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.

 

[CUEBOAT]

Capt. Al Haynes United 232, what happened there? Do you have a link?

Also Once again thank you for another point of view

Quinn

 

[Whirlwind]

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).

Going missed in that situation is a mistake in my opinion.

One thing I learned during my instrument training is that when overloaded, to concentrate on flying the plane first, keeping it under control, everything else comes second.

Now wait a minute you say, the gear isn't down! That's right, it isn't. The weather is lousy, the airplane is broken, and I am past the final approach fix for the runway on an approach in lousy weather.

Now of course if I could turn off enough to get the gear down, wonderful. That pilot heat and boots probably really soak the battery, so get those off if possible. But if the gear won't come down, then so be it, land anyway.

Better to put it down on the belly than to try a one engine go around in lousy weather at a high density altitude partial panel with only a NDB for navigation.

Fly Safe!

 

[bobbysamd]

Handling a non-standard emergency

Capt. Al Haynes United 232, what happened there? Do you have a link?

Also Once again thank you for another point of view

You're most welcome, and here's a link to how Capt. Al Haynes dealt with a non-standard emergency, if there is indeed such a thing as a "standard" emergency.

 

[cl-65link]

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.

 

[Gulfstream 200]

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.

 

[T/SF34/A]

You may want to do a search on Google or Yahoo for United 232.
You can probably find a video to show your "Airline Brat" students when they start mouthing off to you about "unrealistic"
situations.

Single engine NDB with a gear failure, not a realistic situation, maybe, (I would probably opt for an ILS if there was one), but I would feel a sense of accomplishment after I finished the simulation. If they do not, then there's something wrong with them. It sounds like you have a couple of lazy students.

Good luck trying to bring them around.

 

[CUEBOAT]

How could one rehearse an approach? Sure you can practice it but it will never be the same thing twice. Thinking this is even possible is an unsafe practice. I agree with you 100% about a CFI teaching judgement.

Also This situation isn't totally impossible. Said airplane Duchess, no gaurente on single engine climb, no gaurentee to maintane altitude, flying into Marathon FL. One approach and its an NDB. The closest ILS is 60 miles away What are you gonna do then? You would simply shot the approach drop the gear manually land and eat some conch fritters once on the ground.

 

[CitationLover]

common sense prevails here

here's how i teach it and de's seem to like it.

the student in this situation should:

ask the de if they're vfr/ifr conditions.

if vfr, then they should say i stay vfr and land, notify atc but not declaring an emergency.

if ifr, declare an emergency and ask for a no-gyro approach. if not then an asr/par or ils. ask the de for vectors (i've never had a de not refuse at least this request).

de's i think look for JUDGEMENT on our students. if they do not ask for something they will allow the student to put themselves in a full ndb appraoch (thus having the student create a bigger emergency).

of course se ops adds another dimension to this, however it is just another emergency to deal with.

my $0.02.

 

[Rick1128]

Way too many of the "junior birdmen" out there look at the aviation enviroment here in the US and do not understand that it is way different once you leave the borders. It wasn't too long ago that Canada finally decommissioned it's last four course range approach. In the rest of the world ILSs are the exception rather than the rule. As for your students, remind them that in their first entry level job, the boss is most likely going to be too cheap to put an Approach approved GPS in the aircraft and now you are going into Latin America at night (yes there are some airports open at night down there) You lost tghe left engine and the vacumn pump on the other failed. Its an old Aztec so that means you only have one HYD pump. Guess which engine?

Yes, it can happen. It might not be that exact senario but multiple problems do crop up. What you are doing is teaching them to figure out what is most important and what to take care of first. And fly the airplane.

 

[CitationLover]

rick1128,

i would imagine it would be the companies responsibility to train their pilots for these type of ops, NOT on an instrument check ride.

 

[stillaboo]

here's how i teach it and de's seem to like it.

the student in this situation should:

ask the de if they're vfr/ifr conditions.

Ok, if a DE or any other official (121 ride) is putting you in a scenario like this, you have a serious problem. These kind of situations being discussed are for CFI's to use as teaching tools in the sim only, and are to be used to take a pilot to his/her breaking point and see how they handle it when the get there (this is something every pilot should know, and every instructor should know before sending their student on a ride. If your student freezes up when overloaded, then he isn't ready to be released into the wild and allowed to command an aircraft, let alone ready for a check-ride.)

And where do you fly where you're shooting an NDB, but when things go south, you "ask for a no-gyro approach. if not then an asr/par or . . . ask the de for vectors"? I got news for you, 99% of airports do not have these facilities, and, at those that do, you'd never be shooting an NDB to get in.

