipment given that doing so does restrict the choice of alternates
> in many cases.
....
> The other reason for myself wondering about this is that Cirrus, as
> standard, have no DME or ADF. I've done the FAA IR recently (in the
> USA) and not having a DME really does seem a drawback.

Really? Is it common to attempt to plan a flight and be unable to find a
sensible alternate that has an ILS, VOR or radar approach without a DME
requirement?

Julian

Peter,

> not having a DME really does seem a drawback.
>

How, when you have two GPS receiver very capable of showing distances
(on a map, too)?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

50% of planes equiped with ADF, the ADF is BROKEN....

> It does suprise me how readily U.S. owners appear to chuck out the old
> equipment given that doing so does restrict the choice of alternates
> in many cases.

Weight and panel space.

> once you are heading to the alternate this becomes irrelevant and you
> can fly the approach with the GPS anyway.

This is true, but irrelevant. If you don't have the ADF when you file,
your options for filing are limited. If you don't have a legal
alternate you can't go. The only way th is is a "way around the regs"
is if you toss the ADF out the window during the flight (and also
complete the necessary paperwork).

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > It does suprise me how readily U.S. owners appear to chuck out the old
> > equipment given that doing so does restrict the choice of alternates
> > in many cases.
>
> Weight and panel space.

In a plane used for training, there's a much more serious reason to tear
out the ADF. If you go for an instrument rating checkride in a plane that
has an ADF in it, the examiner can (and probably will) ask to see an NDB
approach flown. Maybe even partial panel. Which means you need to train
students to fly partial panel NDB approaches (and holds). What a frigging
waste of time and money.

> Which means you need to train
> students to fly partial panel NDB approaches (and holds). What a frigging
> waste of time and money.

I disagree, although NDB approaches are rarer, learning and doing them
requires (and creates) a better sense of positial awareness, and thus a
better IFR pilot.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On 04/01/06 07:09, Roy Smith wrote:
> In article >,
> Jose > wrote:
>
>> > It does suprise me how readily U.S. owners appear to chuck out the old
>> > equipment given that doing so does restrict the choice of alternates
>> > in many cases.
>>
>> Weight and panel space.
>
> In a plane used for training, there's a much more serious reason to tear
> out the ADF. If you go for an instrument rating checkride in a plane that
> has an ADF in it, the examiner can (and probably will) ask to see an NDB
> approach flown. Maybe even partial panel. Which means you need to train
> students to fly partial panel NDB approaches (and holds). What a frigging
> waste of time and money.

In my experience, each different approach to doing something (like
a hold or an SIAP) provide a firmer foundation for learning how to deal
with difference situations.

I'm very happy that my training included ADF work and NDB approaches.

But ... that's just my opinion ;-)

--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

I was thinking of the BBC, which, incidentally, is funded by the UK
television licence fee.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/


Your opinion of the BBC may vary, of course, but if you want to decide
for yourself, take a look at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/


Tim.


On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 18:10:17 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>
>"Tim Auckland" > wrote in message
...
>> and there are places in this world that have informative, unbiased,
>> commercial-free television channels. Who'd have imagined such a
>> thing? <g>
>>
>> Tim.
>On what planet?
>

On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 07:56:45 +0100, Peter > wrote:

>It does suprise me how readily U.S. owners appear to chuck out the old
>equipment given that doing so does restrict the choice of alternates
>in many cases.

With a CNX80 or any other box certified under TSO146, there is no
particular restriction as to choice of alternates.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Jose" > wrote in message m...
>> Which means you need to train
>> students to fly partial panel NDB approaches (and holds). What a frigging
>> waste of time and money.
>
> I disagree, although NDB approaches are rarer, learning and doing them
> requires (and creates) a better sense of positial awareness, and thus a
> better IFR pilot.
>
> Jose
> --

An RMI presentation, with the ADF pointer on an HSI, not only provides
the positional awareness Jose praises, but it also vaporizes much of
Roy's concern about difficulties in teaching NDB approaches.
The examiner can't demand an NDB approach without the HSI,
and the RMI presentation makes NDB approaches very intuitive.
HSIs are extremely nice instruments, either stand-alone or in PFDs.

"Peter" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Julian Scarfe" > wrote
>
>>Really? Is it common to attempt to plan a flight and be unable to find a
>>sensible alternate that has an ILS, VOR or radar approach without a DME
>>requirement?
>
> Not having done a survey of U.S. approach plates, I have no idea,
> which is why I was posting, seeking a comment from the residents here,
> who are nearly all American.
>
> A DME seems a useful thing relative to the panel space and cost,
> whereas many would agree an ADF is much less useful.
>
> There are still parts of the world where NDBs are the only en route
> navaids receivable, but that isn't going to bother most people reading
> this.

Peter, I'm one who worried about removing my DME, but I did so, anyway.
It has turned out to be a non-issue, at least partly because:
1. My CNX80 displays horizontal distance to its tuned VOR station.
2. My CNX80 displays distance to the runway for approaches.
(That's separate from the distance to the next waypoint on an approach.)
I think I did the right thing by keeping my ADF and removing my DME.

