Talk:Non-directional beacon

VOR and NDB

"With the advent of VOR systems and GPS navigation, NDBs are decreasing in use; however, they are still the most widely-used navigational aid in use today."

Justification for this? It's certainly not true in the continental U.S., where VORs are a far more dominant NAVAID. I suspect the same is true in most developed countries, but maybe enough developing countries still rely on NDBs to make the statement true?

(Also "most widely-used navigational aid in use today" is redundant...) any objections to removing the last clause entirely?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.208.12.201 (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

In Europe there are more NDBs than VORs, however generally NDBs are relegated to subsidiary roles e.g. secondary approach aids at airports, or even VFR-only airport locators, whereas VORs are used to define the main airway structures.BaseTurnComplete 21:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The NDB system is used as a backup system to other NAVAID systems such as VOR. Years ago it was the predominant form of Direction Finding-true. in Australia, many small private general aviation (GA) aircraft use the NDB system, as VOR instrumentation can be expensive to purchase and retrofit. The other advantage of the NDB system is that the AM broadcast band (commercial ground based MF transmitters), can be used to get some idea of where an aircraft is situated in airspace. So I would agree that the statement "With the advent of VOR systems and GPS navigation, NDBs are decreasing in use; however, they are still the most widely-used navigational aid in use today." be left as is. The system in Australia is being upgraded to have newer transmitters. Fact: NDBs in Australia versus VORs = NDBs ~ 300, VORs ~ 50.--Read-write-services 01:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

i saw something that about 3 years ago australia purchased 61 NDB's for Nav Australia, but that's about it, the major manufacturers haven't announced any sales in the last few years. It's really a dying technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patbahn (talk • contribs) 21:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Australia has purchased its new NDBs (around 120 units now) from Nautel, specifically, this unit. It is NOT a dying technology in Australia. NDBs are a legitimate direction finding system prodominantly used by General Aviation, however commercial airlines also use the system.Read-write-services (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Systemic Bias

This entire article appears to suffer badly from Systemic Bias. It refers heavily to usage of NDB's in the Western World and thus consequently heavily discriminates against the non-western world. This article makes over 17 references to US usage, 9 to European usage and only 1 to developing nations. --Patbahn (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

NDB in the AM Broadcast band.

An edit to this article changed the AM MF band from 535-1600 kHz to 500-1700 kHz. The traditional band coverage is 535-1610 kHz with 9 kHz spacing. Now in the US, and in other places (Europe and Asia as well-I think), the range is 500 to 1610 kHz with 10 kHz spacing. (with 1610 - 1710 kHz as the 'Extended' AM MF band). When "Correcting" an edit, one should check by proper investigation and verification. My source is the Australian Communications Authority - Spectrum Chart rev. 2002.

--Read-write-services 01:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

cardioid?

A recent edit included the link to cardioid, what for? Is this a reference to ADF equipment (antenna reception pattern) or what? the ground transmitter uses non-directional (omni-directional) antennas? so what is the link there for? --Read-write-services (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The Cardiod is the Antenna reception pattern for an airborne ADF receiver. It's reciever antennas consist of a Loop Antenna which is bi-directional and also a Sense Antenna which is omni-directional, when these two reception patterns are joined together it creates a Cardiod, which contains only one broad null insted of two sharp nulls which you would have if you only had a Loop Antenna. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.85.23 (talk) 06:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Technical

NDBs can also be colocated with DME.

I know that VOR/DME is very common, but I have never heard of an NDB/DME combination. How common is it? Sv1xv (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22862041/airport-design-and-Operation-2nd-edition-jul-2007-eBook-ELOHiM p 373 " NDB is very old and inaccurate radio – navigation equipment with many disadvantages. The NDB signals are affected by atmospheric conditions, rough terrain, mountain ridges, coast line refractions, night effects and electrical storms." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patbahn (talk • contribs) 05:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC) --Patbahn (talk) 06:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

retirement

I added a section on the planned retirement of the NDBs and I added a ref but i put in into further reading, should it be in references? User: patbahn