-Boo!

 

[Gulfstream 200]

If you put yourself in a situation where you HAD to shoot that NDB into Marathon instead of going to Key West or Miami - ILS or PAR. - then you have REAL problems. You failed good judgement before you even left the ground. Why could you not limp over to the NAS and shoot a 50ft radar approach (if not lower) while talking to a very competent controller?. I hope you are not teaching someone to shoot an NBD to an uncontrolled 5000ft strip first?

Hey, teach what you think is appropriate, all I was saying is that this is beating an UNREALISTIC situation to death.

Teach JUDGEMENT - not stupid CFI tricks.

 

[r1830]

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.

 

[CitationLover]

partial panel ndb approaches

stillaboo,

you still have to shoot a partial panel nonprecision approach for your IFR checkride. it's not their fault, it's the faa whose mandating it.

 

[siucavflight]

If i were your student i would feel like you were wasting my money. If you had to do a P.P. approach an NDB would not the approach, you always have other approaches that are available to you.
But the fact that they are airline kiddies, i would have also covered up their compass, and disabled the timer.

 

[uscpilot]

siucavflight, "you always have other approaches that are available to you," are you serious?
Did you read the previous posts that discuss airports in Alaska that have only NDB approaches??!!

 

[Toy Soldier]

The actual "type" of practice approach isn't as important as realistic training. Fortunately, during training we can "overload" students so that they have to multi-task, prioritize, etc. Why not multi-task them on different types approaches?

The idea is to "overload the senses" by creating "artificial stress". It is a technique used by the army in most all of their schools.

We would also train with minimal sleep, food deprivation, stress, fatigue from long forced marches, etc. THEN, you would be required to perform an analysis of the battlefield, enemy situation, and oh yea, to THINK! There have been many a night when I thought I saw a snickers bar running across the trail. Then I had to decide whether to shoot it or eat it.....

Flying is no different in that we need to prepare our students for the "worst case scenerio". I routinely throw scenerios at my students in which they have to make snap decisions. I do it during pre-flight, on the takeoff roll, in the training area, and during landings.

You ask, what are the chances of the door popping open and at the same time their passenger yelling that they lost oil pressure just before V1? Probably not much. BUT, the training value is there in that I created a diversion and tripped up their "routine". Now they have to make a decision none-the-less.

 

[Gulfstream 200]

please tell us...

When in your flying career you EVER had to make a "snap decision"..???

Even V1 is no "decision" anymore...once your hands are off, you are going.

I dont ever want to fly with someone who has trained for these "snap decisons"...thats when people get hurt...I have NEVER had (or can even imagine) a situation where one would have to make a SNAP DECISION!!

Take a breath, think about it, get the checklist, talk to your crew, make a decision, inform ATC what you intend to do, and continue. Thats my idea of a decision...

This is not TOP GUN folks...

NAFI folks have always scared me though...maybe its those "precision landing" or "x-country planning" contests they have....

 

[mattfish42]

My instrument temporary is barely over a week old, and I'm glad my instructors didn't limit themselves to only what was "realistic". Of course they gave me multiple system failures at the worst possible time. Sim lessons were frequently programmed with complex, high performance aircraft instead of the old 172, forcing me to think twice as fast as needed in the real plane. This student's humble opinion is this: don't cheat these two guys out of a quality education simply because they're lazy. Be mean!

Couple nights ago was my first time flying solo IMC at night. I had to laugh a little when the runway started to be visible; it's so much easier when all the instruments are working!

 

[Whirlwind]

The actual "type" of practice approach isn't as important as realistic training. Fortunately, during training we can "overload" students so that they have to multi-task, prioritize, etc. Why not multi-task them on different types approaches?

The idea is to "overload the senses" by creating "artificial stress". It is a technique used by the army in most all of their schools.

Yes, but in the Army they can wash out recruits, as well as demand whatever out of them.

If my CFI ever tossed that much on me, I'd just look over at her and roll my eyes.

In other words, there is a limit to what you can toss out before I'll call uncle and break it off.

The original comment was about a partial panel NDB approach in lousy weather, hot and high, with an engine failure and an electrical failure, and the gear is stuck halfway down.

That is so many things gone wrong, that you almost have to start ignoring some problems and dealing with the things you must. Without the second engine while hot and high, you no longer likely have any climb ability. Partial panel with only an ADF, you reallly shouldn't go flying missed approaches. You're past the FAF so you're down to a minute or two before landing.

Forget the electrics and the gear, put it down on the ground and be happy that you walk away.