Radio Set-up For An Insturment Approach

KLB

KLB

Well-Known Member
I'll start this off with a story.

I failed a stage check a couple of years ago when I was working on my instrument rating. We were shooting the ILS 34L approach into Greenville Mississippi (GLH) and I had just intercepted glide slope and began my descent down to minimums. I was shooting the perfect ILS approach. I had the perfect wind correction angle to hold me on course and I had the aircraft trimmed perfectly for the the propper descent on the glide slope. As we got closer and closer to minimums I noticed that everything began to look a little to perfect. We were getting to the timed missed approach point and the needle showed know signs of sensitivy. Then I looked and noticed that the number 1 radio was turned off. I told the instructor of the simulated instrument failure and proceeded to go missed. He told me to don't worry about it because I had failed and we were going back to the airport. When we got back and debriefed he explained that I failed because I did not have the final approach course set into the Number two radio and didn't proceed on with the localizer appraoch. I had the Number two radio set up for the missed approach procedure. I felt that this failure was totally bogus but didn't say anything. I continued with my training and got my Instrument ticket.

Now that I am a CFII, I am thinking about how I should teach my students radio set up for the Instrument approaches.
I believe that it is better to have had to missed approach procedure set up in the number two radio rather than be set up for the localizer just in case the number one radio fails.

My reason being that, if you have the number two radio set up for the localizer and you have to go missed, you will most likely be in a climbing turn with your head down looking at frequencies and procedures on the approach plate to set up the missed approach procedures. Which will in turn, make you behind the aircraft. And I believe that is a disaster just waiting to happen. If you actually had a Nav/Comm to fail on you in actual instrument conditions, you should have plenty of fuel in reserve to shoot another approach if you abide by the Regs.

I would really like to hear everyone elses opinion on this topic. How do you like your students to set their Nav/Comms up on approaches?

Thanks in Advance.
 
I think the failure is totally bogus also.

Yes, I will have the primary approach navaid in the number 2 NAV, but only if it is not busy with something else. The variations depend on the approach architecture and the NAVs (those with back-up frequencies are different than those without), but I tend to generally think of NAV 1 as the one I fly and NAV 2 as the one that's there for situational awareness.

BTW, if I could fine an ILS 34L at GLH, I'd be more specific about how I'd set it up on that approach, but I can't seem for find it in the NACO database. Maybe that was not the problem - you flew an approach that doesn't exist?
wink.gif
 
My instructor has always told me to use Nav2 for missed approach. Better to go missed if an instrument fails, might be more then just the one if you continue on the LOC.

my .02
 
[ QUOTE ]
I had just intercepted glide slope and began my descent down to minimums. I was shooting the perfect ILS approach. I had the perfect wind correction angle to hold me on course and I had the aircraft trimmed perfectly for the the propper descent on the glide slope. As we got closer and closer to minimums I noticed that everything began to look a little to perfect. We were getting to the timed missed approach point and the needle showed know signs of sensitivy. Then I looked and noticed that the number 1 radio was turned off.

[/ QUOTE ]

If i understand you correctly, you were decending to MDA using #1 NAV for course guidance & slope and it was turned off. I'd disagree that the failure was inappropriate.

On to the more important question though - how are your radios set up? #1 for the approach #2 for the missed. If you're on the approach and something goes wrong you go missed using #2.
 
[ QUOTE ]


BTW, if I could fine an ILS 34L at GLH, I'd be more specific about how I'd set it up on that approach, but I can't seem for find it in the NACO database. Maybe that was not the problem - you flew an approach that doesn't exist?
wink.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

My mistake. It is the ILS 18L
blush.gif
 
[quote

If i understand you correctly, you were decending to MDA using #1 NAV for course guidance & slope and it was turned off. I'd disagree that the failure was inappropriate.

He failed my NAV/COMM maybe a minute after crossing the outer marker and I recognized that he failed way before reaching DH.