I don't see where the source says that all NDBs are about to be retired. Crum375 (talk) 18:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"As part of its ongoing process of phasing out obsolete approaches at airports with new GPS approaches," http://news.studentpilot.com/28category/faa/ I would say ongoing process

means they want to do that. user:patbahn --Patbahn (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be your own inference, which is not directly supported by the source, and would violate WP:NOR. Crum375 (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the FAA is retiring hundreds of these every year, and that's what the source says The FAA anual report for 2006 specified they dropped 540 of these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patbahn (talk • contribs) 23:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I made that section invisible, with the following note: "Please do not restore this material without a high quality inline secondary source supporting it directly. Also, this article, like Wikipedia, is about NDB around the world, not about the US, and therefore there should not be undue emphasis on the US." There are multiple issues here, but the bottom line is that once material has been challenged, as it has in this case, a high quality secondary source supporting that material must be provided, using an inline citation. Crum375 (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

What's your beef, exactly? --Patbahn (talk) 01:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-209104197.html is Encyclopedia.com a high quality secondary source?--Patbahn (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

http://www.eaa908.org/newsletters/eaa news0805.pdf " In an effort to cut costs, the FAA has decommissioned several hundred NDB approaches. ..." is the EAA an acceptable secondary in line source? --Patbahn (talk) 01:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No, an encyclopedia is a tertiary source, not secondary, but in any case, none of the sources I have seen so far directly support the material you are trying to add. Crum375 (talk) 01:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

http://web.culpepercounty.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=TJ5186/3wG4=&tabid=155&mid=677 "Mr. Bossio received an email requesting the decommissioning of the R/W 4 NDB. Approach. The FAA is looking into decommissioning ail redundant approaches. ..." is page 18 of the culpepper regional airport authority, a official goverment publication page 18 an official resource? --Patbahn (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a primary source, and using it to support a general statement about long term FAA plans for all NDB installations would violate WP:NOR. What you need is an article by a third party (e.g. an aviation journal), which discusses the FAA's long term plans for older navigational aids such as NDB. Even then, if it only relates to US installations, it may be undue to present it at any length in an article about the entire world, given that many countries use NDB more heavily than the US. Crum375 (talk) 01:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050707ndb.html "On July 7, 216 NDB approaches will no longer exist. The FAA decommissioned them after careful coordination with AOPA and the aviation community. "And that's a good thing," said Randy Kenagy, AOPA director of advanced technology, "because it means the FAA can stop spending money on something few use and will have more funds for GPS-WAAS approaches to general aviation airports."

In fact, once the remaining obsolete NDB procedures are decommissioned later this year, the FAA will free some $8 million a year to use on more modern technology. That's because the agency will no longer have to spend money to repeatedly flight-check the approaches, maintain equipment, and update charts. (The FAA has NOT turned off any NDBs, however.)

AOPA and AOPA members helped the FAA decide which NDB approach procedures to cancel, by identifying procedures that duplicated other approaches or were no longer being used.

The FAA proposed decommissioning a total of 479 procedures, (the next set of procedures will be decommissioned in September). AOPA told the agency that 60 NDB approaches should be saved because they provided the lowest minimums or because they were important to members in the area. The FAA retained 35 of the 60 but offered no rationale for canceling the remaining 25."

http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-179787.html "Now that the FAA is planning to replace NDB none-precision approaches with GPS one wonders when will Europe follow."

http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=19185 "About 6 months ago, I found a printed list from somewhere outlining the decommission of NDB's by the FAA and Nav Canada. Starting June 2005, the FAA has started decommissing them, and starting in July I believe, Nav Canada is starting to decommission them. By 2010, there will be none.

AIC 14 April 05 states that they are decommissing them... but there is not the list...

Do anybody know where I can find something in print about NDB's decommissing in Canada..."

this is a primary source saying US and Canada to decom them all by 2010.

http://www.instruction.greenriver.edu/aviation/downloads/AVIA_112/ADF_NDB1.pdf page 8 "NDB/ADF part of many instrument approaches – but FAA phasing out NDBs – FAA expects to decommission nearly all NDBs by 2009-2010"

So lets see

"StudentPilot.com Aviation News brings you the latest and most important aviation news stories throughout the week. You won’t find laundry lists of flight restrictions or airworthiness directives here. You will find stories carefully selected and researched that matter to you, whether you fly a J3 Cub or a 747. While we won’t report on each and every plane crash that happens, we will look for those accidents that stand out for the lessons other pilots might learn from them. And we’re always on the lookout for what the Federal Aviation Administration is doing and how it could affect your privileges as a pilot.

The Aviation News started as an e-mail newsletter on our sister site, iPilot.com. Peter Sachs has edited and compiled that newsletter for the last four years. Peter has been a pilot since 2002 and is currently a certified flight instructor and freelance reporter in Chicago. He has previously worked as a reporter in Oregon, Washington, D.C., and Cairo, Egypt."

