ADF and its Usage?

[Guest NaVCAM]

Hello all,I have recently started using the PMDG and have a good idea about the aircraft from previous use of the B734-B735. My question is about the Automatic Direction Finder (ADF). What is it? How do you use it? Where can this be found on lets say the airport charts? Any help would be appreciated.Waqas

[FLEX1978 373]

Hello all,I have recently started using the PMDG and have a good idea about the aircraft from previous use of the B734-B735. My question is about the Automatic Direction Finder (ADF). What is it? How do you use it? Where can this be found on lets say the airport charts? Any help would be appreciated.Waqas

2 seconds of searching on google gave me this.... http://www.navfltsm.addr.com/ndb-nav-adf-1.htmhttp://www.avionix.com/store/adf.htmlRob

[downscc 1,327]

The essential handbook for airmen IMHO is the Airmen Information Manual (AIM): http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aviation/There are also good handbooks in this list that deal with instrument flight, etc.

[Tabs 2,790]

I'm pretty sure you will basically never fly an NDB approach in a 737 anywhere in the developed world... they're still in use in some non-radar environments in parts of South America, Africa etc though. I'd personally be very scared to try one in real life in a high performance jet haha.The basic idea though is that the ADF needle always points to the NDB station. You can use this to fly bearings (they're not called radials with an NDB) to and from the station. The problem is that an ADF doesn't give you concrete intuitive information about your position relative to that bearing like a VOR/ILS gauge's CDI does. This can lead to big problems in a cross wind if you just keep the ADF needle pointing at the station because you'll effectively "home" in on the station in a spiral pattern (if the ground track was viewed from above) potentially bringing you into conflict with terrain, traffic etc... Planes like the 737 make it much easier to do though because of the RMI gauge, which always correlates aircraft heading with the bearing pointer. In a Cessna or something that doesn't have a movable card ADF or slaved RMI, you have to do math in your head to figure out what headings you need to fly to get on the bearing you want.It's fun to try it though in FS with IMC and see how close you are when you do break out of the soup... Just get some charts off Flightaware or something and pick one to try. Start off small using one of the FS default planes before trying to do it in a jet.

[Guest NaVCAM]

I'm pretty sure you will basically never fly an NDB approach in a 737 anywhere in the developed world... they're still in use in some non-radar environments in parts of South America, Africa etc though. I'd personally be very scared to try one in real life in a high performance jet haha.The basic idea though is that the ADF needle always points to the NDB station. You can use this to fly bearings (they're not called radials with an NDB) to and from the station. The problem is that an ADF doesn't give you concrete intuitive information about your position relative to that bearing like a VOR/ILS gauge's CDI does. This can lead to big problems in a cross wind if you just keep the ADF needle pointing at the station because you'll effectively "home" in on the station in a spiral pattern (if the ground track was viewed from above) potentially bringing you into conflict with terrain, traffic etc... Planes like the 737 make it much easier to do though because of the RMI gauge, which always correlates aircraft heading with the bearing pointer. In a Cessna or something that doesn't have a movable card ADF or slaved RMI, you have to do math in your head to figure out what headings you need to fly to get on the bearing you want.It's fun to try it though in FS with IMC and see how close you are when you do break out of the soup... Just get some charts off Flightaware or something and pick one to try. Start off small using one of the FS default planes before trying to do it in a jet.

Hey Thanks alot for the help everyone. I checked out both sites in tried a flight myself and i will need some practice but i think i will get the hang it. I agree that it is probably not needed it on many flights but its a good tool to have for malfunctioning GPS or so on.Thanks again

[michal 44]

Hey Thanks alot for the help everyone. I checked out both sites in tried a flight myself and i will need some practice but i think i will get the hang it. I agree that it is probably not needed it on many flights but its a good tool to have for malfunctioning GPS or so on.

In case of malfunctioning GPS (very rare event) you would rather use VOR/DME approach, not NDB. Like Ryan said - use of NDB is pretty much limited these days to 3-world countries. Some aircraft with the latest avionics are even no longer equipped with the ADF.

[Guest Boeing Skunk Works]

There's nothing scary or mysterious about using the NDB in a hi-performance jet transport. They are still used extensively in Europe on STAR's and SID's as well as a few enroute airway fixes. Many are still used for holding fixes in Europe as well.It's not a difficult system to comprehend or understand and works just fine in transport aircraft. Instead of homing to the station, you set up bracketing just like a VOR and fly it the same way. You have to pay more attention to the information and correct accordingly.I doubt many in Europe would consider their homeland a Third World country.Michael C.

