With all the talk of improved regulation, why hasn’t there been a stronger lobby to allow RNAV approaches with GPS overlays if the missed approach requires a hold on an NDB? Most GPS once you have un-suspended (by pressing SUSP) after going around will load the missed approach procedure in any event.
I can appreciate why an NDB is useful in British Columbia or the Yukon, but it seems absurd we need an ADF for most RNAV approaches, at least in the UK.
Are any of the lobby groups for GA trying to get GPS overlay features approved?
UK is not “Europe”. NDB/ADF is not required unless it is required ( there exist no established procedure except NDB).
@LeSving For example French DGAC is of the opinion that missed approach is part of the procedure and you can’t fly it at all unless appropriately equipped. If the missed approach is based on an NDB, you need an ADF. They had some document on this. IIRC you could get an approval to fly those without an ADF if your system is RNP capable or some such condition.
LeSving wrote:
UK is not “Europe”. NDB/ADF is not required unless it is required ( there exist no established procedure except NDB).
It is required in Sweden, no matter what. Until August this year 
(I am really looking forward to part-NCO.)
Robert PPL/IR has been lobbying heavily on this with the CAA I believe. There seems to be progress. The reason for it seems to be around the need to resurvey everything if you try to use an RNAV waypoint for the MA. As you say at least allowing GPS substitution would be good. Particularly for those without an ADF……
Airborne_Again wrote:
It is required in Sweden, no matter what
It was in Norway too, untill a couple og years ago. That and VOR, DME, regardless. Now there is nothing, only BRNAV above 10k.
@JasonC AIUI part of the issue should be that they don’t check overlays during the calibration flights or whatever they are called. That’s why you’re supposed to monitor raw data which you can only do if you have an operational ADF. Approval to substitute it with RNAV might include some inconvenient duties (like validating the procedure, which might involve flying it in VMC or simulating it).
But then, one wonders why they are able to do that (almost) everywhere else on this planet… I just came back from an airfield in Germany with a GPS approach procedure which has no NDB or VOR within a range of almost 50NM. No calibration problems, no raw data to monitor, no radar coverage, no controlled airspace, no nothing. And yet it works and is approved.
Daft question time. Did the FAA allow NDB approaches to be flown by GPS in overlay mode in about 1990 and then 10 years later say you can now fly them using GPS with no adf in the aircraft.
what_next wrote:
I just came back from an airfield in Germany with a GPS approach procedure which has no NDB or VOR within a range of almost 50NM. No calibration problems, no raw data to monitor, no radar coverage, no controlled airspace, no nothing. And yet it works and is approved.
Because there was no NDB involved. Or are you saying you could fly an approach with a missed approach procedure based on an NDB without an ADF? What I wrote was about overlays, not why they chose to use NDBs for missed approaches.
Bathman wrote:
Daft question time. Did the FAA allow NDB approaches to be flown by GPS in overlay mode in about 1990 and then 10 years later say you can now fly them using GPS with no adf in the aircraft.
I think FAA rescinded that (years ago IIRC), it was only temporary. Approaches where you can substitute given navaid with GPS are designated as such, a blanket permission doesn’t exist. However, I’m by no means an expert on this.
