Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By Dave Phillips
#1667782
The NDB is still on Jepp.

If you’re feeling left out, just use UMKIL instead. A nice little RNAV waypoint that is as near as makes no difference and the billy-bonus is that SD knows all about it.
AlanC liked this
By jacekowski
#1667937
bookworm wrote:
Actually, if you have PBN equipment on board (most likely IFR GPS) you are allowed to use it as a sole navigation source in place of any navaid during any phase of the flight except approach (where you can still use it, but underlying navaid takes precedence in case of discrepancy and must be monitored).


Where do you get that from then?


French AIP goes as far as to specifically say it is allowed "However, some equipments on board enabling information to be used from radio navigation aids can be replaced by RNAV systems when it was shown that the performances of these last ones comply with criteria of replacement notified to users by the way of the aeronautical information.",
UK AIP doesn't go as far to say it is allowed directly, but it does not prohibit navaid substition and in case of class A requires use of RNAV. (still not updated to say PBN), Also, from ICAO manuals
"1.4 USE OF FLIGHT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (FMS)/
AREA NAVIGATION (RNAV) EQUIPMENT
1.4.1 Where FMS/RNAV equipment is available, it may be used to fly conventional procedures provided:
a) the procedure is monitored using the basic display normally associated with that procedure; and
b) the tolerances for flight using raw data on the basic display are complied with.
"
With UK having notified difference "Additional requirements:

the conventional procedure must have been inserted into the FMS from a recognised database and cannot be manually loaded or modified by the crew other than to follow ATC instructions;

after the procedure has been loaded into the FMS as above, it must be cross-checked against the published conventional procedure before any attempt is made to follow the procedure using the FMS."
By bookworm
#1668210
French AIP goes as far as to specifically say it is allowed "However, some equipments on board enabling information to be used from radio navigation aids can be replaced by RNAV systems when it was shown that the performances of these last ones comply with criteria of replacement notified to users by the way of the aeronautical information.",


The "when it was shown that" suggests the need for an approval based on a demonstration of compliance. I'll ask my DGAC contact what the interpretation is.

1.4.1 Where FMS/RNAV equipment is available, it may be used to fly conventional procedures provided:
a) the procedure is monitored using the basic display normally associated with that procedure; and
b) the tolerances for flight using raw data on the basic display are complied with.


That's not sole means though, is it, as the underlying conventional aids have to be available and monitored? There is a CAA publication somewhere that, like France, allows an operator to receive an approval for such a substitution.

Please don't misunderstand me, I strongly believe that the policy established by the FAA on fix substitution 25 years ago is the right way forward. I think it's shameful that European authorities have not followed suit, and I've lobbied accordingly. But there is no formal fix-substitution permission as yet.
AlanC liked this
By jacekowski
#1668258
My understanding of "when it was shown" is that there is paperwork to show it is as accurate as navaid you are substituting (so PBN approval or something like that would be sufficient).

As for the second part i don't think it means conventional aids have to be monitored, just that if you would normally fly using HSI/CDI you are not allowed to fly it by looking at magenta line on your GPS screen instead, but GPS information has to be presented on the same HSI/CDI in the same way (so same scaling and everything).

Also, there is the whole "if it's not prohibited it is allowed" approach and nowhere in the AIP says you are not allowed to do it (expect for approaches).
By Ragwing
#1668622
I fly micros so this doesn't apply to me...but does a PPL who may use An NDB for navigation have a req to be able to read Morse Code to be able to id the NDBs Mores indent that he intends to use.

Sorry for the drift of the topic..
User avatar
By kanga
#1668645
Ragwing wrote:I fly micros so this doesn't apply to me...but does a PPL who may use An NDB for navigation have a req to be able to read Morse Code to be able to id the NDBs Mores indent that he intends to use.

Sorry for the drift of the topic..


If PPL is not seeking an IR nor IR (R) , therefore not relying on the NDB for navigation ( :roll: ) , I assume there's no reason to need to be able to know more than to know what Morse ident to expect ( prudent to jot this on plog as part of planning), and to be able to hear whether, when needle appears to settle down, the ident matches that expectation (and is not TST) .. :)

But anyone with an EASA PPL will presumably have had this demonstrated during the now mandatory radio nav exercise. I had to do this after >40 years of using NDBs without anyone showing me how nor testing my Morse
Iceman liked this
By Ragwing
#1668650
Ok...so what about an IFR pilot...not commercial...would they be req to be able to read a simple NDB ident as part of his training.

Morse is an interest of mine thats the only reason I ask.
By Ragwing
#1668746
I see so you just read the dash and dots off paper.