>> In a plane used for training, there's a much more serious reason to tear
out the ADF. If you go for an instrument rating checkride in a plane
that
has an ADF in it, the examiner can (and probably will) ask to see an
NDB
approach flown. Maybe even partial panel. Which means you need to
train
students to fly partial panel NDB approaches (and holds). What a
frigging
waste of time and money.

IME, a proficient IFR pilot (even a student) can learn the NDB approach
and hold in an hour or two, max. Partial panel might take another hour
or two (or not) but my experience is that examiners rarely ask for a
P/P NDB approach these days without allowing the use of a VFR GPS for
situational awareness (which is, after all, the norm in today's
cockpit).

There are many reasons that instructors don't see this happens, and IMO
they are not good ones.

There are the students who really don't get the subtle differences
between heading, bearing, course, and track. They haven't really got
the situational awareness thing all down. IMO they're dangerous - not
just when the magic box fails, but in general. They probably represent
most of the private-IFR population, but the private-IFR population has
a pretty crappy record when it comes to handling real IFR - the kind
you can't reasonably scud run.

It's sort of like the taildragger transition. A pilot who understands
what landings are about can just sit down in a simple taildragger with
good visibility like a Champ and fly it, even lacking any tailwheel
experience. One who drives the airplane onto the runway can't - he may
easily need more hours to check out in a taildragger than he needed for
the initial solo.

In addition to the issue of pilot skill, there is the issue of the
equipment. RMI is expensive, but a movable card is dirt cheap, common
- but somehow not universal. Why not? Without it, you're constantly
doing mental math, remembering your heading - it's a pain. It's almost
the equivalent of making the transition into a blind taildragger - yes,
it can be and was done, but these days there's no reason for it.

Finally, the equipment needs to work. That means the heading gyro
needs to have reasonable precession (if you can't set it turning
initial and not worry about it until established in the miss, that's
NOT reasonable - people who routinely fly hard IFR won't tolerate it
unless they've equipped the cockpit with moving maps and no longer care
about the heading) and if the ADF is not equipped with a moveable card,
a heading bug is required equipment. The compass must work properly on
all headings, with no more than a few degrees error on any. If you're
going to do it right, either the DG needs to be a barrel or the compass
needs to be a card - mixing types is a recipe for confusion, but too
common these days. And finally, the ADF must point straight and strong
at the FAF or FAP - meaning that from 5-10 miles away, you need to have
a needle with an error no more than 2/5 of your tolerance - straight or
turning - just like VOR. So if you're shooting for +/-10 degrees, the
ADF can err by no more than 4 degrees in straight flight at any
reasonable correction angle, and it can't lag more than 1.3 degrees in
a standard rate turn.

I have seen an ADF-equipped IFR rental like that. ONCE.

ADF is not cheap. Crappy, barely serviceable ADF that makes students
believe that consistenly shooting one is impossible is cheap. And
unfortunately, too many CFII's don't know the difference.

In this day and age, the typical function of an ADF is to allow the
pilot to use his VFR GPS as an IFR unit, and not have to spring for an
IFR GPS. In theory, he us shooting an NDB approach, using the ADF for
the marker, etc - but in reality it's all VFR GPS. We keep up the
illusion because we don't want to spend the money to maintain these
things, and we don't feel IFR GPS offers good value compared to VFR
GPS.

Michael

"Peter" > wrote in message ...
>
> "John R. Copeland" > wrote
>
>>An RMI presentation, with the ADF pointer on an HSI, not only provides
>>the positional awareness Jose praises, but it also vaporizes much of
>>Roy's concern about difficulties in teaching NDB approaches.
>>The examiner can't demand an NDB approach without the HSI,
>>and the RMI presentation makes NDB approaches very intuitive.
>>HSIs are extremely nice instruments, either stand-alone or in PFDs.
>
> ...
>
> I am not sure where an HSI comes into NDBs. I think you mean an RMI.
> No HSI I know of can show a track error from an NDB. It can do VOR,
> LOC, or GPS. Perhaps you mean an EHSI like the Shadin or Honeywell?
>

I said "...an ADF pointer on an HSI..."
The RMI presentation is then integrated with the HSI.
That references the ADF pointer to compass directions *and* heading.
In fact, my HSI is magnetically slaved, which is even another nice feature.
It's part of my Collins FD101 Flight Director.

On 1 Apr 2006 13:44:46 -0800, "Michael" >
wrote:

>ADF is not cheap. Crappy, barely serviceable ADF that makes students
>believe that consistenly shooting one is impossible is cheap. And
>unfortunately, too many CFII's don't know the difference.

Good ADF certainly is not cheap. Mooney's charge for the Becker ADF add-on
option in the Ovation 2GX is $15,500!

But sometimes the problem lies elsewhere. I've got a cheap ADF in my a/c
(it's the King model that has an integrated pointer in the box). It works
fine on the ground with the engine off. But, due to its design, the
voltage regulator puts out so much interference that gets picked up by the
ADF to render it of marginal utility in the air. (I kept it because that's
the only method of receiving the local altimeter setting at my home base).