• i had a citation from studentpilot.com which is a newsletter.

• I had a citation from the EAA newsletter, which is a specialized newssource.

• i had a citation from an encyclopedia, which you think isn't authoritative.

• i had a primary government source

• i saw an FAA annual report which specified they had deleted 540 NDB approaches in 2006.

i lost the URL. because you were editing while i was.

• I have an article from the AOPA newsletter a secondary source.

• i have a forum from pprune which is primary.

• I have a citation from college course material.

what do you have? What will make you happy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patbahn (talk • contribs) 03:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You keep focusing on the leaves, instead of the trees and forest. This article is about NDB, which is used internationally. Its use in the US has been fairly limited in the last decade or so, so relying on the US to paint a global picture is tricky at best. What you need is a reliable secondary source discussing the the big picture, ideally internationally. Even if it's the US only, it should not focus on the decommissioning of individual facilities, but on overall numbers and percentages. E.g., there are currently X NDB installations in the US, including both enroute and terminal facilities, and the plan is to reduce them by Y percent over the next 10 years. This kind of information, coming from a high quality secondary source (e.g. Flying magazine, or Aviation Weekly), would be a good start. Then you'd need to paint a global picture, to put it in perspective for this international article. That would be the correct way to create a "retirement" section. Crum375 (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

so you decide that "StudentPilot.com Aviation News" is not a high quality secondary source?

and you believe that as long as some third world hellhole keeps using some piece of technology, it's therefore of interest to the english speaking world? people don't write about NDBs because it's uninteresting the same way people don't write about DC municipal power systems. would you be happier if the retirement section specified that the US, canada and Europe are retiring NDB approaches, but one can still find them in brazil?

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:zAds9T-YBOEJ:www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/techops/navservices/gnss/library/satNav/media/SatNav_March08.pdf "aviation week" ndb decommisioning&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESg8PGUt60t42CtmXJ8zq1ZDmbr7jCZg_W3vmbgXPK8qvSAWXvTbqR9mIfUFNmRpzeJ02ml86SAlUZEXj-9jkh44hQnc3GicEsGIWGc7hFqXGxq1cZSFITOEEWXU2LhoYn0xhGM8&sig=AHIEtbR395ag4zswTFIk9Cjpn1RbeUNcjA

Satellite-based procedures represent about 42% of the approximately 10,500 instrument approach procedures maintained by the FAA. As the agency continues to publish new RNAV (GPS) procedures while decommissioning little- used ground-based procedures such as NDB, that percentage will steadily increase.

So the FAA officially says they are decommissioning "Little Used Ground based procedures such as NDB".

AOPA says http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2002/02-1-159x.html "If GPS/WAAS has been approved for primary-means navigation and a majority of users are equipped with GPS/WAAS receivers by 2010, the government would then begin to decommission most NDBs not associated with an ILS and some little-used VOR"

The 2005 FRP indicates that the FAA has begun decommissioning stand-alone NDBs as users transition to GPS. However, the 2005 FRP also states that “most NDBs that define low- frequency airways in Alaska or serve international gateways and certain offshore areas like the Gulf of Mexico will be retained.”136

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26125750/Federal-Strategic-Spectrum-Plan-2008 "The 190-435 kHz and 510-535 kHz bands are not identified for continued use by DOT. Except in Alaska, where the NDB system is projected to continue indefinitely, these bands will cease to be needed by civil aviation upon termination of the non-Alaska segments of the system. Termination of the NDB systems was originally scheduled for 2006, but it is not certain when all of the NDBs will be decommissioned. "

It appears the only reason they haven't all been decommissioned is because of people like you fighting for a dying old technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patbahn (talk • contribs) 05:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC) --Patbahn (talk) 06:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

"It appears the only reason they haven't all been decommissioned is because of people like you fighting for a dying old technology." In that case, you might want to add to the article, "The NDBs would have all been decommissioned by now, were it not for the fierce resistance by Wikipedia editor Crum375." :) Crum375 (talk) 18:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Patbahn, you seem to be missing the point, this is a English language encyclopaedia intended for an international audience not a US/Canada one. At the same time I can't believe your arrogance with respect to non-Western World countries. I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Systemic bias. You have found sources that indicate the US is proposing to decommission NDB's but nothing to indicate that they being removed in Canada or Europe. I tried to find any indication that NAV CANADA was proposing to phase out all NDB's but while I can find stuff to indicate they have either replaced some or are studying the replacement of certain others I found nothing to say they intend to replace all of them. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 04:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I find your arrogance towards less developed countries very patronizing. You may not believe it but at least in south america and the carribean were flying GPS a decade vefore the US. Mostly because they don't have a regulator breathing down their necks.

