Peter wrote:
In Europe, this usually means you need DME ILS and ADF to be legal and with a useful mission capability.
I agree to DME (with the change that will come in some time as described by Airborne).
On ADF I disagree: This is heavily depending on where you fly. I threw the ADF out 3 years ago and I have never been in the situation where I could not do a flight because of this. The only field I do fly to where there is no alternative to an NDB-approach is Losijni – and I don’t fly there if I can not cancel early in VMC.
Niner_Mike wrote:
Wow, this topic touches nerves.
The problem is not so much that it touches nerves but rather that there are still a significant number of repair shops and CAMOs esp. in Germany that still stick to outdated rules – some because they do not know better, some because they just want to rip off customers. There are still shops out their that sell yearly 1.000 EUR “Avionics Checks” to their custom…- ah – victims …
That’s all true but again it depends on where you “hang out”.
I reckon, for example, a pilot living in France and never flying outside France, and especially if doing just a few standard milk runs, could forget NDB DME ILS VOR etc and just have LPV capability 
Or in the US…
In a radar environment you are legal on an ILS, even if the approach plate also says NDB/DME. You are availing yourself of ATC providing the glide slope check range distance and providing the missed approach instructions which would not use the NDB.
Obviously if radar is NOTAM not available the NDB/DME come back into play.
Lots of aircraft flying radar vector ILS without an NDB, and some without a DME.
RobertL18C wrote:
In a radar environment you are legal on an ILS, even if the approach plate also says NDB/DME. You are availing yourself of ATC providing the glide slope check range distance and providing the missed approach instructions which would not use the NDB.
@RobertL18C I assume that is valid, if the plate does not say “not available without YYY DME”?
Airborne _again
Quote “I’m a bit concerned about all the incorrect information that is spread here by more than one person. When we are talking about equipment for “minimalistic IFR”, we need to distinguish very carefully between two things:”
Development of European law is very difficult to understand from outside.
I’ve gone through the steps and it seems as if indeed in 2013 the law (regulation) has been settled and is in force.
This is confusing.
Still, in Germany several laws exist and anyone will have to have the pleasure to force a decision about non-effectiveness of German law in the light of the European regulations. At least I could not find any information where the German LBA informs about non-effectiveness of German laws here.
So as far as I’ve gone through this I conclude that Airborne_again has put this right in his article.
@Niner_Mike should be all too clear that this is a hornets nest, there is just so much money involved in avionics, that it just can stop the game for anyone.
Can one fly DME+NPA(LOC/VOR/NDB) without DME under radar vectors with ranges/altitudes checks? or this only possible for precision approach DME+ILS?
Ibra wrote:
Can one fly DME+NPA(LOC/VOR/NDB) without DME under radar vectors with ranges/altitudes checks? or this only possible for precision approach DME+ILS?
I see nothing stopping you unless the plate clearly says “not available without DME ZZZ”. Some places insist on DME others (like EGTE) – “Procedure not available without radar or DME”, for example, for LOC/DME/NDB(L)RWY 26 IAP.
There are a few places which state DME MANDATORY and I think they tend to be ones without radar.
Burrowing down into the French MEL for IFR, things listed outside of nav aids are items like must have a stall warning system, heated pitot, compass(I know this is a nav aid) standby/emergency static air pressure system, OAT thermometer, anti collision, nav and landing lights, adjustable interior lighting for intensity.
Mode S. But what is surprising given what @Airborne_Again has quoted from EASA it requires 2 VHF radios and 2 systems of microphone and speakers/hearing devices. In French the word used is “ecouters”
There is much more on the list than this, but I didn’t find it in the EASA regs that AA posted but in the requirements for the certification of a CS23 aircraft for IFR.
As it also mentions 2 VOR and a radio compass or equivalent I wonder if this has somehow been forgotten about and not removed when EASA regs changed.
A similar list can be found on the Elixir website.
gallois wrote:
There is much more on the list than this, but I didn’t find it in the EASA regs that AA posted but in the requirements for the certification of a CS23 aircraft for IFR.
I only wrote about avionics. There are lots of other equipment requirements for IFR in NCO.IDE.A.125. Where in CS-23 did you find requirements specific to IFR?
gallois wrote:
I wonder if this has somehow been forgotten about and not removed when EASA regs changed.
Either that or it’s a case of FUD.
