ADF Holds - Anticipating inbound track to the fix

Wow, seems like the UK CAA is NDB-obsessed.

It is. Every year when we go to Farnborough for our recurrent sim training and checkrides, our British CAA instructors and examiners (who are otherwise fine people) give us a hard time with NDBs. Whenever your fingers creep towards the FMS (which is GPS and VOR/DME based in our aircraft) to call up the approach they will shout from behind: "Do you have a chart that says RNAV-overlay?" If not (and of course they don't give us those charts) we have to fly the bloody thing on raw data alone like Mr. Lindbergh did. Nowhere else do they insist so much!

As someone already said: From a didactic point of view, teaching ADF navigation techniques is not all wrong. Being able to intercept and follow a given track towards a point on the ground (on numbers alone!) is the basis of all radionavigation techniques. And when you master the ADF, all the others are simple in comparison. But from my experience with countless students over the years, most of them have a hard enough time mastering the "simple" radionavigation techniques in their limited training time. But there is more to instrument flying than radionavigation techniques, and wasting so much precious time on the (really useless) ADF means taking away training hours from much more important topics. BTW: A few years ago, I retrained an FAA CPL/IR certified pilot for his JAA license. When I asked him fly to fly an ADF approach in the procedures trainer, he didn't know what I was talking about! And I suppose he is not the only FAA IR holder who has never flown such an approach.

Interesting thread. I must have spent 10-20 hours in the sim and airplane trying to learn how to fly NDB approaches. It was really the hardest part when doing the JAA IR course two years ago. Maybe good mental training and preparation for instrument flying but i wish i could have spent that time on other things in the training to make me a safer SEP IFR pilot.

I cant believe that some EASA/JAR states still require ADF under IFR, when it so unprecise comparing flying with OBS function in the GPS.

Are there any news regarding any changes to this in EASA?

Will EASA approve GPS overlay approaches in Europe (like USA) in the near future?

Is the statements below true? Regards Jonas, Sweden ->

Almost all overlay approaches in the US have been cancelled and the few remaining are on the chopping block. The FAA just put out a notice of proposed rule making to do away with most ground based procedures that are redundant. See

I hope Bookworm (the EASA expert) will update us on this, but the way things seem to be going is that you need to carry an ADF for any IAP which involves an NDB.

Given that Europe has no US-style GPS substitution concession*, that kind of makes sense in regulatory terms.

And there are loads of NDB approaches around Europe, and even some GPS/RNAV ones which have an NDB in the missed approach segment.

I have no idea where Pipistrel got those statements from. They reflect private GA operating practice, and it is certainly best practice, but until we get GPS substitution rules, that's it.

Fortunately there appears to be zero enforcement of these equipment carriage rules - even in Germany where you would expect it most.

Another thing is that you need an ADF and DME for the UK IR initial skills test, because the examiner can freely choose to use NDB, VOR, LOC or GPS/RNAV for the nonprecision part of the test. This prevents most Cirruses from being used, for example.

(* I recall Switzerland was doing something like that)

According to AIC Y-107-2011 (another copy) limited substitution is already possible for NDBs. You can use overlays (with certain preconditions) for enroute, SIDs and STARs, and interception of precision approaches. The ADF is still required for final and missed approach segments that are based on an NDB.

I have no idea where Pipistrel got those statements from. They reflect private GA operating practice, and it is certainly best practice, but until we get GPS substitution rules, that's it.

Pipistrel don't claim you can legally fly NDB approaches, all they say that you meet the MEL (minimum equipment list) requirements for EASA airspace without an ADF. If I was in the market for a brand new Pipistrel Panthera, I don't think I would destroy the panel layout by installing a 1950s ADF. Would that prevent me from flying NDB approaches? I don't think so.

I agree it meens the enroute MEL but it won't meet the one for landing the plane if you go to one of the Croatian islands for example - several of which are just down the road from Pipistrel

I am sure there is a remotely mounted ADF out there. Loads of planes have an ADF without a KR87 screwed into the panel. Might be more pricey though.

But as I said this is not enforced and I would not install an ADF now. It's not a useful piece of kit. DME is different and very useful in the GPS-backup scenario.

Thanks for that AIC, Rich.

Since the stupid EAD website uses the stupid variable URL tokens to make sure that all bookmarks expire after a while (why???) I have edited your post to add a more permanent place for it

Actually, PA, it's only required for non-precision approaches that are based on an NDB for the final or missed approach segments. So a pure RNAV approach (with an RNAV-based missed approach procedure) wouldn't require carriage of an ADF.

Unfortunately, there are no such approaches in the UK at the moment, to my knowledge.

[Edit: Peter - thanks for adding a permanent link]