NDB/RNAV approach

[groundpointsix]

I was supposed to take my instrument ride today, but after the oral we decided we wouldn't be able to complete the flight portion due to weather. (Go figure, a checkride to be able to fly in clouds must be conducted under VFR...I'll rant about that on another day) It turns out that the plane I'll now be taking my ride in is equipped with a VOR/DME RNAV. I know that one of the approaches he will ask me to perform for him is a partial panel NDB at my home airport. My question is this: Since there is a transition route from a VOR w/ DME to the NDB, which is the IAF/FAF, can I legally use the RNAV to create a waypoint at the NDB and use it as lateral guidence on the approach? Am I asking for trouble from the DE if I when I start dialing in the waypoint?

Thanks

 

[midlifeflyer]

If it's an IFR certified and current RNAV unit, it should already have a the NDB in it. If not, it should be fair game for you to program it to have the NDB and use it, like non-certified GPS, as a backup for situational awareness.

If you do, you can also expect it ti "fail" during the checkride

BTW, if the DE asked you to fly an RNAV approach, would you be able to?

 

[bigD]

Man, I have NEVER understood DE's that won't conduct a checkride when it's IFR. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

Anyway, you can certainly try using the RNAV to create a waypoint at the NDB, but be prepared for the DE to "fail" it when he sees what you're doing. My DE "failed" my IFR GPS during any approach that didn't need DME.

 

[varicam]

Man, I have NEVER understood DE's that won't conduct a checkride when it's IFR. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

The DE is not the PIC, and the applicant isn't instrument rated. They both could get in a heap of trouble by flying IFR. True, the DE could volunteer to be PIC if he/she is instrument-current, meets the insurance requirements of the plane owner, has assured the airworthiness of the airplane for IFR, and wants to assume financial and legal liability for the flight. Of course, the DE would have to be a lunatic to do this.

 

[bigD]

Yes, the DE is the PIC. So what? If the DE determines that the plane is unsafe, or that the applicant is unsafe, then fine, he/she shouldn't fly. CFII's put their tickets on the line every day when they file IFR with a student, and they do so because they're confident enough in their ability to make sure the student stays within the guidelines required while operating IFR. Why is it unreasonable to expect the DE to act in the same manner?

 

[midlifeflyer]

The FARs that goes through convoluted non-logic to make the applicant and not the DE PIC is the result of a concern by the FAA in protecting its examiners, and DE's are regularly cautioned against giving up that protection lightly.

The CFII who goes into actual with her student is, I think, in a slightly different boat. She's given instruction, brought him along, and moved into actual when he was ready. The DE usually hasn't a clue how that applicant will actually perform.

A lot of people might say that it's a small risk for a DE, but it's an unnecessary one and I can certainly understand why DE might
choose to go the safer route.

 

[avbug]

14 CFR 61.47: The examiner is not the pilot in command during the practical test unless the examiner agrees to act in that capacity for the flight or for a portion of the flight by prior arrangement with the applicant or a person who would otherwise act as pilot in command of hte flight or for a portion of the flight.

The examiner needs to provide room for an applicant to make a mistake, and this room doesn't always exist under the rigid requirements of IFR. Conducting a practical test under VFR, especially for a knew applicant (an unknown quantity) makes perfect sense.

Groundpointsix didn't specify the type of RNAV unit. When I think of RNAV, I don't think of a FMS all inclusive GPS unit like we commonly use today. For me, RNAV is still a boat-anchor box in which all the information must be entered, which uses VOR's to create ghost waypoints and radials, and which requires four hands and a lot of patience. This unit is not acceptable for the purpose described.

Instead, a modern RNAV unit with a current database may be used in lieu of a DME fix, or an NDB, and yes, it's acceptable for this purpose. However, the examine may rightfully require you to use the actual NDB and fly it as illustrated.

 

[bigD]

Obviously it's up to the DE to cover his/her own @ss. And that's certainly their perogative. I just don't understand it. If I know that I can fly the applicant's plane safely under IFR, and that the applicant would readily hand the controls over to me if I asked him to - I don't see where the danger is. Maybe if the applicant is flying some plane I've never flown before, but I can't imagine many DE's find themselves in that position.

Right after I got my multi-engine commercial, I needed a couple more PIC hours in the plane before the insurance company would let me fly it solo. So I scheduled the plane for an evening cross country with an MEI that I've never flown with before. It was pretty low IFR that night. So this MEI launched with a new multi pilot that he's never flown with before into IMC at night. I remember saying to him, "You're putting a good amount of trust in me."

He said, "I don't have to trust you. I know how to fly the plane."

I don't see what the difference is here.

 

[bigD]

The examiner needs to provide room for an applicant to make a mistake, and this room doesn't always exist under the rigid requirements of IFR. Conducting a practical test under VFR, especially for a knew applicant (an unknown quantity) makes perfect sense.

I wrote my above post before I read this. Now this makes a bit of sense to me - I didn't think about it. But still, if I do something dumb like blow through the MDA, I'd imagine he'd be there to yank on the yoke before ATC gets involved. And of course, I'd get a pink slip too!!!

