Talk:Non-directional beacon

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  Australia has purchased its new NDBs (around 120 units now) from Nautel, specifically, this unithttp://beacon.nautel.com/vr500.aspx. 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)
thread_title:  VOR and NDB 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Systemic Bias 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NDB in the AM Broadcast band. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  cardioid? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Technical

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Title 

message: 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)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Need a Section on NDB Approaches 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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/-%20ELF-VLF/-%20ELF-Theory/-%20Antenna-Theory/Vlf-11101-NDB-Dxing/ to http://pe2bz.philpem.me.uk/Comm/-%20ELF-VLF/-%20ELF-Theory/-%20Antenna-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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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