NDB approaches

[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