Oh, and I can't change the voltage regulator type because of STC issues.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

>>But sometimes the problem lies elsewhere. I've got a cheap ADF in my a/c
(it's the King model that has an integrated pointer in the box). It
works
fine on the ground with the engine off. But, due to its design, the
voltage regulator puts out so much interference that gets picked up by
the
ADF to render it of marginal utility in the air.

But a good ADF installation would not have this problem. I bet the
$15K unit from Becker is immune to this sort of noise. In the old
days, part of the installation process was checking for interference
from external sources and getting rid of it. Nobody will pay for that
anymore,

The real glory of GPS is not how accurate it is (that level of accuracy
is rarely needed) but how immune it is to installation/interference
issues. Hnadheld ADF, anyone?

Michael

On 2 Apr 2006 13:13:51 -0700, "Michael" >
wrote:

>>>But sometimes the problem lies elsewhere. I've got a cheap ADF in my a/c
>(it's the King model that has an integrated pointer in the box). It
>works
>fine on the ground with the engine off. But, due to its design, the
>voltage regulator puts out so much interference that gets picked up by
>the
>ADF to render it of marginal utility in the air.
>
>But a good ADF installation would not have this problem. I bet the
>$15K unit from Becker is immune to this sort of noise. In the old
>days, part of the installation process was checking for interference
>from external sources and getting rid of it. Nobody will pay for that
>anymore,
>

That's true. The ADF was in the airplane when I purchased it. At the
time, I rarely flew an NDB approach and, when I did, it was at a higher
frequency and worked OK. It's been the combination of lower freq NDB's
that I'd been using more frequently since moving to this area (260 and
lower) along with the alternator STC that have resulted in the problem
cropping up.

I'd guess that even the more expensive King ADF would be immune to this
sort of problem. It has an "active antenna" which costs more than my ADF
would have cost.


>The real glory of GPS is not how accurate it is (that level of accuracy
>is rarely needed) but how immune it is to installation/interference
>issues. Hnadheld ADF, anyone?
>

And the immunity is especially surprising considering the weak signals
being detected.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

I came across the same question recently, as I happened in one day to see
three Cessna panels with full-on Garmin panels but no ADF. So I did an
informal look at Trade-A-Plane, which confirms the tendancy. I get the
impression that a good 50% of those overhauling their panel chose to
chuck the ADF, and the proportion of new panels delivered (pre-G1000)
without ADF is similar, if not higher.

This puzzles me, because of the number of approaches still published with
ADF requirement - why spend thousands to have the latest and greatest,
if it's to restrict your use of so many approaches? I'm aware that many
instrument students prefer not to have it, because if it's there they
will be asked to demonstrate proficiency with it on the checkride - yet
I fail to understand just why this requirement strikes terror in peoples'
hearts!

I am also saddened to see the DME go, which seems to be part of the same
trend, though I do accept the argument that with a G430 and a G530
stacked in the panel you're hardly getting any more information from a
DME!

As for RMI - sure it's great to have a VOR/NDB RMI for your DME arcs etc,
but how many piston singles actually have this? I see them in KingAirs,
but not in 172's.

GF

Greg,

> This puzzles me, because of the number of approaches still published with
> ADF requirement - why spend thousands to have the latest and greatest,
> if it's to restrict your use of so many approaches?
>

Because you can (in the US) legally use an approach-certified GPS instead of
the ADF for those approaches?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

In a small GA plane, THE panel to have has, an IFR GPS, a VOR/GS, a
radio, a transponder and an all electric autopilot. You fly the GPS for
enroute and then take the ILS or VOR approach. If your vacuum fails you
still have your autopilot, and if your electric fails you still have
your vacuum. Back this up with a handheld radio and a handheld GPS and
you are set to go.

No need for ADF, DME, or marker beacons. They are all avionics of the
past. No need for an HSI becuase you have the autopilot coupled to the
GPS.

Another good reason to get rid of all the extra stuff is repair. The
less you have, the less you need to repair.

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Greg,
>
>> This puzzles me, because of the number of approaches still published with
>> ADF requirement - why spend thousands to have the latest and greatest,
>> if it's to restrict your use of so many approaches?
>>
>
>Because you can (in the US) legally use an approach-certified GPS instead of
>the ADF for those approaches?
>

Well, that "almost" works. To fly it, you just need RAIM - to "file" it (if you
have G-430/530 type equipment) you also need the working ADF in the plane.
That's why I used the word "restrictions". You might be fine under many or most
circumstances, but it can put a kink in your plans if you want to file IFR to
an out-of-the-way airport that has an ADF requirement. Then you realize if you
had kept your 1965 panel you could file it . . .

Perhaps pilots are simply assuming those ADF requirements will all be gone
soon.

GF

In article om>,
says...
>
>
>In a small GA plane, THE panel to have has, an IFR GPS, a VOR/GS, a
>radio, a transponder and an all electric autopilot. You fly the GPS for
>enroute and then take the ILS or VOR approach.

I know I'm getting heavy here, but the ILS may still have an ADF
requirement if there's a LOM in the missed approach segment. If your IFR
GPS is of the TSO C129 type, I don't think you can file this without a
working ADF in the plane. And if you get a RAIM warning, with no ADF in
the plane, you just have to go somewhere else.

