How do I tune an ndb. There is no place on radio page in fmc.

 

Paul

If you are flying the Freighter, there is no NDB.  If you are flying the passenger version, it should be on the NAV/RAD page of the FMC.  

 

Cheers

TJ

It's been made an option for both now in SP1. Which I prefer - since I use NDB's still. 

 

 

It's been made an option for both now in SP1. Which I prefer - since I use NDB's still.

 

Glad to hear it brother!  Now Ollie can stop mentioning it :lol:

It's been made an option for both now in SP1. Which I prefer - since I use NDB's still. 

 

Fantastic!  Now if FSX would only allow AM Radio stations to be used as NDBs  :lol:

I remember a real pilot jokingly (or not) saying something like having to fly an NDB approach on a 777 is a quasi-emergency situation.

Glad to hear it brother!  Now Ollie can stop mentioning it :lol:

 

 

No complaints either about missing ADFs nor about missing wx radar after SP1 anymore.

 

Looks like I need a new agenda!!!   :LMAO:

I remember a real pilot jokingly (or not) saying something like having to fly an NDB approach on a 777 is a quasi-emergency situation.

I'd say that really depends on the operator. Freighters tend to fly into some more obscure airfields, so they are more likely to encounter the use of the ADF. I'd imagine some Asian operators would also run into them more frequently than the operators in the European and American skies.

NDBs are not easy to use and prone to error, but quite why people write them off I have no idea. They are used in remote regions because they are SIMPLE.

 

They are typically used for non-precision approaches and locators for specific points, so as long as people don't try and use them for anything else they are pretty good. Night time and thunderstorms make them pretty useless, but otherwise I think people are expecting too much.

 

As non-precision approach suggests, it gets you to the point where you should be visual by minimums. I don't have any problems flying them or using them. I think those that complain the most about them started flying after GPS was introduced.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

I'd say that really depends on the operator. Freighters tend to fly into some more obscure airfields, so they are more likely to encounter the use of the ADF. I'd imagine some Asian operators would also run into them more frequently than the operators in the European and American skies.

 

NDBs are still widely in use as enroute navaids in many regions, Russia, Africa, Asia etc... 

 

Howevever, I doubt that any 777 will fly into any airport that has no ILS, no VOR, and "HAS" to perform an NDB approach because of IMC conditions.

 

I can clearly see that a 777 could fly into an airport without ILS, but they would do so under VMC and just fly in visually. But if there's bad weather and the crew is forced to flying an NDB approach, oh my!

 

Of course it can be done safely, but I guess they aren't used to doing it at all. Follow the procedure, once at the MAP either land visually or go/around, it's not a big deal "in theory".

There's tons of airports 777's fly into with no ILS'. Or they go INOP.

 

My mate at BA told me a funny story - well, might find it funny... Anyways the ILS was INOP at a certain airfield in Africa because locals took parts from the Localiser lol.

 

RNAV's are really good too. Can be tricky if you get vectored right up to the IAF - have to stay ahead of VNAV PTH! I like the challenge though. Think I've only done one NDB approach in the trip. Although an RNAV/VOR/NDB aren't majorly different, to me anyway in the 777. Just RNAV's won't have an offset generally.

NDBs are still widely in use as enroute navaids in many regions, Russia, Africa, Asia etc...

 

Howevever, I doubt that any 777 will fly into any airport that has no ILS, no VOR, and "HAS" to perform an NDB approach because of IMC conditions.

 

I can clearly see that a 777 could fly into an airport without ILS, but they would do so under VMC and just fly in visually. But if there's bad weather and the crew is forced to flying an NDB approach, oh my!

 

Of course it can be done safely, but I guess they aren't used to doing it at all. Follow the procedure, once at the MAP either land visually or go/around, it's not a big deal "in theory".

BHX has been using NDB/DME approaches on and off over the past 6 months, due to the runway extension works. Emirates send 2 x 77W's a day there, AI send 6 x 787's plus all the other traffic. They definitely still have a place, I wish sometimes on VATSIM that controllers would allocate other instrument approaches other than ILS, it would keep everyone on their toes!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wish sometimes on VATSIM that controllers would allocate other instrument approaches other than ILS, it would keep everyone on their toes!

 

 

You can request whatever approach you wish to do. What's preventing you from calling the controller and saying "Request an NDB approach"? I do it all the time.

As I know most modern aircraft has GPS primary fuction. right?

 

So ... why does goverment and operartor of that NDB facility still use that NDB?

 

It costs.. right?

 

(Sorry for my poor English)

 

 

They definitely still have a place, I wish sometimes on VATSIM that controllers would allocate other instrument approaches other than ILS, it would keep everyone on their toes!

 

I used to think that, but as long as I get a visual when I should be getting a visual, I don't get too upset about it.  As a controller, your aim is to use the approach that has the highest throughput.  With the way ILSs can be vectored and flown, throughput is maximized when compared to other types of approaches (generally - there are a few exceptions at odd airports).  Additionally, you want to avoid the mixing of procedures, because that would be difficult to separate.  If the aircraft ahead and behind is expecting the ILS, I can't have someone coming in at an odd angle on the VOR approach.  Finally, you want to use an approach that minimizes deviations.  With both horizontal and vertical guidance, deviations can be minimized, which helps to separate aircraft, decrease track miles flown, and (as a result) increase throughput.

 

As Jaime mentioned, though, you can always request a different approach.  Some of them are a lot easier for the controller, but as I stated above, there may be other factors at play.

 

As an example, it's a lot easier for me to clear an aircraft prior to BAL with "at BALtimore, proceed direct BELTS, cleared RNAV RNP Runway 19 approach," and then just sit back and monitor the aircraft path.  Vectoring around in the coffin corner (basically, a corner of airspace bounded by IAD's airspace to the west, and BWI's to the north and east - you can see some of the departures being vectored to avoid/fly out of it, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkP_syvQbNQ) is somewhat of an art, but it's also a lot more work in comparison.

 

...but most aircraft can't fly the RNAV RNP approach because the RF leg, and most pilots on VATSIM can't handle clearances like that.

 

 

 

So ... why does goverment and operartor of that NDB facility still use that NDB?

It costs.. right?

 

It's all about equippage.  If most of the fleets flying in there are only able to use NDB approaches, or can't fly RNAV approaches, they may leave it.  Additionally, when compared to other equipment, as Robin mentioned, they're extremely simple.  An ILS has several elements: the LOC array has several components, while a glide slope antenna must also be sited and mounted.  An NDB on the other hand, is a single antenna.

 

As an example:

There are a few airports (in America) where it would be nice to force an RNAV RNP approach because of how the ILS affects surrounding airports.  Unfortunately, the general equippage of the fleets flying into those airports does not make it effective, currently.

 

Here's a project I was part of a few years ago to investigate equippage and the feasability of a concept called "Best Equipped Best Served."