Farewell NDB's, VOR's, DME's

[dsam]

I'm surprised there weren't any forum posts about today's switch off! Obviously nobody cares...?

 

 

[Happyflyer]

I'm surprised there weren't any forum posts about today's switch off! Obviously nobody cares...?

As long as they don't switch off the GPS!

 

 

[dsam]

As long as they don't switch off the GPS!

They are keeping a BNN (backup navigation network).

Gotta love all the acronyms!

 

 

[kaz3g]

The NDB at Shepparton is being retained for practice approaches.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Pearo]

Airservices has been advertising this for a while now, and I have noticed that it has featured extensively in NOTAMS recently.

 

 

[mnewbery]

Hands up everyone who has a functioning ADF and somewhere to use it. I do but half the NDBs I want to use are already Notam'd "Pilot monitored"

 

 

[turboplanner]

Who would pay for all the airtime required to become proficient on an ADF these days, when there's GPS.

 

I won't mention any names but I know someone who dialled up the altitude of a hill instead of the frequency for St. George and still made it to the destination.

 

 

[Ultralights]

so, ADF, NDB and VOR getting turned off, and GPS is not permitted as a primary source of navigation... (for VFR) so, back to dead reckoning, maps and stopwatches. Welcome to the future bought to you by CASA, and Airservices.

 

 

[mnewbery]

The current ERSA still lists all the AM radio transmitters in Australia and their locations. Also, for those feeling nostalgic you can still create your own NDB technically. ACMA lists licence conditions for amateur beacon operators, as does the WIA.

 

Moruya NDB got canned but Merimbula did not. Wonder if the RPT boys and girls are going to use iPad approach plates?

 

 

[Pearo]

so, ADF, NDB and VOR getting turned off, and GPS is not permitted as a primary source of navigation... (for VFR) so, back to dead reckoning, maps and stopwatches. Welcome to the future bought to you by CASA, and Airservices.

I just had a look at VFRG, and it says you can use GPS and radio nav aids as your primary source of navigation provided that you have been trained in their use by a qualified person. The VFRG normally provides the legislation reference, but in this case it does not, when I have some spare time I will track down that info.

 

 

[KRviator]

Under the VFR (Except NVFR) GNSS can only be used to supplement other Nav techniques. Under the NVFR, you can use VFR as primary navigation for Area Navigation. CAsA instruction 80/14 chapter 5 refers. Although I have just noticed this particular instrument - though it is listed as "in force", actually expired at the end of March 2016...

 

So you have your flight plan and nav log, with times and headings which would correspond to DR techniques and must use your ultra-precise GNSS box to supplement these techniques. You also have to positively fix your position every 30 mins when nagvigating visually.

 

But then, AIP ENR 19.2.1 says you can use radio navigation systems (ie, TSO C129-GNSS units that meet RNAV performance requirements) or VORs, except when below 2000, when you must navigate visually, and when using radio nav aids, the position fixing times extend to 2 hours...

 

Clear as mud?

 

 

[Ultralights]

except when below 2000, when you must navigate visually, and when using radio nav aids, the position fixing times extend to 2 hours...

so, when out west, where all the radio nav aids have been turned off, get out the stopwatch. and reckon correctly. sounds like a great nav technique to me, considering the reliability, and accuracy of available systems your not allowed to use (legally, as a primary means)

 

 

[pmccarthy]

NDB was/is extremely simple if you just want to tune in to the frequency, check the dots and dashes, then fly to the source via a slightly curved route. The magic needle points to home/mother/safety.

 

 

[djpacro]

This CAAP on the use of GPS is worth reading https://www.casa.gov.au/file/104801/download?token=ztuBPrVy

 

 

[dutchroll]

Wonder if the RPT boys and girls are going to use iPad approach plates?

RPT boys and girls already do.

Qantas mainline (and I think its subsidiary airlines too) have been using iPad approach plates for several years.

 

We can also legally fly an NDB approach if the NDB isn't working, but of course you need a certified GPS containing a navigation database to do this.

 

 

[mnewbery]

(And the RPT boy or girl pilot will be in 90 day IFR currency to satisfy CAO 40.2.1 if it's actual IMC). Sometimes we forget it's the equipment and the pilot

 

 

[ian00798]

so, ADF, NDB and VOR getting turned off, and GPS is not permitted as a primary source of navigation... (for VFR) so, back to dead reckoning, maps and stopwatches. Welcome to the future bought to you by CASA, and Airservices.

A RAIM capable GPS can be used for primary navigation, however it can't be used as a sole navigation source, hence why the backup Nav network exists, as it gives sufficient navaid coverage for navigation in the case of total GPS failure, and also allows the RPT aircraft to update their INS equipment at sufficient intervals. Still, I'm going to miss the navaids, some of the new names for navaids are just ridiculous and annoying, and now IFR aircraft giving position reports outside radar coverage provides nothing useful to a VFR aircraft listening out, while a VFR pilot would know where Coonabarabran is, very few would know where anban is when the IFR reports overhead.