GF

Doug wrote:
> In a small GA plane, THE panel to have has, an IFR GPS, a VOR/GS, a
> radio, a transponder and an all electric autopilot. You fly the GPS for
> enroute and then take the ILS or VOR approach. If your vacuum fails you
> still have your autopilot, and if your electric fails you still have
> your vacuum. Back this up with a handheld radio and a handheld GPS and
> you are set to go.
>
> No need for ADF, DME, or marker beacons. They are all avionics of the
> past. No need for an HSI becuase you have the autopilot coupled to the
> GPS.
>
> Another good reason to get rid of all the extra stuff is repair. The
> less you have, the less you need to repair.

Exactly right, with one qualification: make the GPS TSO C146 (e.g. GNS480). No
worries about filing alternates with GPS approaches, seamless transition from
enroute GPS environment to approach GPS environment, glide slope available to
most airports, ILS-equipped or not. Use ILS approaches only if you need the
absolute lowest minima. This is US-centric, of course.

Dave

New usage for ADF's. Listen to ball games and deduce TFR's.

An IFR GPS is a legal substituter for "ADF Required" notation on an ILS
approach. See AIM.

I personally have not seen any GPS approaches that use the glideslope
feature of the 480, but I may have been missing something. I agree,
that a glideslpe for a non-precision approach is a great idea and if
the 480 can do it, then that is the one to have (for a price no doubt).

Doug > wrote:
>I personally have not seen any GPS approaches that use the glideslope
>feature of the 480, but I may have been missing something. I agree,
>that a glideslpe for a non-precision approach is a great idea and if
>the 480 can do it, then that is the one to have (for a price no doubt).

I fly them all the time. I must admit that I don't understand all the
nuances of exactly which approaches have it (i.e. even some that don't
have VNAV minima published on the plate), but the bottom line is a
message pops up on the GNS-480 display saying, "LNAV/VNAV", and the
glide slope needle comes alive. From there on, just keep the needles
in the donut, just like on an ILS.

Installed price is about $10k.

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message ...
> Doug > wrote:
>>I personally have not seen any GPS approaches that use the glideslope
>>feature of the 480, but I may have been missing something. I agree,
>>that a glideslpe for a non-precision approach is a great idea and if
>>the 480 can do it, then that is the one to have (for a price no doubt).
>
> I fly them all the time. I must admit that I don't understand all the
> nuances of exactly which approaches have it (i.e. even some that don't
> have VNAV minima published on the plate), but the bottom line is a
> message pops up on the GNS-480 display saying, "LNAV/VNAV", and the
> glide slope needle comes alive. From there on, just keep the needles
> in the donut, just like on an ILS.
>
> Installed price is about $10k.
>

I don't understand those nuances of which approaches are VNAV, either.
But last week I flew one which my CNX80 told me was
"Downgraded to LNAV only" (or some wording similar to that),
and I instantly thought "How crude! Now I'll have to 'dive and drive'."
Until then, I didn't realize how accustomed I'd grown to LNAV/VNAV.
For Doug's benefit, it seems that the overwhelming majority of GPS
approaches allow VNAV guidance.

Roy neglected to say that in addition to *flying* "just like on an ILS",
autopilots can make fully coupled LNAV/VNAV approaches, too.
TSO-C146 rocks!

I am puzzled also. Even some newly commisioned ILS approaches require
ADFs to locate the outermarker for hold. We had one at a local airport
and I wrote to OK City and they agreed that they rushed the design. I
commented that the hold point could easily be located by the localizer,
the feeder route from the nearby VOR, and the marker beacon. However,
when the genius redesigned the procedure they had us flying 40 miles out
of the way to hold, not evening using the feeder VOR, but another one. I
withdrew my letter. They left the procedure with the ADF required. I
have noticed a couple of other approaches in the area that had changes
adding the ADF requirement. According to the designers, this provides a
lesser workload on the pilot flying the missed approach.

Greg Farris wrote:

> I came across the same question recently, as I happened in one day to see
> three Cessna panels with full-on Garmin panels but no ADF. So I did an
> informal look at Trade-A-Plane, which confirms the tendancy. I get the
> impression that a good 50% of those overhauling their panel chose to
> chuck the ADF, and the proportion of new panels delivered (pre-G1000)
> without ADF is similar, if not higher.
>
> This puzzles me, because of the number of approaches still published with
> ADF requirement - why spend thousands to have the latest and greatest,
> if it's to restrict your use of so many approaches? I'm aware that many
> instrument students prefer not to have it, because if it's there they
> will be asked to demonstrate proficiency with it on the checkride - yet
> I fail to understand just why this requirement strikes terror in peoples'
> hearts!
>
> I am also saddened to see the DME go, which seems to be part of the same
> trend, though I do accept the argument that with a G430 and a G530
> stacked in the panel you're hardly getting any more information from a
> DME!
>
> As for RMI - sure it's great to have a VOR/NDB RMI for your DME arcs etc,
> but how many piston singles actually have this? I see them in KingAirs,
> but not in 172's.
>
> GF
>

In article m>,
says...
>
>
>An IFR GPS is a legal substituter for "ADF Required" notation on an ILS
>approach. See AIM.
>
There are restrictions. See AIM.
See other posts in current thread.
There are also different types of "IFR GPS" - that notation is no longer
sufficient.