however you seem to have changed your argument to being "NDB is great wonderful and in use in other countries ergo, no article should ever mention it's retirement in the USA"

if your concern is systemic bias, i would suggest you delete the entire article

and rewrite it in total, t has over 19 references to the US and canada, 7 references to europe and the UK and 1 reference to the Third world. I suggest this entire article should be deleted for systemic bias based upon your criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patbahn (talk • contribs) 06:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=19185 is a primary source to NAV Canadas plans.

I take it you are abandoning your whining on secondary sources? I found enough source material that now you are running to the systemic bias argument?

why don't you try adding a section that indicates the system is being retired in the lower 48 but remains in active use in the preferred underdeveloped world?--71.178.199.89 (talk) 06:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I take it that the IP and Patbahn are one and the same person. First I think you need to read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I'm not sure where you get the idea that I am denigrating other countries from, nor how, in the single comment I made I have gone from one position to another. Articles are not normally deleted because of systemic bias but added to with quality sources from other countries. The avcanada.ca is a forum and the opinion of a random person is not a source and can't be used here. I am not sure how I could have abandoned the requirement for secondary sources when, at that point, I had only made one comment. By the way when starting a new section it should be at the bottom of the page rather than in the middle for convenience. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 15:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I think your entire argument is Systemic bias, I have looked and the only assertion

that NDB is in use in the developing world is unreferenced and I looked, I couldn't find any high quality sources to the continuing use of NDB in the developing world. European textbooks call NDB old and inacurrate. The entire wikipedia article refers to the US,Canada and occasionally europe. I can't find any sources in the wikipedia article to use of NDB in the developing world other then one unreferenced claim. As for secondary refences, I have 2 textbooks (Elsevier and Greenriver), I have 2 Government reports, and i have StudentPilot.com which is a newsletter. Can you actually find anything to support your claims, or are you engaging in Original Research? --Patbahn (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

What claims? I can't really see that I made any. In fact your last post above is very hard to understand. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 14:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

http://avstop.com/ac/instrument_proc/chapter5_60.html "At one time it was commonplace for an instrument student to learn how to fly an NDB approach, but with the growing use of GPS, many pilots no longer use the NDB for instrument approaches. New RNAV approaches are also rapidly being constructed into airports that are served only by NDB. The long-term plan includes the gradual phase out of NDB facilities, and eventually, the NDB approach will become nonexistent. " http://avstop.com/ac/instrument_proc I suppose you totally despise this reference also?--Patbahn (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Title

This is only a minor thing, but is there a way to change the title to Non-Directional-Beacon (with upper-case at the beginning). After all, the abbreviation "NDB" comes from the first letters of the words and in my experience (I may be wrong so please correct me if I am) the first letters of the full term have to be capitol. Therefore, Non-directional-beacon is actually wrong. Thanks, --Plane Person (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Plane person, You are in-fact correct, I have had similar discussions on WP about this-and for some reason maybe te MOS (manual of Style) might need to be consulted to clarify the issue, however I agree that the abbreviation is made up of capital letters, therefore this should be reflected in the title. Change it and see what happens! Cheers--Read-write-services (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, I don't actually know how to change a title so could you show me please, thanks --Plane Person (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC).

Done. (You just perform a "move")--Read-write-services (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

If changing the article's title to first-letter-capitals was performed, it looks like someone reverted the caps back to small letters. That is a hard-to-understand reversion. Nei1 (talk) 01:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

age and inaccuracy

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22862041/airport-design-and-Operation-2nd-edition-jul-2007-eBook-ELOHiM page 393 Included textbook citation to age and inaccuracy of the system. It appears crum375 has a real problem with textbooks too. Apparently textbooks aren't high quality secondary sources.

