My experience has been that examiners have been quite pragmatic with testing in aircraft without ADF. Considering this situation is most likely to occur in an owner-flown aircraft, testing non-NDB approaches is a good simulation of what real IFR flying in that aircraft will be like.
As I wrote earlier, there are test routes that can be flown in non-ADF equipped aircraft, however I think the responsibility is partly with the candidate to pick an origin that provides available routes. For RNAV approaches with NDBs in the missed approach, I believe it may be possible to request an alternative missed approach procedure (eg. Radar vectors) and then conduct the hold in another portion of the test.
Peter wrote:
How do you ensure that the examiner won’t ask you to fly to an airport which needs an ADF?
Surely an examiner is only going to ask you to do approaches which your aircraft is equipped to do? If you don’t have an ADF why is he going to try to make you do an ADF approach?
If you don’t have an ADF why is he going to try to make you do an ADF approach?
Because the regulation (the Standards Doc 07 or whatever, etc) allowed him to. Until recently you had to carry an ADF in UK airspace for all IFR in CAS. No question. He cannot do a test in a plane which is not airworthy. You still need to carry a DME – for this reason. So e.g. an SR22 without a DME cannot be used for the IRT, unless again you find a suitable location etc where none of the IAPs have a mandatory DME (kind of hard at EGKA where the DME is mandatory on the NDB/DME 20).
Maybe there is a new regime where you can negotiate with the examiner to avoid airports at which you would be noncompliant, but that would be quite a recent change.
Of course at revalidation this is not an issue – you talk it through with the IRE and you can tell him where you want to fly, and if he doesn’t like it you can find another IRE. In reality you are paying him so it’s not an issue.
Peter wrote:
Because the regulation (the Standards Doc 07 or whatever, etc) allowed him to
Sure they allowed him to, but unless they compelled him to, couldn’t he just use some common sense and choose another airport?
Not in the “old days”.
There may be recent guidance.
Peter wrote:
The “problem” is that – as often stated – Europe does not have a formal navaid-GPS substitution concession, so if you want to fly an IAP which contains an NDB, you MUST carry an ADF.
In this case, that’s not the problem, it’s the solution. If the aircraft doesn’t have an operational ADF (which it doesn’t have to, these days), you can’t fly an approach based on an NDB. There is nothing the examiner can do about it. You could get around this by requiring ADF for the test – no ADF, no test. But that’s not the case, AIUI.
Peter wrote:
In the AOC world, a form of navaid-GPS substitution is legalised via a national CAA approved AOC manual
You could try to get a manual approved by the CAA. Just as they could approve multi-pilot ops for a single-pilot certified machine (and it would count as multi-pilot time for ATPL issue). You don’t have to do this for private ops, that doesn’t mean you can’t. Obviously, relevant NAA has to play ball. OTOH jets often have the equipment. They might even have multiple ADF and DME receivers. PS: And this is interesting since such approval is in the hands of the state of registry.
In my very limited experience of type rating training the SOPs taught include flying the approach using the FMS, but they expect to see the underlying navaid on a pointer somewhere, to “keep it legal”.
If the aircraft doesn’t have an operational ADF (which it doesn’t have to, these days)
It is only enroute that the UK has recently removed the ADF carriage requirement for IFR in CAS. This makes sense because
What is the definitive current situation, from EASA? Are they bringing in a GPS substitution concession?
There has for many years been a “mandatory GPS” situation for all GA, right up to bizjets, for RNAV, because the only means of compliance with say BRNAV are
I have not seen any concession for approaches. As I say, there is no GPS substitution concession in Europe for flying approaches.
They might even have multiple ADF and DME receivers.
Big jets certainly do.
@Peter I don’t understand you. What are you saying? That you need ADF for any procedure, even when there is no NDB involved? I don’t think so. If the aircraft used doesn’t have an ADF and you do the test in it, you can’t fly procedures based on NDBs. How could you? Without the equipment, you can hardly demonstrate how it’s done and it would be illegal anyway (unless substitution is allowed and you have the necessary equipment). If I was asked for it, i would take it as a test and refuse. There is no other option. If substitution with GNSS was allowed, then I would do that and demonstrate the skill. But it’s not, so I can’t.
Peter wrote:
Big jets certainly do.
I have seen dual ADFs and dual HF comms even on midsize (PS: maybe even one light) biz jets (obviously equipped for transcontinental ops). Which is more surprising than on airliners.
Neil wrote:
In my very limited experience of type rating training the SOPs taught include flying the approach using the FMS, but they expect to see the underlying navaid on a pointer somewhere, to “keep it legal”.
As I would expect. Which is practically the same as what private pilots do (or should do).
Someone needs to post the current IR skills test examiner guidelines, for the various CAAs around Europe.
In the UK, when I was doing mine (2012) you could not negotiate. You were told 8am of the day of the test where you would be flying to, and if your plane didn’t have the kit, you lost the 800 quid.
