It depends on requirements for that airspace, which can be different for different European countries and it depends on your flight plan. If you plan a flight using and ADF, you should have an ADF, the GPS is no substitude.
In the Netherlands and ADF is no longer mandatory. I guess all countries will start to follow this EASA idea that you need the equipment that is needed to perform your IFR flight plan. Equipment not called for on your flight plan is than not needed.
In the course of my avionics upgrade I’m going to cleanup my panel. So the ADF, which I never had to use, is on my removal list. I could always use the GPS overlay if exists but if the GPS fails inbound Narsarsuaq I could use old-style ADF. Actually the same is valid for the DME except that a DME is required.
I think all of Europe mandates a DME for IFR in CAS and all of Europe mandates an ADF for flying an NDB approach. You can research it via the AIPs but it will take you a long time. The aircraft reg doesn’t come into it – equipment carriage is an airspace rule.
Obviously most people fly NDB approaches with a GPS but you still need to be carrying an ADF to be legal.
Until Europe introduces a US-style GPS substitution concession, we will be stuck with this.
Also – see my other post on PBN – if EASA come in with their mandatory training requirement for 2016 (mandatory training for any GPS approach, even if you have been flying them for years) then flying an NDB-DME approach (but actually using the GPS to do it) will be a way forward for those who don’t have that training signed off.
equipment carriage is an airspace rule.
No, it’s not that simple.
The german “AP for single pilot IFR-rule” is one example. This is regulated through the LuftBO, which only applies to D-reg. aircraft (and not: to aircraft flying in Germany).
Another one is the requirement for a 406 ELT on D-reg. aircraft. The airspace does not require one.
DME is a must for IFR, ADF only for NDB approaches. But who wants to fly an NDB approach? I will, for fun, in VMC.
Big Dipper – ADF dip
I was training single needle ADF in a DA42NG today and found that the dip was so large as to make the poor student’s task almost impossible.
The dip appeared to be around 25° and seemed to kick in very quickly with quite modest bank angles. So tracking into an NDB, if the needle went off, say 5°, and the student turned 10° to pick it up, the needle would move 25° into the turn. It was flyable, but required a great deal of discipline and faith, and certainly was very difficult to train on.
Has anyone else seen this? Is it a feature of the avionics (G1000, but I don’t know what the ADF is), the airframe or a fault with this particular installation?
Were you at a normal NDB approach height / low-ish hold, or were you training much higher for some reason?
Just from the beacon-plane geometry, a perfectly functioning ADF will show worse dip at height.
The dip on a DA42 is very ‘non-standard’ and I’m told it is due to the antenna location. As you appear to have picked-up, it’s all about being steady, noting the error, applying a correction (ignoring the needle at any time there is an angle of bank) and only assessing the correction once you are steady.
As far as base turns are concerned, you can almost forget all the 60-to-go stuff etc (although it does sometimes work if your needle is +10 at the 60-to-go point). I find it is better to nail the outbound track such that you commence the base turn at precisely the right point, set-up a rate one turn and then see where you have ended-up once you are steady inbound. Clearly you can adapt if there is an extremely strong crosswind but don’t waste too much effort trying to judge the turn whilst you are in it.. Most CAA IR examiners appear to recognise the weakness of the DA42 system and adopt a pragmatic approach when testing.
One final top tip – teach your chap to fly the magenta diamond. :)
I am happy to hear the DA42 has a notorious ADF indicator. It will be my excuse in the future. :)
I do love seeing an instrument as inaccurate as an adf appear on a g1000 screen.
