Should I replace my ADF?

[kortopates]

Amen to that!

What I most recall about the pre-GPS navigation was just how easy it was to kill yourself back in the day of ADF steers. The only thing I miss now is walking into the local FSS for a weather brief - an experience I got to relive flying up to Alaska.

But the only airport I flew into that only had a NDB approach was south of the border, but in our current satellite nav era so I cheated and used the GPS and its procedure. Especially since there was a big mountain right by the airport.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jlunseth]

Hey, you can still do that i Canada - walk across the field and get your weather briefing from a human.

[steingar]

I almost forgot to thank everyone for their input.  Thank you!

something new to add.  While ADF approaches may be rare on the ground, my airport has one as does my closest neighbor.  Got me thinking about it again.

Edited December 25, 2015 by steingar

[Bob_Belville]

  On 12/24/2015 at 8:22 PM, steingar said:

I almost forgot to thank everyone for their input.  Thank you!

something new to add.  While ADF approaches may be rare on the ground, my airport has one as does my closest neighbor.  Got me thinking about it again.

Expand  

The NDB 4 approach gets you down to 500 AGL; the GPS 4 (LPV) gets you to 259 AGL.

[steingar]

I'd love an IFR GPS I just don't have that kind of cash and won't for the foreseeable future.  Just thinking about alternatives if something breaks.

Folks keep talking about GPS not realizing that they're preaching to the choir.

 

 

[glafaille]

Don't forget that an approach legal IFR GPS is not as useful to you unless the database is current, which means a subscription.  ADF no subscription required.  You must decide how many times a year that IFR GPS will get you somewhere that the ADF will not.  For IFR enroute a subscription is not always required.  

An approach legal GPS is not essential for me, so I can save the expense of a subscription.  For enroute ops, a VFR GPS is useful, but so is an Ipad with Foreflight which has more capability.

In my case, although I am a professional pilot, I have no desire whatsoever of flying a single engine aircraft anywhere near an airport that would require me to shoot an LPV/ILS precision approach.  In my opinion, anything less than 800 ft ceiling is an emergency in a single engine aircraft, in which case I MUCH prefer the simplicity and precision of an ILS approach with a radar equipped approach controller.  Otherwise shooting an ADF or VOR approach to 1000 & 3 is a simple matter indeed.

After all many of us are flying 50 year old airplanes.

 

Edited December 28, 2015 by glafaille

[Marauder]

  On 12/28/2015 at 3:58 PM, glafaille said:

Don't forget that the IFR GPS is not as useful to you unless the database is current, which means a subscription.  ADF no subscription required.  You must decide how many times a year that IFR GPS will get you somewhere that the ADF will not.  

In my case, although I am a professional pilot, I have no desire whatsoever of flying a single engine aircraft anywhere near an airport that would require me to shoot an LPV/ILS precision approach.  In my opinion, anything less than 800 ft ceiling is an emergency in a single engine aircraft, in which case I MUCH prefer the simplicity and precision of an ILS approach with a radar equipped approach controller.  

After all many of us are flying 50 year old airplanes.

 

Just a couple of comments. A GPS database is required to be current for the Nav and approach information. A subscription service is the easiest way to maintain currency, but not the only way. You can obtain the current NOTAM changes and apply those to an expired database. Unless the rules were changed recently, you need to be flying with current navigation and approach information. It just doesn't need to be in the box. As a side question, how many of you check in detail the current NOTAMs for changes in this data prior to flight? I look over the approach changes for my destination and alternate, but haven't been as diligent on the enroute Navaids.

As for your comment regarding "anything less than 800' is an emergency", well, I guess you better be looking for a twin or spend most of your time flying in the southwest. I have gotten more conservative over the years especially after experiencing an in flight emergency where I realized that flying over 0/0 was going to be a problem if I had to set her down.

With the weather information available today (by the way, found a new app called "Storm" that has some nice non-aviation features including really nice current radar), I will stack the odds in my favor to include decent enroute ceilings. I continue to do IPCs every 6 months to practice to minimums and brush off my bad habits -- which includes no longer flying NDB approaches. I won't intentionally look to fly on days where a destination airport is at mins, but I am prepared to fly one if I encounter it.

And yes, many of us fly 50 year old airplanes. But just like humans, it is all about the upkeep.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Bob_Belville]

  On 12/28/2015 at 3:58 PM, glafaille said:

Don't forget that the IFR GPS is not as useful to you unless the database is current, which means a subscription.  ADF no subscription required.  You must decide how many times a year that IFR GPS will get you somewhere that the ADF will not.  

