When was the last time you used your ADF?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

I once made an NDB approach in IMC to a field whose ILS approach was
pointing downwind at the time. Usually, though, my use of the ADF is for
an ILS's LOM.

What field?

FRG (Farmingdale, NY).

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 13:52:49 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

I once made an NDB approach in IMC to a field whose ILS approach was
pointing downwind at the time. Usually, though, my use of the ADF is for
an ILS's LOM.


What field?

At one time, maybe they still do, TVC (Traverse City) had an NDB
approach off what was also the LOM on the ILS. Of course it was
pointed in the same direction as the ILS, but you could do a circle to
land off it. OTOH they also had a VOR that would have been a lot
easier and made more sense, at least to me.

Actually I remember that one as the DE had me fly that NDB for a
circle to land on my check ride and it was down wind against opposing
traffic. We must have looked kinda strange coming down the approach
to those airliners getting ready to depart.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Use it at SLN (Salina,Kansas). FLORY (344) is the OM.
I like to use the ADF. It helps complement the GPS and VOR systems.
It is a fun to tune into a A.M. radio station and have the needle point
to the town where the signal originates. Fastenates the passengers.
Besides, how else can you keep up with the latest news, sports, talk
shows, or country music.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

I once made an NDB approach in IMC to a field whose ILS approach was
pointing downwind at the time. Usually, though, my use of the ADF is for
an ILS's LOM.


What field?

Roy Smith wrote:
At this point, I can't imagine doing any
serious IFR flying without a GPS, and once you've got a GPS, there's just
absolutely no need for an ADF anymore (except for those very rare
exceptions of fields which only have an NDB approach and no GPS overlay,
and even then I'm not sure I'd be able to resist the urge to cheat).

I suspect you would not be able to resist the urge to cheat. If you
did, you would be the first one I know.

I don't have IFR GPS, and because of this shoot a lot of NDB
approaches. I've probably shot at least a dozen to within 200 ft of
MDA, a few in conditions where the airport could not be spotted from
more than 2 miles away in the fog and mist.

They are legally NDB approaches in the sense that I have an ADF in the
plane, and it works (and works well - on a quiet night I can tune in
NDB's as much as 60 miles away). In reality, I have LORAN and VFR GPS,
and either by itself is more accurate and more reliable than any ADF.
So the reality of my operation is that I always tune in the ADF, verify
reception, and proceed to shoot the approach using LORAN and GPS. I
will crosscheck with the ADF to make sure it's pointed pretty much
where it's supposed to be, but I don't try to make 1 degree corrections
with it. It's simply not accurate enough for that, and when the filed
is at mins and I have a real need to be there, I want to fly the best,
most accurate approach I can so I know exactly where to look for the
airport in the limited amount of time I will have to find it before
going missed.

Everyone I know who flies NDB approaches does something similar. Of
course if an FAA inspector were to ask me, I would tell him I flew the
NDB approach - and there would be no way for him to prove otherwise.

I used to make ADF-only NDB approaches part of my recurrent training
cycle, and I could consistently perform them to ATP standards after a
little practice - but I've decided that it's just not worth the time
anymore. GPS is just too accurate, too reliable, and too cheap to fly
IFR without it. Even I have faced the reality that the only value in
this day and age to being able to shoot an NDB approach without a VFR
GPS is being able to brag about having done it.

What bothers me is the loss of the ADF from the training environment.
The ADF forced the student to understand the difference between
heading, bearing, track, and course. That understanding, when
internalized, has intrinsic value (in terms of situational awareness,
over and above the strictly positional awareness that moving map GPS
has also made obsolete) in flying IFR. With careful attention to
detail on the part of both instructor and student this can be taught
without the ADF, but based on how many people complain of the extra
training time required to teach NDB approaches, I don't think it's
happening - mainly because without the ADF, there's no easy way to test
it on the checkride.

Michael

Michael wrote:

snip
What bothers me is the loss of the ADF from the training environment.
The ADF forced the student to understand the difference between
heading, bearing, track, and course.

Is it not possible to teach these same concepts using the GPS? Those
concepts are all relative to the GPS, too, no?

