ADF and GPS equip %

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)

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

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 . com,
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

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

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

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