NDB approaches

[uscpilot]

siucavflight,
Why do instructors feel the need not to try to load a student up, and test their limits? Should you teach that emergencies happen only one at a time? And as far as the gear goes, who really cares if it goes down or not? For that very reason it is a good idea to include it. If the student gets distracted by the gear the instructor can inform him or her that it is not necessary in this situation, and can only distract from flying single engine at or above the aircrafts published single engine service celing.

If I were the instructor I would applaud the student for trying to reduce the workload by using the GPS, or requesting a PAR, good aeronautical decision making. I would then inform him that his GPS just died and the radar sight is down for maintence. Sadistic? Unrealistic? Improbable? All the above. But it will make a better pilot. Not somebody that expects emergencies to happen one at a time. I would not want somebody to be complacent and not expect the sh!t to hit the fan again after they have already delt with one emergency.

Is the origional situation "real life"? No, of course not. That does not mean that on occasion that you should not test a students limits. Granted these things work best in a simulator, but not all schools have them, so you have to do the best with what you have. It should also not be done on a daily basis, just thrown in once or twice towards the end of training.

Our company will occasionaly give sim rides during recurrency training. The purpose of these rides is to test the pilots limits. They will fail all sorts of things until you either crash or land the plane. Few land it. Its not a pass fail sort of thing. It just keeps you on your toes, and tests your limits. (I realize this was not really relivant to our discussion, I just saw somebody early in the thread challanging the notion of companies killing people in the sim.)

 

[ktulu34535]

a reading from the bible...

"Normal individuals begin to respond rapidly and exactly, within the limits of their experience and training. Many responses are automatic, which points out the need for proper training in emergency operations prior to an actual emergency. "

~~Aviation Instructors Handbook

 

[Toy Soldier]

ktulu34535


Very eloquently put!

As I say, there is nothing like knowing "the rules". After all, smarter people than us wrote them...

 

[80/20]

I like the simple-to-complex building block system and try to avoid unanticipated events training until normal and non-normal exercises can be handled individually. The first block is to teach anticipated events where you will notify the student about a task that will be introduced. The student will then practice with instructor guidance and intervention. The second block is to give the same anticipated task but without instructor intervention. The third block is to give unanticipated tasks or problems. This should only be given after the first two building blocks are mastered. A lesson's workload should be adjusted to the student's level but still include as many real-world, operational elements as possible. As students become more skilled the workload may be increase. If time permits I guess you could eventually introduce multiple unrealistic problems.

How far should we "raise the bar?
Should we go above and beyond the minimum requirement?
Should we give the test before the lesson?
I would say that we should only go above when we have covered the basics properly first. There is little training value for a student to be totally task saturated with multiple new emergencies. The student's wishes and budget should be considered. A student who is planning to take the multi in minimum time will most likely need most of the time to learn the basics properly first.

 

[siucavflight]

I teach for a flight school in central iowa. I am going to give one of my students this exact ssituation and see what the student does. I will do it in our schools seminole, and report the results to you guys tomorrow. My bet is that i am going to get an earful from my student.

 

[bobbysamd]

Amen

Besides if you can do an ADF approach engine out, all the other approaches are a snap.

At least someone "gets it."

As noted above, an engine-out, single-engine NDB, partial panel approach would still be realistic in many parts of the world. The students who whine about them are missing the point. The idea is to mold their mindset into not freaking out if confronted by a multiple emergency.

A pilot's career begins at his/her training provider. I'd rather learn how to multitask now during a school training flight in a Seminole, Baron, etc., with my friendly instructor who wants to see me succeed instead of having them sprung on me during regional airline sim. Regional airline sim is stressful enough without that additional stress.

I have a vague recollection that when I was at Riddle we were finally told not to give students multiple emergencies. Someone there whined, I'm sure.

 

[Thedude]

Can someone tell me what a master CFI is??? Thats a new one one me

 

[Gulfstream 200]

Its someone who has spent WAAAY too much time Flight Instructing..