--
Peter

In article ,
"Peter R." wrote:

Michael wrote:

snip
What bothers me is the loss of the ADF from the training environment.
The ADF forced the student to understand the difference between
heading, bearing, track, and course.

Is it not possible to teach these same concepts using the GPS? Those
concepts are all relative to the GPS, too, no?

In theory, yes. In practice, "follow the purple line" works pretty well,
even if you don't really understand what you're doing.

Peter R. wrote:
What bothers me is the loss of the ADF from the training environment.
The ADF forced the student to understand the difference between
heading, bearing, track, and course.

Is it not possible to teach these same concepts using the GPS? Those
concepts are all relative to the GPS, too, no?

Those concepts are relative to ANY method of navigation. It's just
that with some forms of navigation, you can get by with not really
understanding the difference most - but not all - of the time.

So yes, it's possible - but not terribly likely to happen, in the same
way that it's possible to teach a student to consistently fly and land
at the correct airspeed and to touch down at a consistent pitch
attitude and with the longitudinal axis aligned with the runway in a
C-172, but usually it doesn't happen. The proof is that most pilots
trained in a C-172 can't just sit down in a C-170 and fly it - but some
can. On the other hand, a C-170 pilot can always get in a C-172 and
fly it. That's because his skill set is more general - it always
works. But if you want an airplane for practical purposes - getting
from point A to point B reliably - the C-172 is clearly the better
airplane.

So why won't most students learn the right way in the C-172 (or with a
GPS rather than an ADF?) It's just too easy to do it to PTS standards
the wrong way. Why is it wrong? Because while it works most of the
time, there are situations where it will bite you.

In the training environment, there is a tradeoff between how good a
pilot and how good a teacher an instructor must be. In an airplane
with 2 nav-coms, an ADF, and a standard six-pack (and nothing else) you
better be a good IFR pilot if you're going to teach in IMC (there is a
special place reserved in hell for CFII's who won't teach in IMC) or
you're likely to lose SA, and maybe the airplane too. But if the
student manages to learn (even if he has to teach himself) he will
learn (some of) the right things. With a setup like that, if he can do
the (ILS, VOR, and NDB) approaches and consistenly find himself on the
map or approach plate, he has learned the difference between heading,
bearing, course, track, and radial - even if he can't really explain it
- and has developed situational awareness. This will be the case even
if his instructor can't teach. Of course he may never learn at all,
but then he won't get the rating and won't be dangerous.

Now let's say you have two 430's, a PFD, and backup AI, ASI, and
altimeter. Instructing in IMC becomes a breeze - almost any CFII can
do it. What's more, the flying is much easier. Just follow the line.
There's a problem with this, though. Just following the line won't
ALWAYS work. There are still situations where you need real SA. But
they're hard to simulate, harder to teach, and still harder to test.
It takes a really good teacher to get the student to understand why the
difference between heading, bearing, course, track, and radial is
important, and get the student to learn the differences, internalize
them, and develop true situational awareness of which positional
awareness is only a subset. The better equipment calls for a more
skilled teacher, who need not be a particularly skilled pilot.

Michael

I wasn't sure, so I checked my plane. It doesn't seem to have an ADF.

I used to use them occasionally for listening to ball game scores. I
guess that need hasn't arisen since I've had my plane.

On 6 Jun 2006 18:35:51 -0700, wrote:

Hello all,

I'm just curious as to when the last time was that you used your ADF
for actual navigation? Are NDBs common in the US? It seems as though
every little airport has an ILS!

-dr

I use it occasionally for IAP's to my home base, as it is usually a shorter
approach than the GPS approaches; and, since it is on the field, I can
convert to a visual approach (or cancel IFR) if weather permits and I have
the field in sight.

I always use it at my home field to obtain the local altimeter setting,
which allows for lower minimums and is only available on the NDB frequency.

I rarely use it on an ILS to ID the OM, but I set it to that frequency in
case my GPS malfunctions on the approach.


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

Its recently been added as a resquirement for the ILS 02 for KSAC. For
decades we've been flying that approach w/o ADF, apparently the FAA has
recently decided that ADFs are important.

-Robert


wrote:
Hello all,

I'm just curious as to when the last time was that you used your ADF
for actual navigation? Are NDBs common in the US? It seems as though
every little airport has an ILS!

-dr