I would be impressed on counting how many GA pilots has actually flown VOR/NDB approach in IMC down to MSA? or down to 500ft agl?
Also, will be curious why they have not gone for an ILS or RNP nearby? and if they plan to do it again?
The only reason why NDB are still used are well listed by Peter (I will add there is some ignorance or familiarity with GPS in some training outfits, the kind who will be 100% dead in any real IMC but they can afford parroting about NDB in VMC)
The only use of VOR I am aware of is “FAA VOR check”
It’s been quite a few years, but I have used ndb / dme down to minimums to get down to my home strip when I would occasionally hire a club 4 seater. Reason was no ILS nor RNP nearby.
I wouldn’t do it again as I’d just fly a gps approach, even if it was a gps overlay of the radio approach.
Yup, tested a few yesterday in flight and they are dead!
Can’t speak for IFR use, but for me, I really like the feeling that if GPS should fail or more likely, jammed, I already have an indication in my cockpit of bearing and distance (DME) that could crosscheck with my limited visual flying skills.
It’s the usual issue with any reliable and usable system that people really tend to just ignore the implications should that system fail.
I really hope that a minimum of stations are kept around everywhere so that you always have at least one in range. But if airliners don’t care, the possibility of big $$ continuing to be spent on it ‘just’ for GA is probably low in the long term.
I guess Radar is available in Netherlands, I can’t imagine anyone flying en-route on fully procedural? for approaches there is ILS?
I would not fly NDB (even if the GPS fails), there are far safer ways to go down to 300ft agl or even 0ft amsl, the last one I flew in real conditions was in middle of trees on top of hill far away from runway threshold, I had about 30s of freestyle flying to get aligned and get properly setup on the runway to land, I could have done better with flying runway heading on stopwatch or cloud-break over the nearby water…
Peter wrote:
I have not used a VOR for any form of navigation using its radio signal
Aren’t we (on N-reg) required to do a 30 day VOR check to keep our planes / avionics current? ;-)
(I see Ibra kind of beat me to it)
I understand, strictly speaking, you don’t need VOR check if you are not planning to use VOR airway or VOR approach
I doubt you need VOR check to fly LOC/ILS approach? someone told me you still do but the physics does not add up, maybe he is used to fly ILS36 using R90deg radial, who knows? 
N-reg owners start to do them after they appeared on “the N-reg ramp check checklist”, even for a VFR flight (I think someone in French DGDDI or DGAC asked the FAA what documents & checks one need to ask for N-reg ramp and they got some 20page document)
VOR (Very Old Radio)
NDB (Not Duh Best)
In addition to my GTN750, I still have a KNS80 that sports ILS, VOR, DME, and VOR-DME RNAV as a backup.
VOR test is only required if to operate using VOR under IFR. ILS does not require testing by the regulation, but I do a quick check at my airport as I taxi across the runway for departure where I can verify that the localizer centers mid runway and the GP shows a fly up. The only case where I would use VOR now a days is in the rare case where a VOR approach needed to be flown or GPS failed. I haven’t had a need to use VOR in the last 25 years or so.
US has largely eliminated NDB and are well on their way to eliminating about a third of existing VOR. Airports are designated as MON airports reachable at almost any point within 100 NM in the NAS. These MON airports keep at least one approach that is solely based on ILS, localizer, or VOR without any dependencies on DME, NDB, Radar, or GPS. A new set of VOR and DME service volumes have been designated that expand to 70 NM at 5000 AGL In most instances, DME is retained when VOR is shut down. Also with the elimination of so many LOM and marker beacons and some VOR, DME has been added to many ILS systems and ILS Y and ILS Z variations have become common where the Y is based on a GPS TAA to join the ILS and the Z is based on conventional navigation. US has 4086 LPV published with 1057 using LPV200. 731 LP procedures are also published (similar to a localizer approach). All together, there are 6936 approaches using GPS, of which 82 are stand-alone GPS, 6436 RNAV(GPS) which comply with the RNP APCH PBN specification, and 418 RNAV(RNP) which comply with the RNP APCH AR PBN specification.
Has there any loss of GPS integrity on WAAS & non-WAAS boxes bellow RNP5 specs in the last 20years? or RNP1 specs in the last 1 year?
I know RNP APCH LNAV & LPV can go “t*** up” with LOI flag but that is down to under +/-0.3nm accuracy, I doubt one would ever see a GPS loss beyond +/-5nm all year along outside jamming, terrain/airframe obstructions or downloading almanac, maybe this is only a concern for Mach10 flying and ballistic navigation? probably not a big concern for the load of “100kts C172/PA28 flyers” in UK & France who are very worried about loss of +/-5nm accuracy on GPS navigation, they would rather be on DR visual navigation with paper map using “6min check or position fix every 10nm”, apparently it’s way more accurate…
Someone pointed out to me that the GPS overlays for NDB approaches at both runway ends (09 and 27) at Gloucester have recently been deleted from the Jeppesen database for our GTN box, retaining both the ILS and non-DME non-runway-specific overlays.
I am not aware of NDB approach overlays being removed at any other airport, so not quite sure what’s instigated this.
Peter wrote:
The Q to ask is: who is using these navaids?
They are intended for contingency use if there is a problem with GPS
NDBs have not been used for enroute navigation since around the 1950s.
Sorry Peter, but you’re wrong. NDBs have been used for enroute navigation in most (*) European countries well into the 1990s. Not much, certainly, but here and there.
* I would like to have said “all”, but then I haven’t flown in all European countries.