GF

In article >,
says...

>It restricts you in the alternate airport choice.
>
>One can argue this two ways: legally and from the POV of systems
>reliability. (And I know *you* are not in the USA :))
>
(text cut for brevity)
>
>A lot of European VFR flying (and probably a fair bit of US VFR
>flying?) is done without radar assistance; often without any
>assistance whatever.

There are quite a few services available in the US - new and old - that have
never existed in Europe (HIWAS, TWEB, WAAS, LAAS, many types of briefings)
however general flight information service (VFR Flight Following) is available
in most places, and VFR pilots may elect to use it or not, as in the US.

>
>I am a great fan of GPS and use my IFR KLN94/KMD550 for navigation
>100% of the time, but I also like my VOR, DME and ADF. The ADF is
>mandatory in much of Europe anyway, and there are large stretches of
>France, Spain, etc, where you can't pick up a VOR but can pick up some
>NDB, so you still have a nav backup to the GPS. In the 3rd world, an
>ADF is a must. Also, for those who like to route via navaids for the
>above backup reasons, the ability to route via an NDB gives you
>additional VFR route planning options.
>

I do not see many places in Europe where you don't have several VOR's
available, and I don't know of any places where one must use NDB's for en-route
navigation. On the other hand, there are quite a few NDB approaches, at many
smaller airports the only instrument approach will be an NDB - and even
though there is usually a perfunctory GPS overlay, the Europeans have basically
elected to trash free GPS in order to benefit from the priviledge of waiting
another ten years and paying high user fees for Galileo, so the whole
constellation of GPS-based services for IFR approaches is simply a non-starter
in Europe.

GF

> I withdrew my letter.

What does this mean? Why did you do it?

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Ross Richardson wrote:
> I am puzzled also. Even some newly commisioned ILS approaches require
> ADFs to locate the outermarker for hold. We had one at a local airport

You can hold over an NDB using GPS -- no ADF required. See AIM 1-1-19
or a prior thread started by me last month relating to legal use of GPS
as a substitute for NDB and DME.

> The way GPS has been handled in the UK is completely stupid, and it's
> too late to do anything about it. A whole generation of pilots has
> come out of the system sincerely believing its use is (various forms
> of) illegal.

Would you feel the same in reverse? Suppose Croatia had developed some
nifty technology which provided worldwide navigation coverage by (say)
sending a neutrino beam into the upper atmosphere and measuring the
backscattering with a five pound piece of electronics and a square foot
of tin foil. (real tin, not aluminum). Would the FAA approve that for
IFR flight in the US, relying on Croatia's neutrino beam?

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Later in AIM 1-1-19:
"(8) For TSO-C129/129A users, any required alternate airport must still
have an approved instrument approach procedure other than GPS that is
anticipated to be operational and available at the estimated time of
arrival, and which the aircraft is equipped to fly. If the non-GPS
approaches on which the pilot must rely require DME or ADF, the
aircraft must be equipped with DME or ADF avionics as appropriate."

I interpret the second sentence to refine the first sentence. So:

1) I can file and shoot an ILS that says ADF or DME required (e.g., for
the hold or to identify fixes) even if I don't have an ADF or DME as
long as I have a TSO-C129/129A GPS;
2) if I file an alternate, it must be an airport not requiring GPS; and
3) if that alternate needs ADF or DME, I have to have ADF or DME.

I believe this requirement is imposed in the event you lose GPS or RAIM.

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > The way GPS has been handled in the UK is completely stupid, and it's
> > too late to do anything about it. A whole generation of pilots has
> > come out of the system sincerely believing its use is (various forms
> > of) illegal.
>
> Would you feel the same in reverse? Suppose Croatia had developed some
> nifty technology which provided worldwide navigation coverage by (say)
> sending a neutrino beam into the upper atmosphere and measuring the
> backscattering with a five pound piece of electronics and a square foot
> of tin foil. (real tin, not aluminum). Would the FAA approve that for
> IFR flight in the US, relying on Croatia's neutrino beam?
>
> Jose

That's not a very good analogy. What you need to add to that is that the
neutrino source is carefully designed so that the Croats can turn it off
whenever they want, but only for everybody else; they can still get the
signal with their special tinfoil that nobody else knows how to make.

I disagree. I think Galileo will work fine, and will find good application in
aviation, both commercial and private. Part of me understands the "we don't
want to depend on a system the US can switch off" argument. But the European
solution is no better - The public will have to pay the fees to develop the
system, and the users will have to pay usage fees, and the benefits will be
distributed in the form of massive, windfall profits to companies like
Alcatel, to add the the massive, windfall profits they are already receiving
from other public works type projects.It seems to be written into the
European constitutions that any public project must involve huge profits to
one or several of a small constellation of companies, with strong government
ties and who are always in court for allegations of illegal campaign
contributions. The fact that something so useful could just be free and
available seems to rub them the wrong way. Also the police will want their
hands in the mix, so they can better track peoples' movements.

