GPS on an NDB approach

[ppragman]

Then why are you so keen to avoid them, if they're so easy? Yes, they teach more scan and crosscheck and do build those basic instrument skills, as well as hone them. Especially for pilots who haven't flown alot of them to where they're second nature. Not everyone has that exposure that you did.

I'm not keen to avoid them, and used to fly them for "fun" single pilot in the 1900 (GASP EGADS!!!) in the Dakotas when I was bored in the middle of the night. Generally, though, there is a better approach to use, and with passengers on board, I don't think anyone would appreciate it if I had to go missed and change approaches because I used the NDB approach that gets me down to 900' AGL, when I could have used the RNAV to go down to 700' and seen it right away. That said, if it's the "best" approach to use, because of weather, or because of the direction I'm coming from, I'm not averse to using one, they're simple.

You mean, "I don't particularly see any reason why I shouldn't do things the laziest way if I could". How about fly the NDB primary, with the GPS as the backup? Or is that too much work now that you've left the real flying behind you in your current employment?

Not necessarily the "laziest," rather the system is "more accurate." If given the choice, I'll use the most accurate, or most efficient system available to me. I'm not going to fly an NDB with a procedure turn that takes extra time if I can "Descend via the TAA" for the straight-in LPV approach. Conversely, if the direction I'm coming from favors an NDB, or some other approach and the weather is good enough so that I can be sure to make it in, but not good enough to cancel and come in VFR, what approach do you think I'm going to fly? The NDB every time.

A similar example happened just the other day (though with a VOR approach), I was heading into PAMC and the weather was a little low, not bad, but I wouldn't be able to cancel and come in VFR. I didn't want to trek out to KICEB, which would have been the most convenient IAF for a "better" approach (the LOC/DME 16) other than a procedure turn (which also would have eaten up extra time), and I was already direct to ERLAN because of my routing, so I flew the VOR/DME-C instead of the other approach because it was more "efficient." I broke out well above mins, and flew the circle to land and landed without incident. The point being, I'm not averse to stepping down to a lower "level" of approach if the conditions suit it, but if I have the ability to fly a better equipment.

http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1212/01225VDC.PDF

I don't know the point of increasing my workload if I don't have to. While the airplane I'm flying is "simple," if I screw up and fly into a mountain, I'm just as dead as if it was one of the more complicated ships out there- so I try to make my life as simple as possible while still maintaining my proficiency. I fly plenty of "hardcore IFR" (whatever the hell that means) into icy runways - truth be told though, I'm in the business of risk mitigation, so I'm going to make things as easy as possible for myself so I don't have to pull my ass out of a sling, that means taking simple steps like flying the overlay instead of the raw NDB, limiting myself when the flying conditions deteriorate, and operating as conservatively as possible while still being able to complete the flight and do my job.

 

[JDean3204]

Yeah, it was an unpleasant and expensive process that I associated with that kind of approach for awhile. I'm just glad it didn't manifest into test anxiety in general. That check pilot got canned eventually. He had a reputation for many bad and odd things and it caught up with him.

I am one flight away from my checkride providing my End of Course goes well, my anxieties are kicking in with all of the procedures . Something about a very experienced person sitting right next to you judging and critiquing every little move you make, gets my nerves going a bit!

 

[Tommay85]

I am one flight away from my checkride providing my End of Course goes well, my anxieties are kicking in with all of the procedures . Something about a very experienced person sitting right next to you judging and critiquing every little move you make, gets my nerves going a bit!

There's a guy at AMF that makes you feel like EVERYTHING you do is incorrect. "YOU PUT YOUR SEAT BELT ON TOO QUICKLY!!!" hahahaha After many years of this, I've found that putting myself in a "I don't give a mindset alleviates almost any kind of stress.

 

[MikeD]

I'm not keen to avoid them, and used to fly them for "fun" single pilot in the 1900 (GASP EGADS!!!) in the Dakotas when I was bored in the middle of the night. Generally, though, there is a better approach to use, and with passengers on board, I don't think anyone would appreciate it if I had to go missed and change approaches because I used the NDB approach that gets me down to 900' AGL, when I could have used the RNAV to go down to 700' and seen it right away. That said, if it's the "best" approach to use, because of weather, or because of the direction I'm coming from, I'm not averse to using one, they're simple.

