ADF and GPS equip %

"Peter" wrote in message
...

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.
....
The other reason for myself wondering about this is that Cirrus, as
standard, have no DME or ADF. I've done the FAA IR recently (in the
USA) and not having a DME really does seem a drawback.

Really? Is it common to attempt to plan a flight and be unable to find a
sensible alternate that has an ILS, VOR or radar approach without a DME
requirement?

Julian

Peter,

not having a DME really does seem a drawback.


How, when you have two GPS receiver very capable of showing distances
(on a map, too)?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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

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.

once you are heading to the alternate this becomes irrelevant and you
can fly the approach with the GPS anyway.

This is true, but irrelevant. If you don't have the ADF when you file,
your options for filing are limited. If you don't have a legal
alternate you can't go. The only way th is is a "way around the regs"
is if you toss the ADF out the window during the flight (and also
complete the necessary paperwork).

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

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.

Which means you need to train
students to fly partial panel NDB approaches (and holds). What a frigging
waste of time and money.

I disagree, although NDB approaches are rarer, learning and doing them
requires (and creates) a better sense of positial awareness, and thus a
better IFR pilot.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

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

I was thinking of the BBC, which, incidentally, is funded by the UK
television licence fee.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/


Your opinion of the BBC may vary, of course, but if you want to decide
for yourself, take a look at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/


Tim.


On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 18:10:17 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:


"Tim Auckland" wrote in message
.. .
and there are places in this world that have informative, unbiased,
commercial-free television channels. Who'd have imagined such a
thing? g

Tim.
On what planet?

On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 07:56:45 +0100, Peter 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.

With a CNX80 or any other box certified under TSO146, there is no
particular restriction as to choice of alternates.


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

"Jose" wrote in message m...
Which means you need to train
students to fly partial panel NDB approaches (and holds). What a frigging
waste of time and money.

I disagree, although NDB approaches are rarer, learning and doing them
requires (and creates) a better sense of positial awareness, and thus a
better IFR pilot.

Jose
--

An RMI presentation, with the ADF pointer on an HSI, not only provides
the positional awareness Jose praises, but it also vaporizes much of
Roy's concern about difficulties in teaching NDB approaches.
The examiner can't demand an NDB approach without the HSI,
and the RMI presentation makes NDB approaches very intuitive.
HSIs are extremely nice instruments, either stand-alone or in PFDs.