AOPA Pilot Magazine - January 2012 - 20

LETTERS

NDB Approaches

am in complete support for the continued use of NDBs and NDB approaches (“Dogfight: NDB Approaches,” November 2011 AOPA Pilot). If I am flying to Canada or the Caribbean, I feel much more comfortable if I have to fall back to tracking
NDB routes. In some areas of the United States it might not be necessary to have an NDB approach if a VOR approach is available. However, if an NDB is the only approach available, weather permitting, I would support the continued use of NDBs at public-use airports. I like the idea of having GPS approaches, but when GPS signals (RAIM) are lost, no matter where in the world you might be, NDBs and VORs are all you are left to work with. What if we were to get NDBs powered by solar energy? We should find a cheaper way to maintain NDBs, not decommission stations we might have to rely on in the future. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Maurice Ellis, AOPA 3595041 Baltimore, Maryland I am a former airline pilot and have operated all over the world. The airline I worked for had all the latest equipment, yet the Boeing 757 I flew as captain had dual ADF receivers, which are necessary in many parts of the world. We were not approved for RNAV approaches or GPS approaches as the company thought it was much too expensive to gain and keep authorization for these procedures. When flying nonprecision approaches such as an NDB approach, we did use the RNAV feature on our aircraft, but were required to monitor both the audio and the visual display of the NDB during an approach. If the NDB was out of service we could not legally shoot the approach. Small countries do not have the finances to build, certify, and maintain an ILS—nor do they have the finances to design, certify, and maintain (recurrent certification) of other types of instrument approach facilities. Our company could not even bid on a contract in Southeast Asia as several of the airports require duel ADF receivers, which the Boeing 737s did not have and the cost of adding this would be extremely expensive. So, yes, we do need NDBs, even here in the USA. Michael Berry, AOPA 966369 Stanfield, Arizona

I can see Dave Hirschman has strong opinions regarding the use of the NDB system and those thoughts may have reasonable validity in the lower 48 states. Doing away with NDBs here in Alaska would make flying to many of our villages impossible or, at best, unbelievably hard. I’m an instrument-rated private pilot who flies her Cessna 172 around Alaska where I live. We’re primarily Class G airspace up here with very little in the way of radar coverage, towers, and ATC help outside of the major hubs (which are very few). NDBs, while not fancy or high tech, are all we have in many places and, believe me, we’re grateful to have even that. If you want an experience that will give you more understanding of why NDBs are not to be abandoned—at least not in remote flying—please come fly in Alaska for a few weeks. Most of us GA pilots do not have a panel-mounted glass cockpit—we have steam gauges, VORs, ADFs, and a handheld GPS. Carole G. Comeau, AOPA 5109062 Eagle River, Alaska My friend, a Boeing 747-400 captain, says an ADF approach is an emergency procedure. He says the same thing about circling approaches. I have flown plenty

AOPA PILOT •

20 • JANUARY 2012

AOPA Pilot Magazine - January 2012

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of AOPA Pilot Magazine - January 2012