But that's not what we're talking about here, in terms of throwing in qualifiers. Of course if a situation dictates using a better approach, especially with pax onboard, you're going to do so. Of course you're not going to fly the NDB if you don't even have the WX mins to break out. Then again, you might not have a choice either sometime.....pax or not. You'll have to go with whatever cards are dealt. And then if you go missed, you go missed.

I don't know the point of increasing my workload if I don't have to. While the airplane I'm flying is "simple," if I screw up and fly into a mountain, I'm just as dead as if it was one of the more complicated ships out there- so I try to make my life as simple as possible while still maintaining my proficiency. I fly plenty of "hardcore IFR" (whatever the hell that means) into icy runways - truth be told though, I'm in the business of risk mitigation, so I'm going to make things as easy as possible for myself so I don't have to pull my ass out of a sling, that means taking simple steps like flying the overlay instead of the raw NDB, limiting myself when the flying conditions deteriorate, and operating as conservatively as possible while still being able to complete the flight and do my job.

You're dead if you fly into a mountain regardless of whatever approach you're flying. There's nothing wrong with challenging oneself occasionally. That does not automatically equal something potentially "unsafe". And you won't have to pull you ass out of a sling if you execute the approach right, doing it at the right time, and not put yourself in a sling. Like I said, I flew the most technologically advanced plane out there, and I'd often fly the non-precision, weather mins permitting, simply because everything else was always the precision or on autopilot or whatever. The way the plane was normally flown day to day, was making me feel lazy and making me feel that skills were going to deteriorate if I didn't make sure they didn't. It never hurt keeping the skills honed a bit, and I took any reasonable opportunity to do so, especially in IMC. I liked increasing the workload at times, because it kept skills sharp.....things like circling to land on Category E mins at 202 knots and remaining within the 4.5 miles alotted, kept the skills honed; that's not something you just want to jump into cold when you have to do it, not having kept good practice with it. Nothing wrong with that. There are times that should be embraced, not avoided. Not all the time, mind you, but at appropriate times and as often as those come, IMO.

 

[MikeD]

. Something about a very experienced person sitting right next to you judging and critiquing every little move you make, gets my nerves going a bit!

All the writing he's doing is probably just a grocery list for on his way home.

 

[Tommay85]

things like circling to land on Category E mins at 202 knots and remaining within the 4.5 miles alotted, kept the skills honed; that's not something you just want to jump into cold when you have to do it, not having kept good practice with it. Nothing wrong with that. There are times that should be embraced, not avoided. Not all the time, mind you, but at appropriate times and as often as those come, IMO.

You'd keep it within a half mile if you were awesome! It'd look ridiculous too which is always a win.

 

[ppragman]

But that's not what we're talking about here, in terms of throwing in qualifiers. Of course if a situation dictates using a better approach, especially with pax onboard, you're going to do so. Of course you're not going to fly the NDB if you don't even have the WX mins to break out. Then again, you might not have a choice either sometime.....pax or not. You'll have to go with whatever cards are dealt. And then if you go missed, you go missed.



You're dead if you fly into a mountain regardless of whatever approach you're flying. There's nothing wrong with challenging oneself occasionally. That does not automatically equal something potentially "unsafe". And you won't have to pull you ass out of a sling if you execute the approach right, doing it at the right time, and not put yourself in a sling. Like I said, I flew the most technologically advanced plane out there, and I'd often fly the non-precision, weather mins permitting, simply because everything else was always the precision or on autopilot or whatever. The way the plane was normally flown day to day, was making me feel lazy and making me feel that skills were going to deteriorate if I didn't make sure they didn't. It never hurt keeping the skills honed a bit, and I took any reasonable opportunity to do so, especially in IMC. I liked increasing the workload at times, because it kept skills sharp.....things like circling to land on Category E mins at 202 knots and remaining within the 4.5 miles alotted, kept the skills honed; that's not something you just want to jump into cold when you have to do it, not having kept good practice with it. Nothing wrong with that. There are times that should be embraced, not avoided. Not all the time, mind you, but at appropriate times and as often as those come, IMO.

Don't disagree with this at all, nor is flying a raw NDB "unsafe" which is what I think you're trying to attribute to me, that said, if I've got the overlay, it's a better system, and 99 times out of a 100, it's better to use the overlay in terms of "safety."