On to the more important question though - how are your radios set up? #1 for the approach #2 for the missed. If you're on the approach and something goes wrong you go missed using #2.

[/ QUOTE ]

My radios are set up exactly like you have it explained and I was going to go missed but he said that was the wrong thing to do and that I should have been prepared somehow with my super psychic vision for a radio would failure and to continue on with the Localizer approach on the NAV 2.
 
I agree that not using #2 to verify #1 is a bogus reason for a bust.

Personally, I vary the use of #2 depending upon the details of the approach but I will usually set up #2 to monitor the approach unless the missed approach procedure is too complex to easily set up on-the-fly if I need to go missed. There is something about having #1 and #2 in agreement when flying an approach to minimums that makes me feel a little more confident that everything is kosher. I once caught a glidslope indicator that was sticking on the HSI by having #2 tuned to monitor the ILS - that got my attention! If #2 hadn't been monitoring the approach (i.e. had been tuned for the missed approach procedure) I may not have caught the glideslope error at all since the GS inop flag didn't appear on #1, and it had started out the approach giving valid glideslope information. A quick rap on the instrument bezel freed the needle up, but I was watching it like a hawk from there on in. (I know - this wouldn't help if you didn't have GS capabilities on #2, but still....)

Most missed approach procedures will have a climb, then a turn, or a climbing turn to begin the missed. If you have the appropriate missed approach nav aid already tuned in to the back-up frequency (flip-flop type radios) it's a quick button press and spin the OBS to get you situated. In most cases I'd rather navigate the missed approach procedure on the same #1 navigation head that you use 90% of the time for familiarity's sake, rather than switch to #2 mid-stream.

On a related note, I would actually be very hesitant to continue an approach using #2 (even if I had it pretuned to monitor the approach) if #1 failed. I would rather use #2 only to verify proper operation of #1, and if a problem or discrepancy became apparent I would go missed approach and then take the time to thoroughly trouble-shoot the problem and decide (at my leisure) whether to re-fly the approach using #2. The idea of switching from #1 to #2 (especially ILS to LOC only) in the middle of the approach gives me the willies. That's too close to the possibility of creating an emergency situation where there was none.

(slightly off-topic; on your busted ride did the #1 nav head have LOC & GS flags showing when the nav radio was turned off and the needles were centered?)
 
[ QUOTE ]
[quote

If i understand you correctly, you were decending to MDA using #1 NAV for course guidance & slope and it was turned off. I'd disagree that the failure was inappropriate.

He failed my NAV/COMM maybe a minute after crossing the outer marker and I recognized that he failed way before reaching DH.

On to the more important question though - how are your radios set up? #1 for the approach #2 for the missed. If you're on the approach and something goes wrong you go missed using #2.

[/ QUOTE ]

My radios are set up exactly like you have it explained and I was going to go missed but he said that was the wrong thing to do and that I should have been prepared somehow with my super psychic vision for a radio would failure and to continue on with the Localizer approach on the NAV 2.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had the exact thing happen on my IFR ride. Just as we were being vectored onto the final approach course, the DE failed my #1 Nav. I had the number two (flip-flop) nav set with the VOR (missed) and the ILS (localizer). Even though the (OBS) would have no bearing on the localizer, I had that spun to inbound course of the approach. If I had to go missed, there would be enough time to change it if needed.
 
Here I found the approach.
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0505/00572I18L.PDF
It still would have been a difficult hold with only one NAV and all. I don't think the aircraft was equipped with DME either. Good thing it was a stage check and not a check ride. The DE did not do anything nearly as complicated on my check ride. It was actually pretty easy. Leave to DSU flight operations to do something crazylike that to get under my skin though.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Here I found the approach.
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0505/00572I18L.PDF


[/ QUOTE ]

I think I'm having a brain fart. From the notes: "DME or FM required for LOC minimums". What is FM??? And why would you need it for LOC minimums (or even DME for that matter)?