Worst of all, GA in Europe is already 20 years behind the US in technology,
(I love the mouse-in-the-tailwheel anecdote)and this will add another 10. As
for receiving equipment, I'm hoping they allow Garmin, King etc, who know
what they're doing, to sell boxes that work - because if they start to get
protectionist about that end of it, as they often do, then ther'll be more
years to wait while Alcatel develops their own box, during which period any
airplane with a GPS receiver in it may be seized by customs authorities....

I suppose from a military standpoint it is simply not acceptable to be
dependant on technology controlled by another country, but civil users would
be oh so much better off if they could just benefit from the GPS revolution
as the Americans are doing.

GF





In article >,
says...








>It's a poor analogy. There is the non-trivial issue of economic
>dependence.
>
>The #1 guarantee (if anything in life - other than death - can be
>guaranteed) of GPS availability is US economic dependence on it.
>
>Of course the US can turn it off, in an instant. But they WON'T.
>(Short of a 9/11-type situation but much worse, and then none of us
>will be flying anyway)
>
>The morally and intellectually superior Europeans (I am a European
>too) just don't get it. So they are doing their own GPS which will
>ultimately be "guaranteed" (or not) in precisely the same way as the
>US one.
>
>Galileo will be irrelevant for a very long time, because
>
>a) existing receivers will not be able to receive the signal, and the
>US one is free and works
>
>b) the charging plans (in the aviation context) can be linked only to
>GPS approaches (because the US one is fine for en route) and for a
>very long time, possibly for ever, the only European airports that
>will have GPS approaches will be those with conventional approaches as
>well, and they can be and are routinely flown with "GPS assistance"
>
>The indications are that Galileo will find a use in road charging...

On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 14:41:58 +0000 (UTC), (Roy Smith) wrote:

>Doug > wrote:
>>I personally have not seen any GPS approaches that use the glideslope
>>feature of the 480, but I may have been missing something. I agree,
>>that a glideslpe for a non-precision approach is a great idea and if
>>the 480 can do it, then that is the one to have (for a price no doubt).
>
>I fly them all the time. I must admit that I don't understand all the
>nuances of exactly which approaches have it (i.e. even some that don't
>have VNAV minima published on the plate), but the bottom line is a
>message pops up on the GNS-480 display saying, "LNAV/VNAV", and the
>glide slope needle comes alive. From there on, just keep the needles
>in the donut, just like on an ILS.
>
>Installed price is about $10k.

Roy,

The approaches that are not LNAV/VNAV may have what is called "advisory
vertical guidance". They are still LNAV approaches with LNAV minima. On a
Jepp chart you can tell because you will see a GP angle indication as well
as a dotted line extension past the VDP, if there is one.

The CNX80 still labels them LNAV/VNAV in flight unless/until the VPL goes
out of limits.

Also, the GP should be good down to about 50' AGL.

It's a really neat thing. Alas, with the moving of the WAAS satellite,
mine usually reverts to LNAV only at about the FAF. Hopefully with the new
satellite launch this fall, it'll get better.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Peter,

> So if their GPS packs up
> (and there is a certain inescapable probability of that happening, one
> which increases dramatically with outdoor parking, and bad luck) what
> do you do?
>

That kind of reasoning would keep you from flying at all - just one
engine, remember?

In Europe, you cannot fly much IFR without a BRNAV system. That means at
least a Garmin 430 for most people. THAT is the way routes are planned,
not with ADF.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

In article >,
says...


>
>In Europe, you cannot fly much IFR without a BRNAV system. That means at
>least a Garmin 430 for most people. THAT is the way routes are planned,
>not with ADF.
>

I think you would be in some trouble trying to tell EUROCONTROL people that
their system requires an American GPS! ;-) The B-RNAV requirement (only
above FL115 and in busy terminal areas) can be met with a KNS-80 type
DME integrator as well, though I agree obviously a Garmin-type GPS is by
far the easiest way to do it, and the most precise. The European rules are
really based on airline traffic requirements - they will be moving from
B-RNAV to P-RNAV requirements possibly this year - once again only for
airline operations in major terminal areas. They are not in the least
concerned with smaller airports, which often do have NDB approaches, with
or without GPS overlay.

There are some differences between European countries. You see some GA
activity at Munich, where they even have a GA terminal - not sure about
Berlin or Frankfurt. In France GA aircraft, even bizjets are not admitted
at the major platforms. You have to get down to airports the size of Nantes
before you start to see a mix.

I was watching traffic at Boston Logan a few days ago, and I have the
impression there were almost as many GA movements as Airliners. Mostly
Gulfstreams and Hawkers, of course, but I even saw a C-182 take off
(possibly an "angel" flight). Never see that at Charles de Gaulle!

GF

Greg,

> There are some differences between European countries. You see some GA
> activity at Munich, where they even have a GA terminal - not sure about
> Berlin or Frankfurt.
>

Well, look at my sig - I live these differences.