In my case, although I am a professional pilot, I have no desire whatsoever of flying a single engine aircraft anywhere near an airport that would require me to shoot an LPV/ILS precision approach.  In my opinion, anything less than 800 ft ceiling is an emergency in a single engine aircraft, in which case I MUCH prefer the simplicity and precision of an ILS approach with a radar equipped approach controller.  

After all many of us are flying 50 year old airplanes.

 

Expand  

I'd be interested in the logic behind your opinion that a 700' ceiling constitute an emergency in a single engine airplane. Flying, as well as driving a car, or climbing a flight of stairs, involves a certain amount of risk. I doubt that the stats support an opinion that shooting precision approaches is a significant contributor to accidents. Frankly, I'd far prefer to be flying over Kansas or Florida above a solid deck than over mountainous terrain in CAVU conditions. (I fly a 50 year old single engine Mooney, well equipped and carefully maintained, which by definition is a cross country machine, poorly suited to be a weekend, local only, fair weather toy. I am concerned about icing, thunderstorms and mechanical failure. Shooting an approach with ceiling and visibility comfortably above minimums in a single engine plane that has been operating fine for a few hours is not high on my worry list)

[glafaille]

Bob:

No offense intended.  

I only meant to say that at this point in MY life and professional career, I personally have no interest in dealing with low ceilings, embedded thunderstorms, ice or obscured mountains while flying a single engine aircraft.  In my younger days I did all of those things and now I don't wish to.  

Certainly the aircraft is capable of dealing with more than I have a desire to deal with.  The expense to equip and maintain a 50 year old airplane for the above mentioned ops will be much higher than more conservative operations.

As the OP sounds like he is on a moderate budget, which mirrors my situation, I thought it helpful to consider just what situations would require an IFR approach GPS and how often it's full capabilities would be utilized.

I am in no way passing judgement over other people and how they fly their planes.  I apologize for any misunderstanding.

Edited December 28, 2015 by glafaille

[Bob_Belville]

  On 12/28/2015 at 5:23 PM, glafaille said:

Bob:

No offense intended.  

I only meant to say that at this point in MY life and professional career, I personally have no interest in dealing with low ceilings, embedded thunderstorms, ice or obscured mountains while flying a single engine aircraft.  In my younger days I did all of those things and now I don't wish to.  

Certainly the aircraft is capable of dealing with more than I have a desire to deal with.  The expense to equip and maintain a 50 year old airplane for the above mentioned ops will be much higher than more conservative operations.

As the OP sounds like he is on a moderate budget, which mirrors my situation, I thought it helpful to consider just what situations would require an IFR approach GPS and how often it's full capabilities would be utilized.

I am in no way passing judgement over other people and how they fly their planes.  I apologize for any misunderstanding.

Expand  

Fine. Actually my life situation may be more like yours that the OP. I'm long retired and though I was never paid to fly I spent many years flying for business. I do not have to keep such a demanding schedule now. (In a time of single engine turboprops I don't hear so much as we used to from pre-turbine transport types that they would never fly in anything with less than 4 engines.)

But since our OP does intend to fly for business he will be faced with the kind of go/no go decisions I used to face. Sometimes those calls are easy but quite often they are not. Having a well equipped plane makes it easier. I always found my instrument ticket and the best panel I could afford made cross country weather decisions much easier and flying much safer than it was for a VFR only guy trying to make a several hundred mile trip and return days later. I only had to work around relatively rare CBs, icing. and widespread low ceilings. The VFR pilot or someone with minimal equipment has to consider every cloud in the sky from here to Podunk Hollow and back.  

[glafaille]

Bob and Marauder

 

I agree with both of you on most of your points.  My comment about 800 ft ceilings being an "Emergency" was said somewhat "tongue in cheek" as a way to illustrate that personally, low ceilings are something I avoid unless I am flying an aircraft as capable as what I fly professionally.

Each pilot must evaluate his own situation and determine what risks he will tolerate and how much will be spent to minimize that risk.  I'm spoiled by the aircraft I fly for a living, my risk tolerance is low and my aircraft will be used only for leisure travel.  Therefore there is no motivation for me to accept very much risk.

There was a time when I flew night freight in poorly maintained, poorly equipped airplanes in horrific weather, operated under very demanding schedules.  I don't have enough fingers to count the friends lost flying in such conditions.  Now I have the privelage to fly awesome equipment, maintained with little concern as to the cost, for a retired gentleman in no hurry to get anywhere.  I want to bring some of that into my personal life for myself and my wife in our leisure travel with a 50 year old Mooney, which by the way, I consider the absolute safest single engine, 4 place aircraft one can purchase for the mission.