I don't really feel the need to challenge myself with passengers onboard if I don't have to, and frankly, I don't see an NDB approach as being a "challenge" that keeps me sharper, but that's just me, your mileage my vary. I do lot's of circling approaches in this job, lot's of non-precision work, lot's of GPS work (though with this stationary high pressure, I haven't done dick for IFR in the last week or two to be honest), and I've done lot's of that sort of work in the past. When it's appropriate, I stay sharp by disabling automation and hand flying, in fact, with a few places I go regularly, I always handfly, because it's too short of a hop to even bother with the A/P. I feel plenty challenged in day to day operations, and am not too worried about my losing skills. That said, I have gone out of my way to challenge myself in the past, mostly because I've watched other pilots I've flown with • up a circling approach, or make a terrible approach in the weather and I didn't want to do the same thing. It doesn't hurt to keep the skills sharp, but there is more than one way to skin a cat. I think an instrument approach, followed by cancelling IFR, then flying VFR into a mountainous airport is more difficult than the NDB to a circle- especially when the weather is less than exactly "five thousand and five." Realistically, I use the automation and the systems as an extension of my capabilities - it's not like my scan stops when the A/P goes on, or that I "slide the seat back" as soon as I've got the computer coupled up and flying.

I've flown enough now that I'm beginning to feel my threshold for acceptable risk begin to drop - or to put it another way, I drank the Koolaide, and found it to be delicious. I try to maximize the level of safety I can have while also maintaining proficiency. There's nothing wrong with this - though at one point I would have called myself a P-word for this sort of mentality, but anymore, I'm happy with operating the way I do. I know myself well enough, and when I need practice, I head down to the sim (it's free) and brush up. To stay sharp in the airplane, the goal is to be "exactly at Ref over the fence" never more than 1 dot off - if I am, I've seriously screwed the pooch - and on speed by all the company standards.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

"Children of the magenta line" man...

Let me tell you a story sometime about DME arcs.

Fortunately, the "child" in the right seat had done several without magenta.

 

[MikeD]

I don't really feel the need to challenge myself with passengers onboard if I don't have to, and frankly, I don't see an NDB approach as being a "challenge" that keeps me sharper, but that's just me, your mileage my vary.

I covered this already. Is there ever a time you don't fly with pax?

I've flown enough now that I'm beginning to feel my threshold for acceptable risk begin to drop - or to put it another way, I drank the Koolaide, and found it to be delicious. I try to maximize the level of safety I can have while also maintaining proficiency. There's nothing wrong with this - though at one point I would have called myself a P-word for this sort of mentality, but anymore, I'm happy with operating the way I do. I know myself well enough, and when I need practice, I head down to the sim (it's free) and brush up. To stay sharp in the airplane, the goal is to be "exactly at Ref over the fence" never more than 1 dot off - if I am, I've seriously screwed the pooch - and on speed by all the company standards.

Only you will know what you need for your own proficiency and to stay sharp. Hopefully if the situation ever arises when the chips are really down, you'll have zero problem reverting to the raw data with the same precision you hold yourself to with the gizmos available, at any time needed.

 

[SpiraMirabilis]

If you have an RMI you shouldn't really be complaining about having to do an NDB approach. I mean, seriously now. An RMI makes it so easy.

 

[inigo88]

If you have an RMI you shouldn't really be complaining about having to do an NDB approach. I mean, seriously now. An RMI makes it so easy.

Agreed. I always thought the NDB approach that was supposed to separate the men from the boys was all the fixed card stuff:

You know, constantly cross-checking between the DG and the ADF and having to mentally calculate:
Magnetic Bearing (MB) = Magnetic Heading (MH) + Relative Bearing (RB)

...and then try and visualize what the heck is going on in your head to keep SA. Always seemed like it would be pretty challenging, especially adding in wind correction. Even an ADF with a rotatable compass card (which is most of them) makes things light years easier, because it removes the need for the mental math and allows you to visualize wind correction.

An RMI? You may as well surrender your man card.

Let me tell you a story sometime about DME arcs.

Fortunately, the "child" in the right seat had done several without magenta.

I'm still waiting to hear about that!

 

[Autothrust Blue]

An RMI? You may as well surrender your man card.

Unless you have beta, that is.

Edited to add: The 727 flying the old man did at Western was pretty cool. No radar, anywhere, "Western 509, God bless and cleared approach Bozeman Airport, report your cancellation to flight service..."

 

[rframe]

MikeD I didn't read a single comment here that suggested anybody was afraid of an NDB approach, yet you keep throwing that out as the motivation of this thread. The original question was "can it be substituted", it was a simple technical "what's allowed" question? This really comes off looking like chest thumping to me.