 

[Airpiraterob]

sorry for this one...

but to backtrack.....but i gotta help wherever i might be able to. i had to experience the more common sense approach with the equipment i was working with. it worked very well.

someone mentioned the possible scenario and chain of events leading up to the situation of being inside the marker partial panel engine out and gear failure in bad weather high altitude and icing with the boots on? (must be accumulation if theyre on right?) well.....who said go around? the reality is this...

yes that chain of events can definitly happen in that order percieved...engine out (it was near TBO anyway)...overload and loose the good generator (its not a new one anyway), electric becomes drained quickly (that battery isnt exactly new). and heres why..

your P.O.H. is LYING to you. believe it or not its your choice but...
--do you actually believe that your several thousand hour of piston twin will perform just like it did when new?....nope. its used and has many many many landings on it. its not exactly "straight" anymore. not many are.
--do you believe that your battery power will last as long as the book says with no alts/gens?....nope, try half that time for real.
--do you believe that your plane will perform on one engine like it does in training?..nope, outta try it at max weight full of fuel sometime and then watch yourself sink to the crash site. not all planes are old junk. theres nice ones out there...but none of them are new enough, and none-of us come close to flying like test pilots.

just as an example of the real world finally catching up to me:

i turned one off at high altitude (17k). i could not maintain altitude on the remaining angine and went all the way down to a "quickly picked" diversionary airport. i was at 95% max weight. anything at near full load will not hold altitude until you get close to the ground...i wasnt even holding it when i got down to 6k msl.

the lucky part is that the one good hydraulic pump left (powered the gear) was aparently the lesser performing of the two on the plane (one on each engine). so the gear came down slow and i could hardly steer off the runway. some kind of valve was sticking. it wasnt all bad at once...it was one after the other tho but i saw right then the good reason for practicing compounded failures within reason. what would have happened if the gear didnt come down? well if i was in good ole icing i would have bellied it in...no way i could have carried that much weight AND ICE and have hoped to climb out on the missed....one hinting buffet of a stall like that and youre planting it in the gradeschool next door.

im not into bragging at all. in fact i hate to do it. but if anything that I went through can help you figure out any kind of training technique or step here and there...then im glad i could have helped.

so beware even though you most likely wont get the multiple compound fracture scenario in an airplane, eventually something close to it will bite you sometime. you will have to make that decision now how to prepare for it. engine out and partial panel cause the good vaccuum pump was on the bad engine and the older pump on the good engine just sucks? oh yeah it can happen. and now the gear wont come down? well having practiced that sort of thing before you're now AHEAD of the plane rather than just WITH at the time of happening and can notice a few more things to take care of ....again having practiced it before. dont roll your eyes at the instructor...this is what youre training for. fly long enough and the unexpected bad will happen. so its best to be able to conquor anything the plane can give you instead of just damage management.

practice the multiple failures hardcore so that any other individual failure is a cakewalk. absolutely right Bobbysamd....someone did finally get it. ( you go rick..)

 

[80/20]

Cueboat, you started a very good and interesting discussion!
Could you expand a bit on how you organize the training?
(Just briefly)
How many hours do you have available?
Which order do you teach the PTS and additional items (basics/emergencies/multiple emergencies)?
Do you bring your students to PTS level first and then go above and beyond?

 

[Toy Soldier]

TheDude

Here is the link to the NAFI Master CFI program. The MCFI is similar to the Gold Seal, except for the MCFI you have to earn credits in four different categories, submit a portfolio to a board, and then do it all over again every two years.

It takes some amount of effort to get and maintain.

Post by Gulfstream 200
--------------------------------------------------
Its someone who has spent WAAAY too much time Flight Instructing..
-------------------------------------------------

Isn't one hour of instruction waaaaay too much!

 

[r1830]

Original post by siucavflight

USC pilot, GPS Approaches? Or havent you heard of those yet. And i bet if you were flying in alaska you have a GPS. What is going to happen when the FAA closes all of the NDB's in the next five years.

I fly for a 121 airline in Alaska. The NDB approaches are extremely useful and most get us 100-200 feet lower than any GPS approach to the same airport. Half of our aircraft don't have GPS in them(Convair 580, Dash 8, and DC-3). Flying into Valdez(PAVD), The Dash 8 and CV-580 use Mineral Creek NDB(MNL) to verify their position on the localizer because of the false courses that often occur in the very mountainous terrain. In fact it is required. There are no GPS approaches to Valdez

In the Twin Otter, I can recall several times when we were unable to shoot a GPS approach because RAIM was unavailable. We operate both the GX-60 and KLN89B. I have seen our GPSs flagged or RAIM unavailable more than I have seen any one navaid go out of service at an unscheduled time. At least when a navaid is out of service, it is more or less local and NOTAMS are issued. When the GPS flags, it is worthless and happens without warning. As crucial as NDBs still are to the National Airspace System I find it hard to believe they will be out of sevice in 5 years.