[jon b 2,041]

ADF/NDB equipment was a nice feature when it was co located with the airfield or as a LOM (locator outer marker) as it helps (slightly) with orientation to the airfield or your closure to the ILS in the case of analouge flight deck aircraft.As an en route navigation tool it was only slightly better than dead reckoning. It is prone to many errors, coastal, mountain etc and if you ever used one near a storm the needle would point to the nearest lightning flash!As mentioned they are still in use in certain parts of the world as they are cheaper than VOR equipment, most LOMs have now been closed down in the UK due to the cost of keeping them calibrated,GE and GW at LGW were withdrawn last year and MCH at manchester has now been turned off.I remember flying in the outback of Australia years ago where they published the location of commercial radio stations as its possible to tune the ADF to their frequency and the needle will point to the transmitter and use it to navigate as a last resort, and listen to the news and music at the same time!Thankfully IRS/GPS RNAV has replaced the NDB and to a lesser extent VOR navigation on modern aircraft.Pilots are still tested on the so called "non precision" aproaches (NDB,VOR) but these are usually just flown in LNAV and VNAV with the autopilot and so all you are really doing is following a FMC coded procedure with the raw data needles monitored to make sure they are in +- 5 degrees of the QDM.CheersJon b

[michal 44]

you set up bracketing just like a VOR and fly it the same way.

You definitely don't fly it it the same way as VOR. There is huge difference between tracking a VOR radial and trying to follow a ground track using ADF. Any IFR-rated pilot would testify to it. These two devices have little in common from the pilot's point of view. It is a lot harder to do it with ADF when x-wind is involved hence a relative lack of enthusiasm among pilots for using NDB as type of approach when other approaches are readily available (and in affluent countries they usually are).

[Guest Boeing Skunk Works]

I am an IFR rated pilot and you set up a WCA and bracket it just as you would a VOR.If the needle starts moving you don't have enough WCA in, so bracket more for another five minutes. If it doesn't move, then fly back to the original course plus the correction. If it moves, bracket more. You set up the tracking the same way for either nav-aid.It's not rocket science.

[Dicko 3]

You definitely don't fly it it the same way as VOR. There is huge difference between tracking a VOR radial and trying to follow a ground track using ADF. Any IFR-rated pilot would testify to it. These two devices have little in common from the pilot's point of view. It is a lot harder to do it with ADF when x-wind is involved hence a relative lack of enthusiasm among pilots for using NDB as type of approach when other approaches are readily available (and in affluent countries they usually are).

Michal, are you a rated pilot of any description???

[michal 44]

Michal, are you a rated pilot of any description???

You bet. And sorry but ADF is much harder to interpret and fly. I guess most pilots must feel this way because NDB approaches are out of favor. Folks avoid them during IFR check rides like plague, if they can only satisfy "two non-precision approaches" requirements some other way - they do it.

[Guest Boeing Skunk Works]

You bet. And sorry but ADF is much harder to interpret and fly. I guess most pilots must feel this way because NDB approaches are out of favor. Folks avoid them during IFR check rides like plague, if they can only satisfy "two non-precision approaches" requirements some other way - they do it.

"Folks" don't have the option of avoiding an NDB procedure during the check ride. They fly the procedure the examiner dictates during the practical exam.

[michal 44]

"Folks" don't have the option of avoiding an NDB procedure during the check ride. They fly the procedure the examiner dictates during the practical exam.

Again, not true at all, at least not in my neighborhood. Show up with a "non-ADF" aircraft for the check ride and you don't have to fly one as long as you can fly two other non-precision approaches. I have not heard of an examiner (in the San Francisco Bay Area where I live) to insist on NDB approach these days and if you find one you go to someone else. Indeed, folks would typically now fly GPS and VOR in a well equipped aircraft.By the way, if you never heard of it, in the days when NDB approaches were common - it was the number one cause of checkride failure, not rocket science but still cause of some difficulty for many newbie IFR pilots - these are facts.

[Jack C 8]

Again, not true at all. Show up with a "non-ADF" aircraft for the check ride and you don't have to fly one as long as you can fly two other non-precision approaches. I have not heard of an examiner to insist on NDB approach these days. Indeed, folks would typically fly GPS and VOR these days in a well equipped aircraft.By the way, if you never heard of it, in the days when NDB approaches were common - it was the number one cause of checkride failure.

I'll throw in a few cents on the NDB stuff. As a Canadian, you grew up on these NDB approaches, holds, etc. They aren't rocket science. The needle points to the station. Simple. You add wind correction to keep your required track to the station constant. Again, not reocket science as described. As for a check ride, and speaking as a former check A check pilot, if I told my candidate they have to do and NDB approach they HAVE to do an ndb approach. A good pilot would use all their resources to the advantage and use the GPS to help them out but they still have to use the NDB as a primary source of navigation. The only crummy thing about NDB is they are very susceptible to interference (T-storms, coastal effect, etc.).