FWIW, you couldn't be more wrong about Munich - it is the place with the
least GA traffic in all of Germany.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

In article >,
Peter > wrote:

> a) existing receivers will not be able to receive the signal, and the
> US one is free and works

The Europeans and the US have always had different ideas about charging for
navigation services. Back in the 60s (50s?), while the US was building
Loran (free for anybody to use), the Europeans were building DECCA
(available for a fee). In the US, anybody can reprint government charts.
In the UK (for example), charts carry a Crown Copyright. It's not
surprising the same pattern has been followed for GPS.

You can't list an alternate that requires ADF or DME, whether for the
approach or to identify fixes.

In article >,
says...

>
>FWIW, you couldn't be more wrong about Munich - it is the place with the
>least GA traffic in all of Germany.
>

All I said was that there is GA traffic there, and a GA terminal.
Both statements are true. For the other airports, not having been there, I
said I didn't know. GF

My point to the FAA was that this was a brand new commisioned ILS and
why require the need for the ADF. As I explained the hold point at the
outer marker could be defined 3 different ways. The response was that of
pilot work load. When the new procedure was proposed, the missed
approach routing took you about 35 miles to complete the missed, go to
the holding point and then return. I withdrew the request. Actually, it
was never a request; I was just asking why they required the ADF on a
newly commisioned ILS. The published procedure requires ADF. I have a
IFR GPS so it really isn't an issue to me.

Jose wrote:

>> I withdrew my letter.
>
>
> What does this mean? Why did you do it?
>
> Jose

Yes, but what started this was that the FAA published a brand new ILS
approach REQUIRING an ADF. I was asking the FAA, why as there were other
ways to identify the holding point with out an ADF. I have a GPS do just
that.

Ross

rps wrote:

> Ross Richardson wrote:
>
>>I am puzzled also. Even some newly commisioned ILS approaches require
>>ADFs to locate the outermarker for hold. We had one at a local airport
>
>
> You can hold over an NDB using GPS -- no ADF required. See AIM 1-1-19
> or a prior thread started by me last month relating to legal use of GPS
> as a substitute for NDB and DME.
>

In article >,
says...
>
>
>
> Greg Farris > wrote:
>
>>I think you would be in some trouble trying to tell EUROCONTROL people that
>>their system requires an American GPS! ;-)
>
>Actually that *is* the case.

Is not the case, because of your later statement : "Airliners meet BRNAV using
INS".
The Eurocontrol people writing the B-RNAV/P-RNAV requirements are only thinking
of airliners. They do not even think for a second that there may be GA users of
the system, and if they do they think that all that traffic will be below FL115
(or 095, depending on the country).


>>concerned with smaller airports, which often do have NDB approaches, with
>>or without GPS overlay.
>
>Not sure what you mean. Airliners meet BRNAV using INS. GA could do
>that too - would affect the W&B of a typical SEP somewhat though :)


All I meant was that there are still many approaches that can ONLY be legally
flown with a real ADF. The system evolution isn't paying much attention to
these, because airliners are not using these airports, so it's as though they
don't exist.


>
>Probably because of the landing fees. You can fly VFR or IFR GA to any
>major European airport if you really want to (with restrictions e.g.
>LEMG: no VFR on certain days of the week).


EDDM publishes a minimum requirement "IFR aircraft with a maximum takeoff weight
of over two tons may use the airport". The Paris airports are, of course, in
Class A airspace, so no VFR is possible at any time, and I doubt that any price
would get your PA28 into LFPG or LFPO. Le Bourget is off-limits to VFR at all
times as well, but you can get in IFR if you pay the fee.


>They don't have landing
>fees in the USA, generally.

They do at the larger airports - and quite prohibitive too at JFK or Logan, I
believe.
That's why, when I see a 182 at one of these airports I assume it might be an
"angel" flight, because they get the fees waived.

GF

In article >,
says...

>>
>>Is not the case, because of your later statement : "Airliners meet BRNAV
using
>>INS".
>
>In the GA context it is the case though.

To the people designing the system, there is no "GA context".
If they thought for one second theywere writing rules that required anyone to
use American GPS, they would write them differently.



>>
>>All I meant was that there are still many approaches that can ONLY be legally
>>flown with a real ADF. The system evolution isn't paying much attention to
>>these, because airliners are not using these airports, so it's as though they
>>don't exist.
>
>Actually, a lot of the cheap airlines (e.g. Ryanair) do fly to such
>airports.
>
Nah - we're talking about yet another category of airport.
Are you aware of low-costs scheduling service into airports without an ILS?



>The Paris airports are, of course, in
>>Class A airspace, so no VFR is possible at any time,
>
>Surely you can do SVFR? That's how one flies VFR into EGJJ for
>example.
>

SVFR in Class A? Please do explain. :-)

GF

Greg,

> The Eurocontrol people writing the B-RNAV/P-RNAV requirements are only thinking
> of airliners. They do not even think for a second that there may be GA users of
> the system, and if they do they think that all that traffic will be below FL115
> (or 095, depending on the country).
>

Ok, so tell us again your experience with and relation to flying in Europe?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

In article >,
says...

