NDB approaches

[Whirlwind]

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.

Yes, that may be true, but keep in mind that you're teaching adults in the civilian world here. These are not kids in school or adults in the military. They do not have to be there, and they do not have to hire your services.

While it is true that the instructor is the final word on the training (it is after all his/her signature for the sign-off for the checkride), he or she must also keep in mind that in addition to being the student, the student is also the customer. Within certain limits, some leeway must be given. Few adults will put up with constant "stump the dummy" exercies.

Fly Safe!

 

[bobbysamd]

Quality instruction, again

Yes, that may be true, but keep in mind that you're teaching adults in the civilian world here. These are not kids in school or adults in the military. They do not have to be there, and they do not have to hire your services.

The operative word here is "service." These "adults" have hired the instructor to perform a service for them. These "adults" should let their instructors perform the service for which they were hired. Instructors know what students should be taught to (1) be safe and competent and (2) to pass the checkride.

Another way to view it is by looking at incident investigations involving dual flights. A student might have more experience than the instructor, but the FAA will point the finger at the instructor. The FAA regards the instructor as the individual on board who has more knowledge and background.

Yes, students are customers, but they should not be running the asylum. Part of the blame rests with spineless management. Plenty of flight instructors have unfairly lost jobs - myself included - because management has not stood behind its instructors. Instructors lose their authority at the point when management sides with the "inmates." As long as instructors are passing their students and are not padding their time, students have no basis on which to complain.

 

[Whirlwind]

Re: Quality instruction, again

The operative word here is "service." These "adults" have hired the instructor to perform a service for them. These "adults" should let their instructors perform the service for which they were hired.

Yes, then one must define what that service is. To me, it isn't a constant game of stump the dummy.

Now, the original poster qualified his post by saying that he doesn't do this often, and only then near the checkride. Ok, fair enough, once or twice is not a concern. What would bother me is a CFI who thought this was SOP, rather than a once or twice thing.

So I guess we were not all on the same page.

Yes, students are customers, but they should not be running the asylum.

Who writes the checks? That is who is ultimatly in charge. Like it or not, that is reality.

Part of the blame rests with spineless management.

It isn't really management's fault, their job is to make profits (this is a business remember), and as the old saying goes, the customer is always right (even if they are wrong).

Fly Safe!

 

[midlifeflyer]

Re: Re: Quality instruction, again

Who writes the checks? That is who is ultimatly in charge. Like it or not, that is reality.

The "reality" is somewhere between the extreme positions of "the customer is the boss" and "the CFI is the boss." It's a much more complex dynamic and moves around continuously from task to task. Doesn't matter whether we're talking about a doctor, a lawyer, a handyman, or a CFI.

 

[Toy Soldier]

This is a tough subject. The same "discussions" could apply if you are flying part 91 for someone that is also a pilot!

I frequently have "spats" with my boss when it comes to flying the airplane. He is an old pilot with 3500 hours. However, as you may know, sometimes the worst pilots have thousands of hours or have been doing it "that way' for 35 years!

I frequently have to walk a thin line when it comes to "telling him NO" and then doing it the right way. Yes, he is ultimitely the boss. However, I am the chief pilot, CFIMEII, etc. I am learning to find ways to "ask leading" questions, point out the obvious, etc., when it comes to getting him to understand the best way of doing things.

Like we used to say in the army, "Never violate doctrine - however, techniques are left up to the individual". As long as it doesn't violate doctrine, or sound safe measures I will always do what the boss says. However..............

As far as students are concerned:

1. Follow the FAR's
2. Use standard and accepted training techniques
3. Use a syllabus (this eliminates most uncoordinated effort)
4. A syllabus keeps training consistent also.
5. Remember that you, the CFI is ULTIMITELY responsible
6. Remember that the student is ultimitely the customer (not the boss)

The "student (boss as some call them)" can make decisions like training in the afternoon versus in the morning, which plane to rent, which CFI to use, which FBO to use, # of lessons per week, etc. However, they should not tell you which techniques they will train on, which lessons to skip, how to fly the plane, etc. Students don't have enough information or experience to make SOUND decisions - that's why they are students. Once they earn that coveted ticket - then the playing field is all theirs.

The lifesaver in all of the student/CFI problems that can come up is the CFI's ability to analyze the situation as well as be a good negotiator to get around the students that want to be bosses.

I have had "pre-first lesson" students come in and tell me vehimitely that they weren't going to "do this or do that, weren't going to follow a syllabus", etc. Well, I quickly dispatched them and took the rest of the day off. We do reserve the right to select our students. Actually, I do an interview with them to see if we can "agree to agree" on my methodology, etc. - just like they should be interviewing the CFI's.

It seems like they (students) must have gotten on a "forum" and learned from the "experts" that they don't have to do it if they don't want to because they are the BOSS.......................

 

[bobbysamd]

Who's the Boss?

Apologies to Tony Danza and Judith Light.

