photofly wrote:

CpnCrunch wrote:A lot of airports still have NDB approaches, and there are still a lot of NDB airways. If your plane isn't GPS equipped then that is your only option, and it's probably a good idea to know how to track outbound from an ADF.

That proves nothing. Lots of aircraft don't have ADFs any more. You can have and maintain an instrument rating never having tuned an NDB.

I guess it depends what kind of flying you do. I did my instrument training before any GPS approaches existed. Air Canada still seems to do non-precision approaches without any GPS, unless they've upgraded their planes in the last year since that accident. GPS can fail, so you probably want to have two of them if you're going to rely on it. Not many GA planes have two GPSs.

Common misconception that you need an ADF to be IFR certified. So long as you have two independent nav aides, you're good to go. One VOR and a certified GPS is enough. IIRC two independent VORs is also allowed (can anyone confirm this?).

The only time it might be an inconvenience is for alternate planning but that's about it. The number of airports that have only NDB approaches these days is thin. Most if not all will also have a VOR, VOR/DME or GNSS approach.

Yeah, you're right. CARS 602 something states:

(j) sufficient radio navigation equipment to permit the pilot, in the event of the failure at any stage of the flight of any item of that equipment, including any associated flight instrument display,
(i) to proceed to the destination aerodrome or proceed to another aerodrome that is suitable for landing, and
(ii) where the aircraft is operated in IMC, to complete an instrument approach and, if necessary, conduct a missed approach procedure.

So as long as you have a redundant nav that will allow you to continue safely if the other fails, you're good. Technically doesn't matter what it actually is. (Certified of course)
Now, I believe in the AIM it expands on this a little bit to state that you "should" (It is the AIM, after all) have appropriate equipment based on your region. IIRC it gave the example of the far north, where NDB's are more prevalent, at least they were when the paragraph was written, You should have an ADF as your "backup", compared to, say, 2 gps's.

I just noticed the wording. "Sufficient radio navigation equipment". No mention of GPS. Obviously a holdover from when the reg was written... but that's funny. Could be interpreted as requiring a radio nav of some sort, and GPS isn't allowed at all! That should probably be changed.

I would consider GPS as radio-navigation. It uses radio-waves to calculate position.

DanWEC wrote:Yeah, you're right. CARS 602 something states:

(j) sufficient radio navigation equipment to permit the pilot, in the event of the failure at any stage of the flight of any item of that equipment, including any associated flight instrument display,
(i) to proceed to the destination aerodrome or proceed to another aerodrome that is suitable for landing, and
(ii) where the aircraft is operated in IMC, to complete an instrument approach and, if necessary, conduct a missed approach procedure.

So as long as you have a redundant nav that will allow you to continue safely if the other fails, you're good. Technically doesn't matter what it actually is. (Certified of course)
Now, I believe in the AIM it expands on this a little bit to state that you "should" (It is the AIM, after all) have appropriate equipment based on your region. IIRC it gave the example of the far north, where NDB's are more prevalent, at least they were when the paragraph was written, You should have an ADF as your "backup", compared to, say, 2 gps's.

I just noticed the wording. "Sufficient radio navigation equipment". No mention of GPS. Obviously a holdover from when the reg was written... but that's funny. Could be interpreted as requiring a radio nav of some sort, and GPS isn't allowed at all! That should probably be changed.

I recall a guy at an aerocourse a while back stating that his Cirrus with two GPS systems meets the requirements as IFR certified. He checked with TC and got the thumbs up. So long as they are redundant systems.

That being said, should the network fail I would want to have at VOR onboard just incase.

tipsails wrote: I recall a guy at an aerocourse a while back stating that his Cirrus with two GPS systems meets the requirements as IFR certified. He checked with TC and got the thumbs up. So long as they are redundant systems.

That being said, should the network fail I would want to have at VOR onboard just incase.

How exactly do two GPSs comply with the Alternate requirements?:

"An approach completely independent of GNSS at the planned destination is expected to be
available at the estimated time of arrival"

I guess technically the regulation just says that there has to be a non-GPS approach. It doesn't specifically say that you have to have the equipment to fly it, although that would seem to be implied.

I think those requirements are changing, with WAAS making RAIM errors redundant. Fairly soon (10 years) all groundbased aids will be removed from Southern Canada, except a very very few VORs and the ILS systems that are already there. That's from NavCanada.

photofly wrote:I think those requirements are changing, with WAAS making RAIM errors redundant. Fairly soon (10 years) all groundbased aids will be removed from Southern Canada, except a very very few VORs and the ILS systems that are already there. That's from NavCanada.

It makes sense to move entirely to GPS and ILS, although what happens if the entire network goes down for 12 hours, like GLONASS did last year? I wonder if Garmin will add GLONASS to their units as a backup.

If the GPS network has a global outage, it will be like 9/11 on steroids, since the entire financial system depends on it. GA aircraft in IMC will receive radar vectors to be sequenced to the nearest ILS to land. That may take them out of radio range en route, in which case it will be "GABC steer 210, contact toronto centre on 133.4 in 90 minutes time." Then you can find your own way home via whatever ground transportation is working when the dust has settled. This is all in the NavCanada contingency plans.

I believe there are already multi network GNSS receivers ready for GPS, GLONASS, and the European and Chinese ones too.

CpnCrunch wrote:Just wondering, is it normal for instructors to teach their students to just turn to the final approach track and ignore any crosswind after turning at the FAF inbound on an NDB approach?

Personally the answer to that question is "it depends".

Before we ever got to the question of what heading should the student should turn to after you passing the FAF, I would have wanted my students to have answered a lot of precursor questions, Like:

1) What is the most appropriate approach to fly ? If there is an approach that is more accurate, which is every other kind, than what advantage does flying the NDB give over flying the other kinds ? Reducing the number of track miles, especially if you expect to break out early could be an example of choosing an NDB approach over say an LNAV. If during a training flight, I want the student to fly a NDB approach when another approach is more accurate I expect him to suggest the better approach as a first choice and then I will tell him/her to do the NDB.

2) If we don't get in what is plan B, another approach, go to the filed alternate, another airport ?

3) If flying the NDB than, How do you intend to program the GPS to provide advisory information. Not using the GPS is not an option as I expect you to use all available nav aids.

4) If flying the NDB than, just like you would for any other approach, before you start the procedure what do you expect the winds to do to you on each leg of the approach. Are there any gotcha's, like the danger of being blown outside any restrictions like a "procedure turn withing 10 miles" restriction, or being blown through the final approach track by a very strong crosswind.

Now to answer the question. In most scenarios the approach is a straight line so as another poster noted you should just hold what ever correction you used to get to the FAF, after passing the FAF. In the fairly unusual case where there is an appreciable turn at the FAF it is usually easiest to just turn to the inbound track and hold that particularly if the final leg is not that long. However since in step 4 we thought about what the winds are doing we may elect to take a cut into the wind right after the turn over the FAF.

As a general rule the student should understand the rational for everything they are doing. Just turning to the inbound track after the FAF s a good way to proceed most of the time, because it is simple and light winds and/or a short final leg are not likely to be so affected that you gain much by adding a pre decided wind correction. However the decision as to what heading to fly should be IMHO, informed by the situation that exists at the time the approach is being flown, not by any arbitrary "rule".