NDB IAPs... going... gone

[[email protected]]

I got a much thicker than usual packet from Jeppesen yesterday, and the
bulk of the changes were the removal of dozens of NDB IAPs. I had heard
that the FAA was looking to decomission a lot of "redundant" NDB
appoaches, but was surprised to see that they were really gone so soon.

I guess there's nothing wrong with that, progress and all. But, having
only done a few years of instrument flying (and never flying an NDB
approach for "real") I was surprised at the sadness and nostalgia I
felt for some old practice favorites I was pulling out of my book. OAK
NDB 27R :(

That said, I really hope they don't take away the compass locators on
localizer and ILS approaches. I don't know why, but I love watching
that needle flip around when I pass the marker. It's very satisfying
having a totally separate and simple system confirm your location. But
I guess they'll be going soon, too, as there's little reason to
maintain them.

I feel like my flying club is one of the last holdouts on getting IFR
GPSes in their aircraft, but considering the number of RNAV/GPS plates
that are going *into* the books, I think the writing is on the wall.

-- dave j

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, said:
>That said, I really hope they don't take away the compass locators on
>localizer and ILS approaches. I don't know why, but I love watching

Here in Rochester, they rewrote the ILS approaches to use intersections
instead of the BREIT LOM first several months ago, and then decomissioned
the NDB28 approach that used BREIT last revision.

>I feel like my flying club is one of the last holdouts on getting IFR
>GPSes in their aircraft, but considering the number of RNAV/GPS plates
>that are going *into* the books, I think the writing is on the wall.

Yeah, we're dealing with that decision too. It's not the paying for (at
least) 5 GPSes that worries us, it's the cost of 5 database updates since
Garmin won't give a bulk discount.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Sometimes, when a luser makes an unreasonable demand, the best thing
to do is let them have exactly what they ask for.
-- Joe Zeff

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>
> Here in Rochester, they rewrote the ILS approaches to use intersections
> instead of the BREIT LOM first several months ago, and then decomissioned
> the NDB28 approach that used BREIT last revision.
>

Probably just a coincidence. Other NDB approaches have been deleted where
the LOMs remain in use.

[Scott Moore]

wrote:
> I got a much thicker than usual packet from Jeppesen yesterday, and the
> bulk of the changes were the removal of dozens of NDB IAPs. I had heard
> that the FAA was looking to decomission a lot of "redundant" NDB
> appoaches, but was surprised to see that they were really gone so soon.
>
> I guess there's nothing wrong with that, progress and all. But, having
> only done a few years of instrument flying (and never flying an NDB
> approach for "real") I was surprised at the sadness and nostalgia I
> felt for some old practice favorites I was pulling out of my book. OAK
> NDB 27R :(
>
> That said, I really hope they don't take away the compass locators on
> localizer and ILS approaches. I don't know why, but I love watching
> that needle flip around when I pass the marker. It's very satisfying
> having a totally separate and simple system confirm your location. But
> I guess they'll be going soon, too, as there's little reason to
> maintain them.
>
> I feel like my flying club is one of the last holdouts on getting IFR
> GPSes in their aircraft, but considering the number of RNAV/GPS plates
> that are going *into* the books, I think the writing is on the wall.
>
> -- dave j
>

See if you can get ahold of one they are ripping out cheap, then set it
up in your back yard and run practice approaches with it.

No, not kidding. Surely the FAA/FCC would let someone set one up
in Arizona or something for all the old guys to use. Can you still set
up a four course range ?

[Stan Gosnell]

wrote in news:1124299768.827960.63060
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> That said, I really hope they don't take away the compass locators on
> localizer and ILS approaches. I don't know why, but I love watching
> that needle flip around when I pass the marker. It's very satisfying
> having a totally separate and simple system confirm your location. But
> I guess they'll be going soon, too, as there's little reason to
> maintain them.

Those have been going away for years. It's now somewhat rare to find an
LOM on an ILS approach.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

[[email protected]]

I could not agree more. It's a totally new ongoing expense. It used to
be that pilots were responsible for their own nav data (ie, charts and
plates) and now the club is going to be responsible for it. Just a bit
more squeeze, especially considering that the pilots are still going to
have to have current charts/plates.

It would be better if there were some other suppliers who could provide
database updates -- giving a little competition. I think that some of
the smaller handheld GPS companies don't use Jepp data, but take the
gov't data and reformat it themselves and provide it for their
customers.

Does Jepp have some kind of exclusive contract with the gov't?

-- dave j

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, said:
>It would be better if there were some other suppliers who could provide
>database updates -- giving a little competition. I think that some of
>the smaller handheld GPS companies don't use Jepp data, but take the
>gov't data and reformat it themselves and provide it for their
>customers.