I am sure many pilots have handheld GPSs in Alaska, but most of them are not certified for IFR approaches. In Bethel(PABE), Alaska, most 135 operators are cleared to operate VFR 1 mile clear of clouds(essentially 1 mile and 500 foot ceiling). This is lower than the minumums on good number of the approaches out there. Most of their aircraft are only VFR equipped, even with the Capstone program in full swing. Why spend money on an IFR certified GPS when they can go VFR and have more useful load with a basic VFR panel?

I wish there were statistics on how many VFR pilots have had unfortunate endings in Alaska because the pushed the weather since they had their trusty handheld with them.

 

[uscpilot]

siucavflight,
What will this venture proove? If your student does well or not so what. One thing is for sure, it will be educational.
And whether or not they like it is irrelevant. The instructor is the expert and knows what is good for the student, not vice versa.


Also I think that due to some recent posts the idea of "real life", and realistic are relative terms. They seem to be defined by the limited experiences of flying only in certian airport and navaid saturated areas. That GPS is not always an alternative, multiple system failures are possible, and that flying a good NDB approach under horrible conditions is necessary. Afterall, this is partly the point. Is there anyone out there that would prefer an NDB approach over GPS, ILS, or PAR? Of course not. But that doesnt mean that there will, "always have other approaches that are available to you." siucavflight, I realize that this sounds patronizing but you were being really niave when you said that.

 

[siucavflight]

USC, i was simply stating that i would much rather prepare my students for real life flying instead of the "doomsday" scenerio that you seem to like to teach. Of course all of these things could happen-multiple system failures. But as far as training an instrument student i would give them the scenerio of a partial panel NDB approach. I would not worry about giving them a engine out no gear ndb partial panel approach. To me this would not be the best use of the students time and money. I was never given this scenerio in my instrument or my multi training.
The only reason why i would give my students this scenerio would be to see how well they can prioritize in the cockpit. I guess that it is just a method of teaching.

I am sorry but i misunderstood the original post. I was under the impression that this scenerio was based on a real life situation. And other than those of you who are flying in Alaska i cannot see this being a real life situation. Every where in the states that i have been flying i am never more than half an hour of an apprach that is not an NDB. And we should have a 45 minute fuel reserve on board.

 

[uscpilot]

siucavflight,
You are implying that I would give this scenario in question on a daily basis. In my previous posts I said once or twice and towards the end of instrument training. And it is also for the exact reason that you listed: "to see how well they can prioritize in the cockpit. Have we been in agreement all along? Was it just my pilot ego that got in the way? That's never happened.
I dont believe that I got this scenario in my initial multi-instrument training, however I have had system failures in the sim when I was hired by my current employer.
I would not be so quick to assume that all student pilots are going to fly in the continental US. Have you looked at a chart for Europe, or any where other than the US? Lots of NDB's.

 

[rubberducky]

I think that a good instructor will challenge his/her students with realistic as well as "unrealistic" scenarios. A good student will learn from all the flight training that his/her instructor gives them.

As for the airline side, when I went through CRJ training we had to do a Single Engine non-precision circle to a missed and again to a full stop. Would we do this in real "line" flying, no. As a matter of fact we aren't authorized to circle at all. But we learned to master the engine out scenarios...

RD

"splash an go"

 

[WindyCityPilot]

On a 121 type-rating checkride(initial) it is in violation of the PTS if the sim instructor fails more than one system at a time.

True, but there is nothing against the sim instructor failing more than one system in the sims leading up to the checkride.

Sure, the student may become overloaded. But it is good training for them to prioritize emergencies and learn to handle on thing at a time. It also helps them realize that certain systems will effect other systems, so they should prepare for that fact should something fail (like an engine).

 

[siucavflight]

I do believe that we have been in agreement.

 

[uscpilot]

siucavflight, agreed, truce. There I got the last word
Fly Safe

 

[bobbysamd]

Quality training

True, but there is nothing against the sim instructor failing more than one system in the sims leading up to the checkride.

Thank you. Wouldn't it be nice to have experienced this kind of training early as habits and thought processes are being formed instead of having it thrown at you suddenly while you're already stressed out mastering normal procedures during sim?

Sure, the student may become overloaded. But it is good training for them to prioritize emergencies and learn to handle on thing at a time. It also helps them realize that certain systems will effect other systems, so they should prepare for that fact should something fail (like an engine).

(emphasis added)

Thank you again. That's also been my point.

Students should be eager for growth and to have their envelopes pushed so they learn their limits. I have had students who whined when I pushed them, claiming lack of realism and hearing that their friends' instructors weren't pushing them as hard I was. It's all about providing good training that will serve them long after they regurgitate their procedures to the examiner.