chflyer wrote:
Yes Timothy, that was really what I wanted to hear with this thread. How many people are doing these NDB approaches via GPS without any ADF in the aircraft?
Loads of aircraft presumably. If you do so you are in breach of the law. Each pilot needs to decide if they are comfortable with that. The risk of prosecution is very low and the chance that an accident is caused by so doing is almost non-existent. But that doesn’t change the reality that you are supposed to have one on board.
If you make an approach in low-IFR to an airport with only an NDB approach, that is the most likely case for a ramp check to ask to see your ADF.
Or one could leave the inop ADF in the aircraft, file FPL with it in the equip list, and if someone were to come along at some period of time afterwards one could claim that ithe ADF failed after the approach was executed … 
Timothy wrote:
The point is the legality of using the overlay to the exclusion of the ADF, which would only really be provable if there were no ADF in the aircraft or if it was demonstrably known to be u/s at the time the approach was made.
Yes Timothy, that was really what I wanted to hear with this thread. How many people are doing these NDB approaches via GPS without any ADF in the aircraft?
I’m coming to the conclusion that the safety argument over weighs the legal (paperwork) one to the extent that one could take out an inop ADF rather than fix it and continue to fly any eventual NDB approach (such as Losinj where there is nothing else) via GPS without too much risk of getting bitten.
Good discussion.
Timothy wrote:
I would be keen to hear about the approved NDB (GPS) approaches chflyer tells us about.
Here is the Jepp IAC. But as mentioned this nomenclature is not a standalone overlay but rather “underlying NDB operational and monitored”.
chflyer wrote:
My Avidyne IFD GPS has the Losinj NDB approach in it, listed in the db as NDB DME
I think you’ll find that very nearly every approach in Europe is coded in the database. There are a tiny number of exceptions – EGTC Cranfield NDB isn’t coded at all and the DME arc procedure at EGMD Lydd is omitted, I am sure there are others – but they are the rare exceptions.
Peter wrote:
This is non-JAA/non-EASA but Switzerland can do that because it is not in the EU.
Switzerland is not in the EU, but is part of EASA-land and is committed (legally obliged??) to implement EU law that applies to EASA. In fact the Swiss have in the past tried too hard to be model citizens and implemented EASA directives before everyone else (I didn’t say that). This is changing.
Peter wrote:
I know a pilot in Switzerland who did his IR test about 3 years ago. He said he was expected to fly NDB approaches using the GPS.
I’m working on preparation for an IPC to get my FAA IR reactivated, using a Swiss IR instructor. There is a strong emphasis here (in Switzerland) on using all the tools at disposition and I can concur with your comment here, Peter. Also, for example, there is an expectation to engage the autopilot, if available, when programming the GPS and briefing the approach. But that’s a different topic.
Timothy wrote:
Where are these approved overlay approaches (in Europe)?
Peter wrote:
As regards “approved” overlays I don’t think any exist in Europe.
You may be right Peter. I was thinking of the Jepp approach chart for Bern LSZB with the title (GPS) NDB Rwy 14. However, I believe that this is the terminology used for an NDB approach that can be flown with GPS if the NDB is operational and “monitored”. The Swiss Skyguide plate in Autorouter makes no mention of GPS. An official GPS overlay that can be flown instead of the underlying NDB and without it being operational is indicated by “NDB or GPS”.
My Avidyne IFD GPS has the Losinj NDB approach in it, listed in the db as NDB DME, including all the IAF’s and the STARs to get there.
I don’t know about the situation in the UK, but perhaps one might still get the Losinj NDB approach from ATC even if the ADF wasn’t listed in the FPL equipment, similar to the request to Peter at Zurich to “just fly the overlay”. Generally speaking, as long as an NDB approach is in the GPS navdata db I would probably feel comfortable flying it even if doesn’t seem to meet the full letter of the law, NCO-wise. Of course, to each his own regarding safety vs risk of prosecution.
I am sure that the CAAs have bigger fish to fry. Not every infraction is prosecuted, even in Germany.
However, if there were an accident, it might be a different matter.
I know we discussed this before but IMHO there is a reason why none of the very visible large numbers of Cirruses very visibly flying NDB IAPs (and flying IFR in airspaces where ADF is/was mandatory) without an ADF have never been busted. Not even in Germany. I reckon the CAAs know something…
I understand. There is still a requirement to have the ADF equipment in the aircraft (and DME) and, otherwise, you can not fly the approach. So the best approach would be to have the ADF/DME equipment and have it tuned in, so you can monitor it while flying the NDB approach using GPS. I have once been flying in an N-registered Cirrus that did not have the DME and ADF equipment and thus I had to “improvise”. Best is to just have the equipment installed and functioning, I would guess.