Students don't have enough information or experience to make SOUND decisions - that's why they are students . . . .

That's been my point. Who are students to tell you, the instructor, what to teach and how to teach it?

I have had "pre-first lesson" students come in and tell me vehimitely that they weren't going to "do this or do that, weren't going to follow a syllabus", etc. Well, I quickly dispatched them and took the rest of the day off. We do reserve the right to select our students.

Sometimes, sometimes not.

I worked in three 141 programs that were geared toward ab initio airline students. Although we were flying lightplanes, our procedures were airline and the mentality we were trying to instill was airline. Some of that involved learning callouts, using flows, memorizing checklists, using lengthy checklists, and using takeoff and approach briefs. I had students who refused to learn callouts, despite my exhortations and soft soap explaining that they would use the same procedures in their Beech 1900s. I had at least one student, whose training was being paid for by a major Middle East airline, argue vehemently that what we were teaching was not applicable in a Seminole. His whining cost me a job. The managers of my company were spineless.

The student may be the customer, but the Flight Instructor is the boss and G-d.

 

[siucavflight]

This is the last word USC and i got it.

 

[uscpilot]

 

[TXCAP4228]

I Never had a sim ride where they can have more than ONE emergency at a time, unless the pilot creates it himself....which NEVER happens right??

that is why I thought that situation was a little out there...its good fun and a good experience I suppose, it might teach one to react fast...but I never liked flying with guys who reacted fast

Just rememeber as a CFI, you teach judgement just as much as anything else.

I would be thrilled if my student said "I would call ATC, declare an emergency and request vectors for the nearest Precision or Radar approach, FU*K you and your NDB" ......End of Story...

The one I would worry about is the guy rushing through 300 items to get that NDB single engine partial panel gear failure thing on the ground..why are you teaching this?

It just sounds like a CFI trying to impress someone with a crazy scenario he has rehearsed before...UNREALISTIC.

Gulstream, say this to the Columbia crew. Their siuation was so unrealistic that even when NASA was confronted with it they said "Nah, no way, can't happen."

They didn't even have a way to deal with it.

So much for it being unrealistic.

 

[stillaboo]

Gulstream, say this to the Columbia crew. Their siuation was so unrealistic that even when NASA was confronted with it they said "Nah, no way, can't happen."

They didn't even have a way to deal with it.

So much for it being unrealistic.

Say it to the Sioux City crew too. Engine 2 out, loss of all hydraulics, what do we do, SAM?

The response: "There's no checklist for that."

Guess they should have pulled the 'this isn't realistic' card, huh?

-Boo!

 

[Gulfstream 200]

Space Shuttle crew?
Sioux City?

Gee guys, maybe we could have "trained" for this??

These were freak occurances that will ALWAYS happen and there is NOTHING you can do to prevent them. All you can do is LEARN from them -- AFTER they happen.

Remember,

99% of learning comes from experience. Get them a rating so they can go out finish learning. You are just a flight instructor.

Once you find yourself pulling wacky $hit like single engine partial panel NDB's with gear failures etc etc......hang it up and move on so that you yourself can LEARN something in the real world!!

 

[80/20]

What's the goal here? Most would agree that it's to produce the safest possible pilot. This is a result of two things: (1) Quality of training, and (2) Amount of training.
Quality is to create a safe pilot. Today's emergency procedures and training syllabi are based on accident records, which reflect the most likely threats. The majority of accidents are caused by basic problems.
Typical initial multi engine courses have limited amount of hours. It's difficult to cover the most basic and realistic risks properly in the allotted time.

I don't think it is a good strategy to cut short the training in the most likely problems and jump right into multiple emergencies. A number of civil and defense surveys conclude that this is not a good strategy.

We should focus on the number one killers first and do this well. It is not a bad idea to practice sophisticated unrealistic scenarios but a typical multi engine course does not give you enough time for this.

 

[Alaskaairlines]

The NDB approach is still utilized as a primary approach in Alaska at several airports. Many of these airports now also have GPS approaches, but they are worthless if you have a VFR only GPS or don't have one at all.

Iliamna(PAIL) airport requires that you cross at or above 7000 ft stay with in 10 miles and get down to 580 ft by the missed approach point. The depature procedure utilizes the NDB as well. You have to hold in the climb till 6000 ft if your flying toward Anchorage. If we had an engine failure going into Iliamna or while climbing out we would be committed to returning to it. If we were IMC we would need to shoot the NDB(single engine) back to the airport as the MEAs are high and the nearest large airport is almost 100 nm away in mountainous terrain. Couple that with the large moisture content and cold temperatures to add in some icing just for fun.

Anchorage VOR was out of service for almost a month this summer. We had to file to CMQ on are IFR flight plans, even for the Dash-8 and Convair 580(No GPS or FMS).

When the Homer Localizer is out of service, the NDB is the only approach into the airport(PAHO) which we serve six times a day.