 

 

[Jabiru7252]

This CAAP on the use of GPS is worth reading https://www.casa.gov.au/file/104801/download?token=ztuBPrVy

this link is acting strange to me...

 

 

[djpacro]

this link is acting strange to me...

It goes to download the file straight away - this link just goes to the list of CAAPs - look for 179A-1 atCivil Aviation Advisory Publications | Civil Aviation Safety Authority

 

 

[dutchroll]

.....allows the RPT aircraft to update their INS equipment at sufficient intervals.

Most modern RPT aircraft have twin GPS (the larger ones also having dual or triple inertial reference systems) and ground base navaids are not required at all - not even for position updating.

The inertial navigation system still computes its inertial position complete with drift etc, but that position is then disregarded in favour of the GPS position. It would only revert in the case of total (dual) GPS failure.

 

Radio navaid updating the system these days is fraught with complications, such as the incident we had when a pilot decided to try the radio update procedure out of curiosity, but typed in the wrong navaid identifier, thus telling the aircraft it was a thousand miles away from where it thought it was. There followed frantic (and I believe ultimately successful) attempts to flush the update, followed by him swearing he'd never try that again.

 

Some years ago on the old B767 before it was belatedly fitted with GPS, we got in trouble because the aircraft would auto-update off ground based navaids during the arrival sequence to major airports and start drifting off in all sorts of directions as it tried to figure out its accurate position compared to where the inertial system thought it was. The GPS equipped aircraft were dead on track all the time. It used to make life hard for ATC in the more extreme cases as these updating B767s randomly veered left and right of track depending on the navaid signal it was getting. I remember a couple of occasions where Approach called and asked "......, are you deviating around weather?" and I replied "Negative......just the aircraft doing its usual thing!"

 

 

[ian00798]

I have noticed that it's pretty rare to see an aircraft off track these days, everything from C172s up to A380s stay on their flight planned track like its a railway. I can generally even tell when a VFR aircraft is using something like ozrunways, because their navigation is dead accurate. GPS is definitely a more accurate way to fly than the navaids ever were. It would be nice to get GPS precision approaches in Australia too, especially for places like Armidale where the weather can get pretty average. Really the virgin/Qantas incident at Mildura shows the value of GPS for approaches, and that would have been a lot safer if a GPS precision approach was available too.

 

I think the major reason Airservices left navaids for RPT to update inertial systems is certain procedural standards require the aircraft to have updated their INS within the last 3 hours. We know you don't actually do it, but if we make sure it's no more than 3 hours before you get within range of a radio navaid, then we can keep using those separation standards. The lack of navaids is why oceanic separation standards are so large (potentially as much as 15 minutes between successive aircraft).

 

I suspect as GNSS develops more and more large chunks of the backup network will end up decommissioned too, particularly once the Galileo network comes online fully, with 3 different space based navigation systems available it's pretty unlikely they would all fail at once.

 

 

[dutchroll]

Yeah what GPS has done for aircraft tracking is interesting.......and slightly unnerving.

 

Years ago when we had inertial nav systems without GPS, you'd always fly past opposite direction traffic displaced by a nm or 2 due to the inherent inaccuracies. Nowadays if you're on a.main air route say from Sydney to Southeast Asia, you get opposite direction aircraft flying directly below or above, with absolutely no lateral displacement at all. Your cockpit passes directly under or over their cockpit.

 

In fact with 1000ft RVSM separation, you can actually literally hear the roar of their engines briefly as they pass over you. I've occasionally looked at the other guy and said "just as well we're both smack on our assigned altitudes eh?" There's no longer any room for pilot or ATC error!

 

 

[ian00798]

Yeah I can imagine 1000ft doesn't look like a lot of separation when your closing at 850-900 knots. I think that's why we like to sort out opposite direction stuff nice and early, if we mess it up opposite direction then the airplanes radomes are going to meet at flight levels and we will end up with a very large aluminium shower. Luckily there are a lot of defences in the system to make that very unlikely.

 

With opposite direction, even with radar I generally won't clear an aircraft through the other aircrafts level unless I know it can be completed at least 5 minutes before time of passing, which at jet speeds means the aircraft will be about 80-90 NM away from each other. That just gives me time in case something goes wrong, if I lose Comms, an aircraft climbs slow, etc it gives me time do do something about it. We no longer have the final defence in the system of the navigation being so inaccurate that even if we mess it up they are unlikely to hit, because most of the time the GPS is spot on. It really is a bit of a double edged sword.

 

 

[mAgNeToDrOp]

They are keeping a BNN (backup navigation network).Gotta love all the acronyms!

As long as they don't rely on the NBN !!

 

roflcopters:rotary:

 

 

[facthunter]

DR as long as the assigned "level" is not allocated to more than one, in error. It's happened before. It's applicable to crossing traffic also but not as critical as opposite direction or overtaking traffic, for obvious reasons. If you have an unplanned descent you are supposed to go to one side, but if you are cruising and one engine suffers a partial power loss unnoticed , it could fall out of the level any way. Nev