[carusoam]

A simple  can denote the tongue in cheek... 

Otherwise, there is no way to tell what you 'really' have in mind.  I took what you typed at face value.

Trying to be helpful,

-a-

[Marauder]

  On 12/28/2015 at 5:53 PM, Bob_Belville said:

  On 12/28/2015 at 5:23 PM, glafaille said:

28 minutes ago, glafaille said: Bob:

No offense intended.  

I only meant to say that at this point in MY life and professional career, I personally have no interest in dealing with low ceilings, embedded thunderstorms, ice or obscured mountains while flying a single engine aircraft.  In my younger days I did all of those things and now I don't wish to.  

Certainly the aircraft is capable of dealing with more than I have a desire to deal with.  The expense to equip and maintain a 50 year old airplane for the above mentioned ops will be much higher than more conservative operations.

As the OP sounds like he is on a moderate budget, which mirrors my situation, I thought it helpful to consider just what situations would require an IFR approach GPS and how often it's full capabilities would be utilized.

I am in no way passing judgement over other people and how they fly their planes.  I apologize for any misunderstanding.

Fine. Actually my life situation may be more like yours that the OP. I'm long retired and though I was never paid to fly I spent many years flying for business. I do not have to keep such a demanding schedule now. (In a time of single engine turboprops I don't hear so much as we used to from pre-turbine transport types that they would never fly in anything with less than 4 engines.)

But since our OP does intend to fly for business he will be faced with the kind of go/no go decisions I used to face. Sometimes those calls are easy but quite often they are not. Having a well equipped plane makes it easier. I always found my instrument ticket and the best panel I could afford made cross country weather decisions much easier and flying much safer than it was for a VFR only guy trying to make a several hundred mile trip and return days later. I only had to work around relatively rare CBs, icing. and widespread low ceilings. The VFR pilot or someone with minimal equipment has to consider every cloud in the sky from here to Podunk Hollow and back.  

Looking back at my IFR flying, I am absolutely happy with the decision I made to upgrade my panel. I never felt unsafe with the old hardware, just found the new avionics have expanded my awareness of the factors impacting the flight.

Whether it is the StormScope pointing out weather ahead;

Terrain;

Or just redundancy and positional awareness, it was all worth it;

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[carusoam]

The unknown unknowns are fewer and fewer with Marauder's Aspen/Aspen panel...

Just needs another GTN to fill out the GTN/GTN part...

That was fun, 

-a-

[steingar]

This is a good discussion gents.  I doubt I'll fly for business.  To me, having to be somewhere at a particular time as a hobbyist pilot is tantamount to a death sentence.  Sooner or later you're going to hit something that exceeds the capability of you or your aircraft.  Were I doing it every day I'd feel differently, but I'm not.

I want the IFR so i don't have to worry about every cloud in the sky.  If the only thing between me and my trip are some low clouds or locally limited vis, I'll happily go.  If there's widespread low weather and limited vis, I'll probably stay home.  If there are thunderstorms embedded in the stuff you bet I'll stay home.  My thought is that the Mooney is fast, sooner or later I'm going to hit weather.  I'd like to increase my dispatch ability, but I don't need to be an airline.

I've been thinking about the ADF because it is an inexpensive increase in airplane ability.  I know a GPS would garner greater utility, I just can't afford one any time soon.  Got a VFR GPS, got an iPad with Foreflight, all that jazz.  But they won't legally get me down through the stuff, and an ADF will, or at least it will help.  I'm going to have one for some time no matter what, I'm not spending money to remove it.

[carusoam]

Spend the few extra bucks on the training to get through an overcast layer using your current equipment.

you probably don't want the first time to be in real IMC alone.  

It is not that it is really challenging.  But simply overloading your cognitive skills can be hazardous to your health...

My thoughts,

-a-

[glafaille]

  On 12/28/2015 at 6:29 PM, carusoam said:

A simple  can denote the tongue in cheek... 

Otherwise, there is no way to tell what you 'really' have in mind.  I took what you typed at face value.

Trying to be helpful,

-a-

Expand  

Never used those "Smiley Faced" things much.  I guess I better learn to use them more or do a better job of parsing my words!

[Marauder]

  On 12/28/2015 at 6:22 PM, glafaille said:

Bob and Marauder

 

I agree with both of you on most of your points.  My comment about 800 ft ceilings being an "Emergency" was said somewhat "tongue in cheek" as a way to illustrate that personally, low ceilings are something I avoid unless I am flying an aircraft as capable as what I fly professionally.