{edit to add: is FM the marker radio? then I guess it makes sense since you need one or the other to identify the OM and start timing for the MAP.

I love talking to myself - at least someone understands me.
grin.gif
}
 
[ QUOTE ]

I love talking to myself - at least someone understands me.
grin.gif
}

[/ QUOTE ]

Question is if you begin answering yourself outloud!.
insane.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
I think I'm having a brain fart. From the notes: "DME or FM required for LOC minimums". What is FM??? And why would you need it for LOC minimums (or even DME for that matter)?
***
{edit to add: is FM the marker radio? then I guess it makes sense since you need one or the other to identify the OM and start timing for the MAP.


[/ QUOTE ]Yup. That's it. Not only to start timing, but even to know where to start descending. The LOC FAF can't be identified without the "fan marker" or DME.

KLB, on =that= approach I would have had the # 2 NAV set up with the LOC in the backup. The LOC and the VOR are the only things to monitor., so it meets my personal rule about backing up the primary when NAV #2 has nothing else to do.

But I'd have the VOR up front. The missed is straight ahead so (1) it's not a leisurely as most misseds in terms of a climb and a turn as you get set up, and (2) (here is where I'd argue with your check CFI) the VOR can act as a cross-check to the reliability of the localizer. The localizer is definitely more accurate, but if the localizer is centered and the VOR is at full deflection, something is seriously wrong- but your CFI wouldn't never notice it.

A cross-check based on a different system is better than a cross-check using the same, maybe faulty, system. Even most good scan techniques are based on that principle.

That last point - which is better to have up front - is arguable. But that's the whole point. We're talking about a minor difference in technique not a "I'm right and everybody else is wrong" answer.

(BTW, I agree with moxie on the related point. You shouldn't have busted for having the VOR in NAV 2, but being busted for not noticing that the LOC was flagged, if it didn't just happen, is something else.)
 
I am loving the feedback that I am getting from this post.
Now looking back in hind sight, I think what he was trying to see is that if I knew how to do the Localizer approach.

I forgot to mention that I was in an aircraft with older radios that didn't have the reserve frequency selector. So I would have had to retune the Number to Nav 2 to the missed approach frequency if I had to go missed as published if would have had the NAV/COMM set up the way that the Check Instructor wanted it set up. I always felt doing the way that he wanted it would have had behind the aircraft during the missed approach.

I think that the best way for me to teach this to a student would be to initially have the students shoot the approach with the missed approach tuned into the number 2 NAV and then show them where the decision to do so may vary for different types of situations. I still believe, as someone said earlier, that there is no right or wrong way to set up your radios.

Another thing that I did not do enough of as an instrument student was completing the actual missed approach procedure. We seemed to always go missed back to the initial approach fix and shoot the approach again.

Any ideas of a better way to see if the student knows what to do if he/she looses glideslope?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Another thing that I did not do enough of as an instrument student was completing the actual missed approach procedure.

[/ QUOTE ]
yeahthat.gif
I recall doing it a number of times, but the ones with the most work and most benefit always seemed to be the full approach with a procedure turn followed by the published missed approach and a hold over the *insert fix*. Defintie learning experience.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Another thing that I did not do enough of as an instrument student was completing the actual missed approach procedure.

[/ QUOTE ]
yeahthat.gif
I recall doing it a number of times, but the ones with the most work and most benefit always seemed to be the full approach with a procedure turn followed by the published missed approach and a hold over the *insert fix*. Defintie learning experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

What the heck is Defintie, Jim?
grin.gif


You're both absolutely right. As a CFII, one of the things I'm guilty of is trying to get as much accomplioshed in as little time as possible.In the time that it takes to fly the whole procedure with the published missed, you can do TWO approaches. I sometimes have to force myself to ask for the full approach and pubslished hold, because it just has to be done.

Another thing around here in Nashville (or any area with a moderate amount of traffic) is that the controllers often don't want you to execute the published missed. Instead, they'll give you a heading and altitude. That can magnify the issue even further!
 
