+V discussion moved to the +V thread
Navaid substitution discussion moved here
This must be somewhat of an underestimate because I’ve personally instructed four UK IR’s in the last couple of years in students own aircraft, one of whom did not have an ADF fitted and required long flights to/from the Channel Islands to find a suitably acceptable approach.
I am sure there are some who did it but the majority are less vocal about it though…for my case it just did not work (maybe I was too vocal that my aircraft had INOP ADF 
)
Someone in UK SE may have to move his aircraft to Glocs, Hawarden or Lydd and fly far away to tick the box (not sure if Jersey is possible now for IR test?)
In UK, it’s very rare, maybe max 5 owners in the last 20 years managed to do IR test in their own aircraft?
This must be somewhat of an underestimate because I’ve personally instructed four UK IR’s in the last couple of years in students own aircraft, one of whom did not have an ADF fitted and required long flights to/from the Channel Islands to find a suitably acceptable approach.
I would point out that I needed to spend a fair bit of time reviewing aircraft paperwork and asking the owners for more.
The list of requirements that Rate One request is based on UK examiner requirements. Sometimes it may be possible to negotiate around those.
It seems pretty common now to fly an ILS and LNAV during the initial IR test to include both RNP and precision approaches – arguably one benefit of not having an LPV option in the UK.
because EU regulations don’t permit RNAV equipment to be used in lieu of traditional navigation (“fix substitution”).
I don’t think so. The regs do not allow substitution of equipment carried.
The US allows some of that, but with various conditions e.g. on which part of the procedure the substitution is not allowed.
Even with the changes the coming autumn
Is this on some EU website?
Peter wrote:
Do you have a reference for the above text?That is just procedural gold plating.
That’s implicit – if nothing else because EU regulations don’t permit RNAV equipment to be used in lieu of traditional navigation (“fix substitution”). Even with the changes the coming autumn, this will not be allowed in all cases, particularly not for final approach guidance. (But it would be allowed for an NDB hold.)
Anyway, if you do carry an ADF, why not have it tuned and identified for cross-checking? It doesn’t do any harm…
Some commercial operators have their mannuals approved by NAA and yes some don’t hand fly the NDB on “pilot interpreted raw data” from ADF, they fly them with 3D magenta guidance on PFD with autopilot hooked like ILS or RNP….you need to have the airport in your FMS data-base to fly and ADF to stay legal
I think it’s company specific: AirFrance & Transavia has such capability, they can still fly NDB hands off if ILS is U/S…RyanAir does not have such capability and they fly them with their hands & feets on neddles all way down: while they have a top safety record, they were one inch from killing 300 people twice on NDB !
All airliners will have ADF bolted somewhere to listen to music or thunderstorms cells, there is plenty of cockpit space and it’s cheap to fit as it’s never gets integrated with FMS Navigator & Autopilot…
The obsession on using it for primary flying or as cross check is left to debate between private pilots…this is only relevant during IR tests, when one flies he really does what he wishes as long as he carries one (anyone else finds that non-stop ADF music to be annoying? or disorientating?)
as long as you have an ADF with the NDB tuned and identified and cross check with the ADF needle.
Do you have a reference for the above text?
That is just procedural gold plating. Not unusual on British and perhaps European AOC ops (even where they fly the FMS-generated “synthetic ILS” into [insert Greek island], having requested an NDB or VOR approach) although I have spoken to one twin TP AOC pilot, Italy, who said the NDB merely must not be notamed INOP.
The regs are just equipment carriage.
Peter wrote:
It isn’t illegal.
To clarify: It’s not illegal to use a tablet or any other kind of navigation device, certified or not, for course guidance on an NDB approach, as long as you have an ADF with the NDB tuned and identified and cross check with the ADF needle.
it’s illegal
It isn’t illegal.
But this is nothing to do with Equipment requirements for European IR training and test.
I disagree. In my neck of the woods the NDB is available to every runway and at one airfield its your only option. In therefore should be taught and frankly tested.
While I agree on the principal, the NDB is useless in practice you can do well with 50£ tablet (it’s illegal but works well down to 500ft agl better than NDB, talking from personal experience of shooting coastal NDB down to it’s minima, I was lucky the only thing that saved the show was the water under), now I give up: bolted a pannel GPS and moving map, one can’t afford to be dumb & lucky twice…
If the goal is “to do with what we have in aerodromes” then why not let people fly an NDB on it’s GPS overlay with LNAV+V during IR initial test & revalidations that would be a good start?
How people would fly them privately or commercially: well I trust one is either very skilled and current to try or is not stupid to use an NDB in real weather? it’s very unforgiving out there 
There is a good reason why CAA recommands 600ft agl as absolute minima for IMCR holders: it’s simply impossible to fly NDB in unfamiliar places bellow 500ft agl (I could fly LPV to 50ft and ILS to 200ft but I figure out I can’t fly NDB bellow 500ft & 2km visbility without killing myself? I am really surprised some people are can fly that in real life: it’s impressive the amount of superior skills & currency some have to be able to do it safely: hand flying NDB to 300ft agl? it just happens we never head any of these “NDB masters” on frequency when it’s murky & windy in Scotland)