Each pilot must evaluate his own situation and determine what risks he will tolerate and how much will be spent to minimize that risk.  I'm spoiled by the aircraft I fly for a living, my risk tolerance is low and my aircraft will be used only for leisure travel.  Therefore there is no motivation for me to accept very much risk.

There was a time when I flew night freight in poorly maintained, poorly equipped airplanes in horrific weather, operated under very demanding schedules.  I don't have enough fingers to count the friends lost flying in such conditions.  Now I have the privelage to fly awesome equipment, maintained with little concern as to the cost, for a retired gentleman in no hurry to get anywhere.  I want to bring some of that into my personal life for myself and my wife in our leisure travel with a 50 year old Mooney, which by the way, I consider the absolute safest single engine, 4 place aircraft one can purchase for the mission.

It is all about personal mins and stacking things in your favor. Hopefully, you will be able to find a Mooney that is equipped and maintained to the level that will give you the same confidence you have in your profession.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Marauder]

  On 12/28/2015 at 6:36 PM, steingar said:

This is a good discussion gents.  I doubt I'll fly for business.  To me, having to be somewhere at a particular time as a hobbyist pilot is tantamount to a death sentence.  Sooner or later you're going to hit something that exceeds the capability of you or your aircraft.  Were I doing it every day I'd feel differently, but I'm not.

I want the IFR so i don't have to worry about every cloud in the sky.  If the only thing between me and my trip are some low clouds or locally limited vis, I'll happily go.  If there's widespread low weather and limited vis, I'll probably stay home.  If there are thunderstorms embedded in the stuff you bet I'll stay home.  My thought is that the Mooney is fast, sooner or later I'm going to hit weather.  I'd like to increase my dispatch ability, but I don't need to be an airline.

I've been thinking about the ADF because it is an inexpensive increase in airplane ability.  I know a GPS would garner greater utility, I just can't afford one any time soon.  Got a VFR GPS, got an iPad with Foreflight, all that jazz.  But they won't legally get me down through the stuff, and an ADF will, or at least it will help.  I'm going to have one for some time no matter what, I'm not spending money to remove it.

Unfortunately there aren't a lot of NDB approaches left in the United States. And the VOR approaches are being replaced by GPS approaches. That is what I faced in 2012 when I was flying behind this panel:

My two favorite destinations had dropped their VOR approaches in favor of GPS approaches. I was still able to get in VFR, but anytime it wasn't, I needed to adjust my plans to find an airport that would get me in under an ILS or VOR.

The only reason I waited so long to upgrade was that my home airport still has a VOR approach. If you have no need to "be there" and don't want to make the jump to GPS, I would just make sure your VOR/ILS stuff is up to snuff and find an airport close to your destination that you can fly one of these approaches.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Mooneymite]

Being a CB, before I pour money into the panel of my 40+ year old plane, I have to ask myself, "Am I adding additional capability, or am I putting lipstick on a pig?".

When I sprang for a 430W, the answer was a resounding "yes"....much more capabililty because I could fly to more destinations and fly lower minimums.  I got a capability I didn't have before.

Though I envy Marauder's plane and panel, the bottom line is that I can legally fly anywhere he can using the same minimums even though mostly I'm all steam gages.  For me, an IFR pilot needs a WAAS GPS to maximize his instrument ticket.  The days of the VOR's and ADF's are numbered.

Strangely enough, the only gizmo I might add would be an old King DME....there are certain times when a DME is still needed.  Oh!  I guess I'll have to add ADS-B eventually. 

Edited December 28, 2015 by Mooneymite

[aviatoreb]

My home airport has an ndb 24 approach - but we also have an RNAV 24 approach.  I hadn't practiced the NDB 24 in years.  I had my ADF removed several years ago.  We all figure who needs an NDB when we have an RNAV for the same airport.  Well... I ended up using the NDB 24 a few months ago - the approach direct is different for each and there was a storm coming in from the unusual direction from ISICA - the IAF for RNAV 24 - so it was very natural to make the NDB 24 approach.  I am glad we had it - but you don't need an ADF for the NDB approaches if you have a current GPS.

[Jerry 5TJ]

  On 12/28/2015 at 6:29 PM, Marauder said:

......

Terrain

.....

Expand  

I hate it when the terrain page is all red like that. 

[FlyDave]

  On 1/3/2016 at 2:22 PM, Jerry 5TJ said:

I hate it when the terrain page is all red like that. 

Expand  

That's why I never look at the terrain page