 

[MikeD]

MikeD I didn't read a single comment here that suggested anybody was afraid of an NDB approach, yet you keep throwing that out as the motivation of this thread. The original question was "can it be substituted", it was a simple technical "what's allowed" question? This really comes off looking like chest thumping to me.

And where do you read the chest thumping? I haven't read a single comment that suggests that from me; only some practical advice given out. My comments were based on people seemingly wanting to avoid something that requires a bit of work. Re-read and you'll see the "I'd rather not have to do an NDB".....which is a little more than just "hey, what other options are out there and legal?" If you've been around awhile here, you'd see all kinds of comments regarding how supposedly unsafe NDBs are in various threads, and other crap like that. Im simply covering all bases. It's too bad you can't seem to see that.

 

[rframe]

And where do you read the chest thumping?

In the condescending tone of every one of your posts in this thread, as people repeatedly state legit reasons why they might want to do what the original poster asks and you insist that's not the point! But, hey whatever man...

 

[MikeD]

In the condescending tone of every one of your posts in this thread, as people repeatedly state legit reasons why they might want to do what the original poster asks and you insist that's not the point! But, hey whatever man...

Well my apologies that my posts here don't cater to your or others' sensitive emotional needs, but what you call condescending is actually simply getting people to think a bit. If you read through, there are a few people who came out and talked about their fear of NDBs, most of which was a fear of the unknown, or based upon things they've heard here and there about NDBs which aren't true. Hopefully, some of that fear was turned around a bit. If you got nothing out of it, well good for you then.

 

[ppragman]

And where do you read the chest thumping? I haven't read a single comment that suggests that from me; only some practical advice given out. My comments were based on people seemingly wanting to avoid something that requires a bit of work. Re-read and you'll see the "I'd rather not have to do an NDB".....which is a little more than just "hey, what other options are out there and legal?" If you've been around awhile here, you'd see all kinds of comments regarding how supposedly unsafe NDBs are in various threads, and other crap like that. Im simply covering all bases. It's too bad you can't seem to see that.

I'll do the most accurate, or the most efficient approach. NDBs aren't something that keeps me up all night, and no they aren't "unsafe," but what's safer? The NDB, or the NDB with the overlay? Or if you think they're equally safe (which is debatable, but in principle they should be both equally safe) which one if them is more accurate?

I've never said they were unsafe, and I don't think I've ever seen a thread where someone said NDBs were unsafe.

 

[MikeD]

I'll do the most accurate, or the most efficient approach. NDBs aren't something that keeps me up all night, and no they aren't "unsafe," but what's safer? The NDB, or the NDB with the overlay? Or if you think they're equally safe (which is debatable, but in principle they should be both equally safe) which one if them is more accurate?

I've never said they were unsafe, and I don't think I've ever seen a thread where someone said NDBs were unsafe.

You didn't necessarily say they were unsafe. Our conversation was mostly on techniques of when and how. Im talking about others in this thread as well as others. Like anything, it would depend whether an NDB or an overlay is safer, they're just different. Personally, Im more comfortable with the straight-up NDB, than fiddling with a GPS, but that doesn't necessarily make it better or worse than the GPS. It's just different. My only point is that people shouldn't shy away from NDBs simply out of hand. They have their use, and people might end up with that as their only option one day for a recovery. Best for that time to not be getting thrown to the proverbial wolves.

 

[dasleben]

You didn't necessarily say they were unsafe. Our conversation was mostly on techniques of when and how. Im talking about others in this thread as well as others. Like anything, it would depend whether an NDB or an overlay is safer, they're just different. Personally, Im more comfortable with the straight-up NDB, than fiddling with a GPS, but that doesn't necessarily make it better or worse than the GPS. It's just different. My only point is that people shouldn't shy away from NDBs simply out of hand. They have their use, and people might end up with that as their only option one day for a recovery. Best for that time to not be getting thrown to the proverbial wolves.

I would definitely say an NDB with an overlay is safer, as well as different.

Not that an NDB is unsafe, of course! I've done them in IMC without an overlay, but once you learn the GPS or FMC, the overlay is much nicer.

 

[MikeD]

I would definitely say an NDB with an overlay is safer, as well as different.

Not that an NDB is unsafe, of course! I've done them in IMC without an overlay, but once you learn the GPS or FMC, the overlay is much nicer.

It's a nicer presentation, sure. But I don't necessarily find it to be safer at all, or less safe for that matter. Just different.