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