The ones that don't use Jepp data are generally using DAFIF, which may be
going away soon. See http://navaid.com/dafif.html for details. They also
have the huge advantage that because they're doing data for handhelds,
PDAs and/or flight simulators, they don't have large liability concerns
the way Jepp does. Jepp charges a lot for their data because morons like
Ron Brown's familiy sues them for an accident that is not their fault.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
DON'T MAKE THAT FACE WHEN I TELL YOU TO READ THE F*CKING MANUAL! IT'S GOOD FOR
YOU I SAY! How do you think I found out how the machine works? DID I SIT
AROUND ASKING SOMEBODY FOR A FEW MONTHS?? -- Beable van Polasm

[Michael]

> No, not kidding. Surely the FAA/FCC would let someone set one up
> in Arizona or something

The FAA couldn't care less. If you don't jump through the hoops to
have it inspected, you can still have it shown on the sectional but it
will be noted as VFR use only.

The FCC will require you to license the transmitter, but it's very
doable.

There are NDB's sitting on private fields. Some even have private
approaches charted, others are VFR only.

Michael

[Mark Hansen]

On 8/17/2005 14:27, Michael wrote:

>> No, not kidding. Surely the FAA/FCC would let someone set one up
>> in Arizona or something
>
> The FAA couldn't care less. If you don't jump through the hoops to
> have it inspected, you can still have it shown on the sectional but it
> will be noted as VFR use only.
>
> The FCC will require you to license the transmitter, but it's very
> doable.
>
> There are NDB's sitting on private fields. Some even have private
> approaches charted, others are VFR only.
>
> Michael
>

Couldn't you just use a local AM radio station? Of course, it's not
likely to be aligned with the runway, but then neither are some other
official approaches.

--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA

[Michael]

> Couldn't you just use a local AM radio station?

Nah. Doesn't really give you the flavor of a real approach. The
transmitter is high quality, high power, and properly tuned so the
needle is rock steady on all but the worst receivers. Listening to the
transmission is not nearly as annoying as listening to those dits and
dahs. Makes it just too easy. :)

Michael

[Mark Hansen]

On 8/17/2005 16:15, Michael wrote:

>> Couldn't you just use a local AM radio station?
>
> Nah. Doesn't really give you the flavor of a real approach. The
> transmitter is high quality, high power, and properly tuned so the
> needle is rock steady on all but the worst receivers. Listening to the
> transmission is not nearly as annoying as listening to those dits and
> dahs. Makes it just too easy. :)
>
> Michael
>

I see your point. I guess I really have no experience flying an ADF
that actually points at the station ;-)

--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA

[Stubby]

Michael wrote:
>>Couldn't you just use a local AM radio station?
>
>
> Nah. Doesn't really give you the flavor of a real approach. The
> transmitter is high quality, high power, and properly tuned so the
> needle is rock steady on all but the worst receivers. Listening to the
> transmission is not nearly as annoying as listening to those dits and
> dahs. Makes it just too easy. :)

The funny thing about using AM stations is the US Government fielded the
old CONELRAD system to prevent the "enemy" from doing this during an
attack. That threat is minimal these days, NDBs are going away, but the
CONELRAD system keeps being revised. I hear several tests every week.

That's how your tax dollars are working for you.

[Eric C. Weaver]

Stubby wrote:

> The funny thing about using AM stations is the US Government fielded the
> old CONELRAD system to prevent the "enemy" from doing this during an
> attack. That threat is minimal these days, NDBs are going away, but the
> CONELRAD system keeps being revised. I hear several tests every week.

The old CONELRAD (CONtrol of ELectromagnetic RADiation) system involved
all AM stations retuning to either 640 or 12-something and switching on
and off. It became obsolete when other missile-lobbing nations
developed inertial navigation, in the '60s or so.

The modern EAS has about as much to do with the old CONELRAD program as
GPSes do with NDBs.

--
Eric Weaver PP-ASEL-IA Studio Engineer, KNGY SF

He worked in local radio, which he always used to tell his friends
was a lot more interesting than they probably thought. -- D. Adams

[[email protected]]

wrote:

> I could not agree more. It's a totally new ongoing expense. It used to
> be that pilots were responsible for their own nav data (ie, charts and
> plates) and now the club is going to be responsible for it. Just a bit
> more squeeze, especially considering that the pilots are still going to
> have to have current charts/plates.
>
> It would be better if there were some other suppliers who could provide
> database updates -- giving a little competition. I think that some of
> the smaller handheld GPS companies don't use Jepp data, but take the
> gov't data and reformat it themselves and provide it for their
> customers.
>
> Does Jepp have some kind of exclusive contract with the gov't?

No, they have a monopoly by default. No one else wants to assume the
highly technical procedures and liability risks that Jeppesen assumes by
massaging, formatting, and often correcting errors in the government
source.

There are other database vendors elsewhere in the world but they aren't
interested in the U.S. general aviation market, especially since most of
their data are for places other then the U.S.

And, this is all going to tighten up even more with the advent of RNP
terminal instrument procedures and their absolute intolerance for any
database errors. Both database compliation organizations (such as
Jeppesen) and avionic vendors that want to participate in the RNP game will
have to be certified by the FAA and issued a letter of authorization
(LOA). These are two different types of LOAs, one for the complilation
entity and another for the avionics vendor. Thus far, Jeppesen and
Honeywell have their LOAs to supply advanced-procedure databases.

And, although this will not immediately affect IFR panel mount avionics
vendors, it is coming because there will be RNP procedures for panel mounts
within a couple or three years.