" A Non – Directional radio Beacon (NDB) is in principle a simple radio transmitter which radiates a signal equally in every direction (hence 'non-directional') in the band 190 - 1750 kHz. The signal is modulated with a Morse code for identification. In most countries the NDB station is identified by a three, two or one-letter Morse code. NDB is very old and inaccurate radio – navigation equipment with many disadvantages. The NDB signals are affected by atmospheric conditions, rough terrain, mountain ridges, coast line refractions, night effects and electrical storms. "

I will note that the section included above is very close to the summary of NDB, but includes the statement that the NDB is old and inaccurate, a description that Crum 375 seems to think is weasel wording. In which case i suggest you discuss this with the textbook author.--Patbahn (talk) 02:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

There are several issues. First, this source is borderline reliable for at least three reasons: a. it has ugly typos in the very sentence that is referenced, indicating lack of professionalism and proofreading; b. it is focused on how to build and manage airports, where navigational aids are only tangential and normally done by governments; and c. it relies on Wikipedia at least for some of its material, which would make it a circular reference. Another issue is that the source mentions advantages and disadvantages of NDB, out of which you pluck out only the latter. Then there is the weasel-wording problem: for example, to say that something is "old" means nothing, since the wheel is an old invention, yet we still use it, so age is not a meaningful advantage or disadvantage of an invention. But the main problem is that all of this is out of place: all advantages and disadvantages should be described in a centralized location in the article, based on high quality sources. Crum375 (talk) 04:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

so now you dislike Textbooks on Airport Design. Interesting, you realize that a textbook is legally admissable in court. The key adjective is that NDB's are inaccurate, which is why they are going away. You may not realize this but in the third world, they just velcro Automotive grade GPS into aircraft and use those. You seem to think NDB is the key technology of the Ghana, Kenya Critical flight corridor. The problem with the technology is it's power intensive and heavy. A small GPS unit now weighs a few hundred grams, while an NDB can weight 25 lbs. GPS requires very little from the airport while the AM beacons can eat a few kilowatts, which is expensive. NDB also requires the pilots to be fluent in Morse Code, a skill that is passing away.

all the prior citations I had also discuss NDB as obsolete a matter you furiously refuse to accept as a fact.

BTW you seem to be making up your assertions. I looked, that textbook has 235 entries in it's bibliography, not one of them is to cite wikipedia. It also should answer your whinging about Systemic bias as the Authors are from Slovakia and Loughborough, and Elsevier is a european press. I suspect this textbook is aimed at European and commonwealth students.

So lets see, the Europeans are teaching NDB as old and inaccurate, the FAA has been trying to eliminate NDB since 2006 and you seem to think it's a critical technology?

I believe it is prudent to ask a Neutral Third Party opinion on this matter.--Patbahn (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

Third opinion: There's two issues here. The first is that "NDB is very old and inaccurate radio – navigation equipment with many disadvantages." is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Aside from being fairly poorly written, it's pushing a POV and kinda weasel-y. But even beyond that, Scribd is not a reliable source, as it's impossible for us to verify that the text that's there is what was in the original source. Just for argument's sake, how do we know that someone didn't tamper with the text? There's no way to tell without venturing into original research. And third, is using that sort of source to make a statement about NDB being old a misrepresentation of the text? If it also says good things about NDB, then it's a misuse of the source and shouldn't be used. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Another "third" opinion

(Edit conflict - I was in the middle of writing this when HelloAnnyOng came in)

As Patbahn writes, it may be "prudent to ask a neutral third party" on Wikipedia:Third opinion, but I must point out that a third opinion is "third" if there are only two other editors involved in the dispute. I see two editors participating in the section immediately above, but I see more editors in the section called "retirement". In that regard, I am not sure what my addition will add to resolving the argument.

With that said, here are my opinions.

• Wikipedia generally should not take a position regarding loaded or ambiguous terms like "old" or "obsolete" or "inaccurate". Doing so treads into WP:NPOV-violation territory. Instead, the usage of such terms should be attributed to sources, not merely stated with a citation. Better yet, one could say something like "NDB has been in use since (year). Since then, more accurate navigation aids have become available and popular." That's different — and more precise — than saying flat out "NDB is old and inaccurate."
• The discussion above suggests that the US is phasing out NDB approaches, because far better alternatives exist than using NDB for approach. However, NDB is still useful for cross country navigation, no? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't navigation beacons still active? You can use AM radio stations with your cockpit ADF instrument, not just NDB stations. I'm sensing from the above discussion that a US policy specific to approaches is being generalized to every NDB out there, which would be WP:SYNTHESIS and not appropriate for the article.
• Definitely the article should specify who is phasing out NDB, and mention that it is still used in many parts of the world (e.g. the entire continent of South America, and what about Australia and India?).
• I have no problem with the textbook source mentioned.