>>
>
>Ok, so tell us again your experience with and relation to flying in Europe?
>
>--

I have the pleasure and frustration of flying the systems in the US and Europe,
and seeing how one regulatory system takes full consideration of the needs and
uses of GA, while the other, often accused of trying to squeeze out GA,
actually operates in complete non-recognition of it.

I may be wrong. Surely you believe the RNAV rules in Europe are really
developed with the GA user in mind? Surely you believe GPS random routes with
uplink weather and WAAS precision approaches are only weeks away throughout
Europe.

GF

In article >,
says...

>Nah - we're talking about yet another category of airport.
>Are you aware of low-costs scheduling service into airports without an ILS?

>La Rochelle in France is on example. Trieste (Italy) is another.
>Ryanair and Easyjet. There must be loads of them.


Both have ILS approaches. I'm not trying to be argumentative about it,
perhaps you'll find one and I'll stand corrected, but I do think there are a
lot of airports that are more or les "forgotten" because they are not really
adequate for air carrier use, and some of them just have an NDB approach,
requiring a real ADF (which was the origin of this thread, a long time ago).
Look at Besancon, in France - Many GA pilots may want to fly in there (and do)
but the only published instrument approach is an NDB, with no GPS overlay.


>
>SVFR in Class A? Please do explain. :-)

>Do I need to?


Nope - N/A
Really - you *cannot* fly a small plane into the major French airports, unless
you're interested in visiting the slimy side of a major French penal
establishment!


>I would suggest they were developed in the knowledge that that (very
>small) part of GA, very small because of the tiny population of pilots
>with a full IR, is able to look after themselves.

Obviously I agree the document writers know that IFR/GA exists. I don't
seriously pretend otherwise. But having to fend for themselves when there are
few or inadequate specific provisions to do so is a bit unwelcoming. I honestly
do believe there is a bit of "let'em cool their heels" attitude while waiting
for Galileo to come on line. That's why I keep saying I don't think they would
explicitly or implicitly "mandate" US-based GPS for any application. When
Galileo is up and running, and a fee system to pour money into a few
"sweetheart" companies, then the system will begin to develop for GA as well,
and there will be a whole host of new services, new requirements, and new
opportunities to get rid of some spare cash.


GF

Greg Farris > wrote:
>In article >,
>>They don't have landing fees in the USA, generally.
>
>They do at the larger airports - and quite prohibitive too at JFK or Logan, I
>believe.
>That's why, when I see a 182 at one of these airports I assume it might be an
>"angel" flight, because they get the fees waived.

Landing fees in the US are all over the map; generally, larger airports
charge more, but there isn't the "what are *you* doing here" attitude
that I've gotten from my (granted, small) experience with French GA; in
the US, if you're willing to pay up, they're happy to have you.

JFK landing fee (off-peak) for a light aircraft is $25; higher than most,
but hardly prohibitive. PHL and IAD are cheaper. Logan, however, *is*
almost certainly prohoibitively expensive, but the fees get rearranged
often and seem to be charged subject to whim in any case so who knows.
(Really, most places I've dealt with Signature, they may be pricey, but
they've provided good service for the price. Their Logan operation loses
on both fronts.)

> Logan, however, *is*
> almost certainly prohoibitively expensive, but the fees get rearranged
> often and seem to be charged subject to whim in any case so who knows.

Some years back I got in on five bucks. They were having a sale.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article >,
says...
>
>
>> Logan, however, *is*
>> almost certainly prohoibitively expensive, but the fees get rearranged
>> often and seem to be charged subject to whim in any case so who knows.
>
>Some years back I got in on five bucks. They were having a sale.
>

Amazing!!
LOTS of GA at Logan, of course - but mostly guys who consider $1000 to
be just one and a few zeros.

GF

Greg Farris > wrote:

> Amazing!!
> LOTS of GA at Logan, of course - but mostly guys who consider $1000 to
> be just one and a few zeros.

Or Angel Flights. No fees are charged to those GA pilots who land at
Logan for an Angel Flight.


--
Peter

Doug wrote:
> New usage for ADF's. Listen to ball games and deduce TFR's.
>
That's a pretty good reason to keep your ADF receiver (assuming you have
panel space) Backup for other navaids is not such a bad idea, too.

When is the last time any of us flew an NDB approach, even in practice?
It's been months and months for me.

> When is the last time any of us flew an NDB approach, even in practice?
> It's been months and months for me.

Yesterday... I keep myself night and instrument current, to include
all installed equipment (I have an ADF).

Best regards,

Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocations!"
--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO
CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer<at>frii.com http://users.frii.com/jer/
C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot BM218 HAM N0FZD 240 Young Eagles!

Julian Scarfe wrote:
> Can anyone point me to data regarding the proportions of the US GA
> IFR-capable fleet that have:
>
> A Both an ADF and an approach-approved GPS
> B An ADF but no approach-approved GPS
> C An approach-approved GPS but no ADF
> D Neither
> ?
>
> Either piece of equipment counts only if it is serviceable.
>
> Alternatively, would anyone like to take a guess at the %ages? This is
> Usenet after all, and we shouldn't let facts cloud the issue. ;-)

Take a look at the AOPA 2006 Aviation Fact Card.
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/060419factcard.html

Dave