NDB IAPs... going... gone

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

"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.

In article et,
"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.

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?

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!