Did I miss anything? ~Amatulić (talk) 04:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with using AM stations is they aren't controlled navaids. if they switch broadcast sites you will be lead astray.

Icao policy is to withdraw NDB. The problem of citing where NDB remains in use is it's Original research.--Patbahn (talk) 06:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

ICAO plans for Asia/Pacific Region

http://www.icao.int/icao/en/ro/apac/edocs/cns_atm_systems.pdf

section 5.4.1.d "d) Current navigation aids (NDB/VOR/DME) will be progressively withdrawn.

it may horrify you to realize that in 2005, the ICAO was planning to withdraw NDBs throughout the Asia pacific region.--Patbahn (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is "weasel-speak". "Progressively withdrawn" means what, 10% reduction in 10 years? Faster? Slower? You'd have to get some hard numbers to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Also, since you seem to be posting here quite a bit:

• Please sign your talk page messages by adding four tilde characters after your message, like this: ~~~~
• Please make sure you are logged in, since having both your logged in account and your IP address (when you are not logged in) is confusing.

Crum375 (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

if you would bother reading the citation as opposed to using mammalian metaphors,

you might see something. However, I do not wish to engage in "Original Research" and if you bothered reading you would see that it's trip wired. When RNAV and GNSS is in the majority of the aircraft in the regions then they will begin the program.

Progressively withdrawn means exactly that. Do you have any citations that NDB's are in majority use in the non-western world, or are you engaging in Original Research?

--Patbahn (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)--Patbahn (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR only applies to article space, not talk pages, while discussing sources and article improvement. And to avoid weasel-speak, you need hard numbers. To say something is "gradual" is meaningless, unless you can define it quantitatively as 10 years, 50, 100, or whatever. Crum375 (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

so i will assume you have absolutely no data on your side of your claim.

I will note i had hard numbers, that over 42% of all approaches were GPS based in 2006

and that over 700 NDB approaches had been decmmisioned by the FAA, but then you started whining about systemic bias.

your contention that NDB is in heavy use in the non-western world is utterly unsupported.

If you had bothered reading the citation, an effort that appears to tax you, you would note Table 8-1, which indicated that most of the Asia-pacific region had conducted demos for non-precision approach using GPS and aside from China and Papua New Guinea had in 2005 locked down plans to convert to GNSS for all navigation. --Patbahn (talk) 06:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring your repeated WP:CIVIL violations for now, you are providing irrelevant numbers. The numbers that count for NDB retirement plans are: what percentage of existing installations is being retired, over how many years, internationally and per country where available. Also, another important statistic and indicator would be what percentage of existing aircraft around the world have instrument approach approved GPS installation compared to NDB, and how fast that ratio is predicted to change. Crum375 (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

So you have zero data that NDB is the dominant navigation aid in the non-western world? --Patbahn (talk) 02:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I never said that. Crum375 (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

so why don't you cite your data? --71.178.199.89 (talk) 06:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Need a Section on NDB Approaches

Mention is made of the role of NDBs as a fix in an ILS approach, but there should also be a sub-section just prior to that about stand-alone NDB approaches. If no one else writes one up, I will try and get around to doing one, but since I am rather slow (doing edits, not mentally), if another editor were to find time to create that sub-section, that would be great. HiFlyChick (talk) 11:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi HiFlyChick, I have added the section heading, you just need to add the info cheersRead-write-services (talk) 22:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - I wasn't clear, I meant for someone to get around to writing the section...meanwhile, I'll put it on my to do list and get to it when I can. HiFlyChick (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Non-directional beacon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721041334/http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/Chap5/aim0503.html to http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/Chap5/aim0503.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201074339/http://www1.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/ to http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140312225159/http://pe2bz.philpem.me.uk/Comm/- ELF-VLF/- ELF-Theory/- Antenna-Theory/Vlf-11101-NDB-Dxing/ to http://pe2bz.philpem.me.uk/Comm/- ELF-VLF/- ELF-Theory/- Antenna-Theory/Vlf-11101-NDB-Dxing/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Non-directional beacon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090904034127/http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/ATpubs/AIM/Chap1/aim0101.html to http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/Chap1/aim0101.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

History

I was hoping to find here a history of the invention/introduction of the NDB system, but there is only a description of how it works. 2001:44B8:3102:BB00:6890:C20B:C031:93AD (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Anyone got good sources for the history? Billlion (talk) 08:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)