Remember one key thing here: T-I-M...or Tune, Identify, and Monitor. Much like NDB approaches I used to fly, the TACAN and ILS approaches I fly now, I still have the volume turned up for the navaid morse code ID playing, as well as watching for any flags on the ADI. That's just some food for thought, as I agree that this bust appears to be one of technique vs procedure; these types of busts many here are familiar with my extreme dislike of.

As far as NAV/COM radio setup, it really depends. As alluded before, there are many techniques out there that all meet the procedure. Further to that, it depends on the particular approach you're flying. COM-wise, you might have approach set in, or final control set in. Depending on the approach type, you might want to be ready to switch to tower from approach prior to landing, or you might land while on the approach frequency having received landing clearance from them. NAVaid-wise, you might need to cross-tune for positioning, or might be navigating off one navaid with the other set for missed, or might only have a sinle navaid. Again, it really all depends.
 
[ QUOTE ]
What the heck is Defintie, Jim?

[/ QUOTE ]

*Cough, Cough* I mean Definite....I didn't realize you were now on the Grammar police now too.
grin.gif
sarcasm.gif


[ QUOTE ]
Another thing around here in Nashville (or any area with a moderate amount of traffic) is that the controllers often don't want you to execute the published missed. Instead, they'll give you a heading and altitude.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is the exact thing they do here; "missed approach instructions, hdg 270, climb/maintain 2700, etc...." It all really depends here how and where traffic is departing KMSP. The MEA around the airports and area where I shoot approaches is smack in the middle of KMSP "Class B" airspace.
 
This was a problem in Orlando, especially if you wanted to fly the published missed off the ORL ILS 7. That fix tends to screw with not only ORL's traffic, but also SFB and to some extent MCO. Full approach on the ILS including the procedure turn? Not gonna happen. I think it's pretty much the same in a lot of busy airspaces. That's why I think the simulator makes a good training tool. You can get any clearance you want and fly any approach you want and know that ATC isn't gonna say "Unable at this time." Even better is to tell the student "You've lost your radios. How are you going to fly this now?" This gives them the actual thought process and procedures involved with figuring out how to fly the approach in a lost comm situation.

Kelvin, as far as you're set up, I'll say I think it was a bogus bust myself. However, did the NAV 1 have a flag indicator? I also think that going missed was the RIGHT decision in that case, and maybe the CFI wanted a cup of coffee instead of shooting another approach.....
 
[ QUOTE ]
This was a problem in Orlando, especially if you wanted to fly the published missed off the ORL ILS 7. That fix tends to screw with not only ORL's traffic, but also SFB and to some extent MCO. Full approach on the ILS including the procedure turn? Not gonna happen. I think it's pretty much the same in a lot of busy airspaces. .

[/ QUOTE ]I think it tends to be true in almost any airspace where there is radar service. The missed hold is to give you a place to go to keep out of the way. Not really necessary when ATC can see every move.

Around here (near/under the DEN Class B) we won't get the missed hold unless we ask for it. Then, we usually get it. Won't happen everywhere. ORL and BFO for example share a proximity to their Class B primaries that probably makes it extra difficult to keep out of the way. That's true at Denver's FTG where one of the approaches has a missed that would sent you into the path of traffic landing at DEN!
 
Kelvin, as far as you're set up, I'll say I think it was a bogus bust myself. However, did the NAV 1 have a flag indicator?

I don't think it did. It might have though.

I also think that going missed was the RIGHT decision in that case, and maybe the CFI wanted a cup of coffee instead of shooting another approach.....

[/ QUOTE ]

They like to make things difficult at DSU sometimes and that was probably just one of those times. The bad thing about it is that everytime you fail a stage check, you can pretty much plan on dropping a letter grade in the course. So I went from an A to a B in the course because of it.

The tough part was thinking how to set up the radios during the check ride.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top