Now, my DE never talked about who would be PIC of our flight. I just assumed it'd be him, since it was IFR pretty much the whole time (we had to fly west a ways for the minimums to be high enough to do some non-precision approaches).

 

[avbug]

This is one area that can get pilots in trouble. A clear understanding should always exist about pilot roles. Not just who will be acting as pilot in command, but who will deal with an emergency, and how to transfer control, etc.

The examiner should have clearly stated that he or she would not the be pilot in command, and then discussed all the details.

We all know the stories about instructional flights crashing because each thought "the other guy had it." Or flights which terminate tragically because of two pilots wrestling over the controls. It happens. It's for this reason that even large airplanes equipped with advanced systems and professional crews have logic to split the systems or isolate the controls, for one pilot to override another (among other reasons, such as control system malfunctions).

In my opinion the instructor who went with you on that dark instrument night was in error, and his statement betrayed a lack of experience and judgement. What's the difference? Perhaps just that the examiner knows better.

 

[bigD]

Well, it may be that I need to adjust my thinking on this. I suppose it's easy to make these comments when it's not my butt (or ticket) on the line!

Yeah, I don't think my DE ever made it clear about who was acting PIC. He did ask me if I wanted to reschedule since the ceiling was 300 feet, but he made it sound like he asked not because it was IFR, but because I'd be putting more time on the plane to fly somewhere to do nonprecision approaches. As I recall, the PIC issue never came up. This was years and years ago though, and my advancing age isn't helping my memory any!

 

[avbug]

Speaking of advancing age...if I had any hair left, I think I'd go for those dreadlocks...

 

[bigD]

Man, I can't believe I'm losing my hair already. It's disgusting.

 

[groundpointsix]

If it's an IFR certified and current RNAV unit, it should already have a the NDB in it. If not, it should be fair game for you to program it to have the NDB and use it, like non-certified GPS, as a backup for situational awareness.

If you do, you can also expect it ti "fail" during the checkride

BTW, if the DE asked you to fly an RNAV approach, would you be able to?

That's what I thought the answer would be. I also expect that he would indeed fail the unit. I confirmed it with a CFII friend of mine tonight who had come up with the same idea on his ride.

And yes, I could fly the RNAV approach. Too bad there aren't any within a 40 miles or so. (At least not for a VOR/DME unit)

 

[embdrvr]

It's been a long while since I took my instrument checkride but I still remember it well. We had postponed a few times due to visibility being well below landing mins at the home airport. The oral was already done and all we had to do was the checkride. Although the vis was fine checkride day there were many T-storms in the area and the skies were pretty ugly and gray. We went anyway and while I was under the hood we got in or near a small cell and got pounded. I remember watching the altimeter dance well beyond the published standards for for the ticket but I was more concerned with attitude than altitude. Right after we landed we had to run inside to get out of the hail.
Glad I didn't have to do that one a second time.

 

[tarp]

G.6, you said:

"My question is this: Since there is a transition route from a VOR w/ DME to the NDB, which is the IAF/FAF, can I legally use the RNAV to create a waypoint at the NDB and use it as lateral guidence on the approach? "

If the VOR is behind you and defines a transition route, why wouldn't you just fly "FROM" the station using the raw data VOR and the NDB in front. Why create a nebulous waypoint? Is it just so you can have it in front of you?

I agree with all that if an NDB approach is coming on your ride, the only unit that will eventually work on the approach will be the NDB, despite all your attempts to use RNAV's or GPS's or other sources. The thing I would be most afraid of (if you haven't practiced already) is the DME arc request. It is completely fair game for the examiner to ask you to just "fly an arc" as defined by some mileage off of a VOR.

One other thing with RNAV (VOR/DME) units. Watch the service volume (i.e distance from the VOR) when at low altitudes! Your friendly DE might be testing to see if you read that part of the AIM as well. Remember, below 1,000ft agl, the parabolic curve of a low service VOR falls from 40 miles to 10 miles of usable service (as compared to regular/high service model).

Our DE can play the best game of oneupmanship you've ever seen. Good luck on your ride.

 

[alvin]

I had my instr ride cancled 4 times by weather...I almost ran out of my 60 hour signoff before I took it...Then I had to learn a new plane, comm / nav panel etc...

I tried setting the GPS to act as a DME. As soon as it was set, the DE turned it off...


Don't sweat it...just go with whatever comes up

 

[avbug]

When I did my instrument rating practical test, there were no useable NDB's available. I created an approach using an AM radio station, and drew it up to match a Jepp chart. When the examine first saw it, he thought it was a legitimate approach, until he realized it was in pencil. He accepted it, I flew the approach successfully and to his satisfaction, and I got my instrument rating.

I had to buy six cases of crackerjacks before I found one with the ATP inside, however.

 

[A Squared]

When I did my instrument rating practical test, there were no useable NDB's available.

Was this because they hadn't been invented yet?

 

[avbug]

Didn't need them. We still were getting ample use out of two soup cans and some twine. And we were grateful!

(

And there were no operable NDB's or available NDB approaches within reasonable flying distance, or in the state)