[Scott Moore]

wrote:
>
> wrote:
>
>
>>I could not agree more. It's a totally new ongoing expense. It used to
>>be that pilots were responsible for their own nav data (ie, charts and
>>plates) and now the club is going to be responsible for it. Just a bit
>>more squeeze, especially considering that the pilots are still going to
>>have to have current charts/plates.
>>
>>It would be better if there were some other suppliers who could provide
>>database updates -- giving a little competition. I think that some of
>>the smaller handheld GPS companies don't use Jepp data, but take the
>>gov't data and reformat it themselves and provide it for their
>>customers.
>>
>>Does Jepp have some kind of exclusive contract with the gov't?
>
>
> No, they have a monopoly by default. No one else wants to assume the
> highly technical procedures and liability risks that Jeppesen assumes by
> massaging, formatting, and often correcting errors in the government
> source.
>

Why not let the goverment do it? They have the ultimate answer to lawsuits,
they don't care if they get sued, it takes forever, and even if they lose,
they pay with someone else's money.

[xyzzy]

Eric C. Weaver wrote:

> Stubby wrote:
>
>> The funny thing about using AM stations is the US Government fielded
>> the old CONELRAD system to prevent the "enemy" from doing this during
>> an attack. That threat is minimal these days, NDBs are going away,
>> but the CONELRAD system keeps being revised. I hear several tests
>> every week.
>
>
> The old CONELRAD (CONtrol of ELectromagnetic RADiation) system involved
> all AM stations retuning to either 640 or 12-something and switching on
> and off. It became obsolete when other missile-lobbing nations
> developed inertial navigation, in the '60s or so.
>
> The modern EAS has about as much to do with the old CONELRAD program as
> GPSes do with NDBs.
>

GPS's have a lot to do with NDBs. An approach-certified GPS is a legal
substitute for an ADF. and it's a heck of a lot easier to fly NDB
radials using GPS than ADF -- no math or card twisting required, just
get the bearing number right and then make the track number match it.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"xyzzy" > wrote in message
...
>
> GPS's have a lot to do with NDBs. An approach-certified GPS is a legal
> substitute for an ADF.

It is in many cases, but an NDB approach isn't one of them.

[Roy Smith]

In article t>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "xyzzy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > GPS's have a lot to do with NDBs. An approach-certified GPS is a legal
> > substitute for an ADF.
>
> It is in many cases, but an NDB approach isn't one of them.

Which has got to be one of the more stupid concepts in aviation.

[Scott Draper]

<<And, this is all going to tighten up even more with the advent of
RNP terminal instrument procedures and their absolute intolerance for
any database errors. >>

Why are these less tolerant of db errors than GPS or WAAS?

[xyzzy]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "xyzzy" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>GPS's have a lot to do with NDBs. An approach-certified GPS is a legal
>>substitute for an ADF.
>
>
> It is in many cases, but an NDB approach isn't one of them.
>
>

A distinction I did not know. thanks for the clarification!

[Dave Butler]

xyzzy wrote:
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>> "xyzzy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> GPS's have a lot to do with NDBs. An approach-certified GPS is a
>>> legal substitute for an ADF.
>>
>>
>>
>> It is in many cases, but an NDB approach isn't one of them.
>>
>
> A distinction I did not know. thanks for the clarification!

xyzzy:

It's a question your flying club's chief instructor likes to ask... so now you
know. :-)

Dave

[xyzzy]

Dave Butler wrote:

> xyzzy wrote:
>
>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>
>>> "xyzzy" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> GPS's have a lot to do with NDBs. An approach-certified GPS is a
>>>> legal substitute for an ADF.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is in many cases, but an NDB approach isn't one of them.
>>>
>>
>> A distinction I did not know. thanks for the clarification!
>
>
> xyzzy:
>
> It's a question your flying club's chief instructor likes to ask... so
> now you know. :-)

Let me get through the instrument checkride first, then I'll worry about
him!

--
"You can support the troops but not the president"
--Representative Tom Delay (R-TX), during the Kosovo war.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Andy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Some, perhaps many, NDB approaches had a GPS overlay approach that
> could be legally flown with an approach approved GPS. When the NDB
> went away so did the approach procedures, including the GPS overlay
> approach. Ref SDL AZ.
>

Looks more like the NDB or GPS-B approach became the RNAV (GPS)-D approach
with the decommissioning of the NDB.

[Andy]

The SDL NDB previously located at KSDL provided an approach to KDVT.
That approach procedure is gone. The RNAV approaches to KDVT do not
provide practice for holding at the IAF/FAF. I'm based at KDVT.

Andy

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Andy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> The SDL NDB previously located at KSDL provided an approach to KDVT.
>

So no more NDB or GPS RWY 25L approach. Instead there's now an RNAV (GPS)
RWY 25L approach. What's the problem with that?


>
> That approach procedure is gone. The RNAV approaches to KDVT do not
> provide practice for holding at the IAF/FAF. I'm based at KDVT.
>

The IAF for the RNAV (GPS) RWY 25L approach to DVT is CIPLU, there is a
charted holding pattern at that fix.