Some might think they won't ever have to worry about shooting an NDB in an emergency situation, I know I didn't when I started. But, it is a real possibility for me, and it could be for your students as well. In aviation it is hard to tell where a job will lead to, but it might be that NDB approach into Illiamna.

Teaching students to fly an NDB approach with simulated failures is realistic. It teaches them to multi-task and most importantly maintain situational awareness so they don't find the granite cloud in the sky. It is a simple procedure and a lack of understanding would be a serious flaw in their basic IFR skills.

I agree with you! iI'm thinking this is Derrick?
Well anyways in places like AK, plan on shooting NDB Approaches to airport out in the bush. Alaska pilots do that day in and day out.
Derrick or whoever this is, PM me.

 

[uscpilot]

With all due respect, I think Gulfstream, stillaboo,and TXCAP4228 are missing the point. Instructors cannot prepare everyone for every possible emergency scenario. Nobody would ever finish training there are infinate combinations of systems failures. The point is to not let pilots get a mindset that allows them expect only one emergency at a time. The point of these unrealistic scenarios is not to prepare someone for one of these specific emerencies but to let them know that when the sh!t hits the fan it really hits it.
We cant get bogged down in the whole realistic vurses unrealistic argument. It has been established that reality in Alaska and in Florida are often two different things. If only realistic emergencies happen then why do multiengine aircraft have a best glide speed?
Pilots should be able to handle multiple emergencies, realistic or not, case closed.

 

[DGdaPilot]

What is going to happen when the FAA closes all of the NDB's in the next five years.

Don't worry. It's not gonna happen.

 

[Whirlwind]

Instructors cannot prepare everyone for every possible emergency scenario.

No, they can't, but they can provide training in basis systems problems and help the student develop a thought process for dealing with those problems.

If only realistic emergencies happen then why do multiengine aircraft have a best glide speed?

Because people continue to run out of gas, which is just the most absurd reason to lose the engine(s) I can think of.

Pilots should be able to handle multiple emergencies, realistic or not, case closed.

Not quite, because one can always take it to the point where it becomes fatal, no matter what you do.

For example, take a Boeing 747. Have the flaps come down on only one side, then give a complete electrical failure, then fail the two engines on the side with the flaps down, then toss a wing fire into the mix. Just for kicks, give a partial gear failure while you're at it, and make it hard IMC at night in icing conditions.

Of course, if all that happened, then it just wasn't the pilot's day to get out of bed.

Fly Safe!

 

[uscpilot]

Whirley,
I knew that someone would bite at my best glide for a twin comment. It was only to help illustrate that unrealistic (multiple systems failures) situations will happen. Therefore instructors cannot teach complacency after there has been a system failure.

I am also getting sick of people on both sides of the argument citing some specific emergency, real or fictional. They are irrelivant. The point is that multiple emergencies will happen, and a pilot will never throw his or her hands no matter how hopeless the situation. Case closed.

 

[Whirlwind]

Whirley,
I knew that someone would bite at my best glide for a twin comment. It was only to help illustrate that unrealistic (multiple systems failures) situations will happen. Therefore instructors cannot teach complacency after there has been a system failure.

Do not misunderstand me, I was actually serious about the running out of gas part. That still happens and is one of the leading causes of engine failure, at least what I've read says so.

I am also getting sick of people on both sides of the argument citing some specific emergency, real or fictional. They are irrelivant. The point is that multiple emergencies will happen, and a pilot will never throw his or her hands no matter how hopeless the situation. Case closed.

Now that I totally agree with. In reality, you'll fight it all the way down.

The original post was along the lines of my 747 example, I think you can kill anyone in an airplane with enough going wrong.

The question then becomes, is such training all that useful? If the student is paying for the plane, are you giving them value for their dollar spent?

I lack the experience to be able to say one way or another, but my gut tells me that such an exercise is a waste of time.

Fly safe!

 

[uscpilot]

Here we go again, I feel dizzy and a little stupid for perpetuating this revolving argument. I think we are back on page one and two of this thread. Training a student to deal with multiple emergencies is not a waste of time, provided:
That it is done towards the end of training after the student has demonstrated profiency with single emergencies.
That it is not done on a regular basis.
That the intention is to teach the student to prioritize during multiple systems failures. For illustrative purposes the origional scenario proposed a single engine, partial panal NDB approach, with a gear failure. In this situation the student should request another appproach, and not get distracted by trying to extend the gear (or if it should be done in the first place).

 

[Four02Driver]

Keep this in mind boys and girls. Multiple emergencies may not happen often but they do happen. As some who flies light twins for a living I've seen it happen.

For example: On the climb out having a gear problem meaning it wont come up and lock. Before getting to the emerg. chk list an engine quits, from just a slight push on the throttle. Real life mult emerg. Oh and this one was about 200 lbs under max gross weight.
Even better a total electrical failure at night sloid IMC to mins for a 100 mile radius. How would you handle that kids


Best way to solve the problem undue the last thing you just did