NDB approaches

[CUEBOAT]

I am currently teaching in a Duchess, for those unfamiliar, its a Beech light twin. Anyway I have two smart ass instrument students that are airline captain kiddies. They complain when I give them the dreaded partial panel ndb single engine approach, along with a gear failure. They feel it is an unrealistic scenario. I agree to a point, in real life I know I would select an ils if it came down to this. So I ask you were you subject to these type of approaches, and also should I continue to throw these to my students?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Whine whine whine.

The airline folks in this group should probably chime in, but the way I understand it, airline pilots get recurrent training in realistic simulators and the instructors try to and often do load them up so much that they die.

Outside the airlines, the truth is that most if not all instrument training is a bit artificial. We ask our students and ourselves to fly multiple approaches, each one different, having as little as 1-3 minutes to prepare for it. The whole idea is to keep the workload heavy so that it's actually easier in the real world.

 

[Gulfstream 200]

single-engine, partial panel, NDB approach with a gear failure?

c'mon man, get a life....

NOT at all a very realistic training manuever, maybe a good challenge and laugh to a very sharp student when you have time - but certainly not a realistic situation - unless maybe you operate in remote areas of Canada or somewhere where this may apply.....

Choosing an NDB approach with thay type of emergency just shows poor judgement from the start. Dont teach poor judgement.

Airline training loading up the emergencys until you die? WHERE in the world did you hear this!!!??????

 

[ktulu34535]

NDB PARTIAL PANEL!!!

Okay I can only say that it does sound unrealistic to me. A VOR, a GPS, or an ILS with those conditions sounds fine. If you are really trying to test their correlative skills why don't you make them make the decision.

Have em flying around pratice approaches and what not and tell them that they have just lost their Vaccum instruments. Now they have to make the decsision. Then when they are established on the approach and go to put their gear down pull the circuit breaker, if they try to cop out with a precision approach ask them if they checked the notams, and if they say no tell them that the ils is ots or the glideslope is ots.

Sure they are going to need to do a pp non precision approach but it sounds to me that there is an ego conflict. Them thinking they are better than you or the training cos daddy flies for the airlines and maybe a little bit of macho behavior on your part to try to humble them.

If they think its unrealistic then just remind them of what the consequences could be someday.

Anyway thats my interpretation based on my VERY limited experience and what you posted.

Good luck!

 

[Thedude]

It maybe a bit unrealistic but it is a **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** good training idea. The whole point of some training is to get you proficent and to make your skills better. But I will say if I should ever get something like that for a PC or check-ride I would throw the B.S. flag.
I used to do P.P NBD with an engine out back in my student days...yeah the first few times I dreanched my shirt with sweat but it made me twice the instument pilot as most guys. And remember I still hand shoot NDB app in a B-727.

 

[Khirsah]

Unrealistic? Probably.

Speaking from the POV of someone who is currently going through instrument training, I'd rather deal with that in the training environment than being told to shoot a bunch of partial panel ILS/VOR/GPS approaches.

I had to drag my instructor out to the airplane kicking and screaming in order to get 2 good hours of partial panel NDB work in (and this was in a single). I hated every minute of it. But if I can shoot a partial panel NDB down to minimums a partial panel ILS is going to be a **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**ing cakewalk....and I thought that was the whole point.

 

[tarp]

Raising the Bar!

There's a lot of good comments in here. And with them I think comes an answer:

1.) Make sure that your students understand that this is "raising the bar" and has more to do with you loading them up in a Simulation than as something they should or would do in real life.

2.) The student should feel like this is a badge of merit. This is not you being a sadistic master (although you are) but a reward or treat for handling everything else so well.

3.) There should be intense ground discussion about "Decision Making Skills for IFR in real life". One of those is the obvious look for an ILS approach when the stuff hits the fan. (We are on the East Coast - one obvious life saver is the old go to sea and descend to near sea level. We have long talks about knowing where VFR is, not flying outside of your fuel tanks, weird system failures, etc, etc).

I'm pretty famous for "raising the bar" even in single engines. For my best students, the Marque de Sade touch is a localizer approach, no-gyro, no compass (I throw my hat over it) and a clogged pitot (read no airspeed) - no AI, no DG, no AS, no Glideslope, no compass, no DME. I laugh and joke and tell them how good they did - a real confidence boost after its over. But you have got to do this stuff like its fun NOT that its life or death.

If you raise the bar high enough, the PTS looks like pretty simple stuff when the check ride arrives.

 

[CUEBOAT]

Thanks for all the insight, I am new to this message board and I am very impressed with the wide outlook on this one topic in such a short amount of time

 

[stillaboo]

Partial panel NDB Single engine with a gear failure was expected of me as a student. Anyone who can't fly one in instrument training shouldn't be signed off (I'd never want to send a pilot with my recomendation to fly around IFR in a piston twin if they can't handle this).

During my flight training, the instructors put every student through this one: You're partial panel, fixed card (gotta' go fixed card!) at a high alt. field in the winter, so you got the heat on and the boots going (if you have boots). You'd turn inbound and lose the outside engine as you turned inbound and lose the alternator on the opposite engine. Most every student was so preoccupied with the dead engine they completely missed the alternator failure and the low battery. Not a big deal, until you go put the gear down at the FAF. Uh oh, gear's 1/2 way down (electric gear, ran outta' juice), and you're low and slow, single engine at high altitude, so you have to eeek out a 250 FPM climb to go missed (gear is still out unitl you crank it back up, which is quite difficult when single engine partial panel).

This situation teaches the student to be aware of the entire airplane. If you load shed, you can get the gear to come down at FAF and likely land safely. But if you don't monitor electrical, you meet your maker on the missed unless you have perfect Vyse and get cranking ASAP; your failure to monitor the airplane put you in the situation, not the instructor pulling breakers. A great teaching tool, sure to humble just about any student, and to teach them that just when it can't get worse, it does. You must monitor the whole aircraft at all times.

Any instructor who sends their students out into the world without preparing them for the worst possible scenario should feel all the guilt in the world when that student comes back in a body bag b/c you coddled him, giving him only 'realistic scenarios'.

The instructor student relationship shouldn't be abused by the instructor, but if you allow a student to dictate what is realistic training, you have failed as an instructor. You are the higher rated pilot, the more skilled pilot, and usually the more experienced pilot for a reason. Airliners have gone down b/c MX covered static ports and the flight crew was unable to decipher a static port failure! Reality is, anything can happen, and if you can handle the worst, you will likely stay calm when something minor happens.

Reality? I am reality! -Sgt. Barnes, Platoon

-Boo!

 

[bobbysamd]

SE, PP, NDB approaches

No, it may not be realistic in the real world at all any more, but it is good training. The idea is to push your students to the limits of the envelope and beyond. They need to understand that not every abnormal situation or emergency will go by the book, and that their job is to deal with all emergencies. In learning how to deal with them, their confiidence (and maybe egos) will build.

The best example that comes to mind is Capt. Al Haynes and United 232.

Tell your students to stop whining and realize that you're giving them good training. If they believe that what you're giving them is irrelevant, tell them about how green regional trainees are thrown multiple emergencies during sim. What you're doing is giving them a mindset to deal with that - and if they would just shut up and listen to you that they might thank you one day for helping them.

I agree with Stillaboo about the possible consequences for an instructor who does not teach students worst-case scenarios. Better have your professional liability insurance paid up. Moreover, as Stillaboo observed, you are in charge. You are teaching the course - indeed, you are the course. "You vill do as you're told - and you vill like it."

I've had students like the ones you have. Take charge. You might point out to these students that at the airlines the instructors know what it takes to pass training. Now might be a good time for them to develop the habit of listening to their instructors.