A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

NDB approaches -- what are they good for?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 9th 03, 01:34 PM
Dylan Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NDB approaches -- what are they good for?

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 21:33:19 GMT, Sydney Hoeltzli wrote:
GPS approaches are very unit-specific and have a high initial
learning curve which involves way too much head-down time.
Maybe we should have a similar limitation on GPS approachs.


They do in Australia.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

  #2  
Old July 9th 03, 05:25 PM
Michael
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Dan Luke" wrote
What you are seeing are the death throes of an obsolescent technology. It's
not a pretty picture.


You mean like the taildragger? It's been obsolete for decades, but
10% of my total time is tailwheel time.

Due to bureaucratic wishy-washiness, the FAA won't go
ahead and put NDB/ADF out of its misery, preferring to let the condemned
twist slowly in the wind.


That's because at many airports (including my home field) the only
alternative is GPS - too expensive, and with a user interface not
ready for prime time.

Expert practitioners cling to their skills
because, well, they're experts.


No, becaue it's the only way they have to use many airports. Half my
actual approaches are NDB. My enthusiasm for spending a lot of time
and money and reducing the redundancy in my airplane (I would have to
remove either the ADF or LORAN to add an IFR GPS to my panel) is very
low. Thus I'm glad the FAA keeps the NDB approach alive.

So we are in the neither-here-nor-there limbo you describe. It's kind of
like the time when pocket calculators were replacing slide rules. The senior
engineer at Honeywell would snort when he saw the cubs using their TI's:
"What are you gonna do if that dam' toy quits on you?" It turned out not to
be a problem.


Actually, as a senior engineer at one of Honeywell's big competitors,
I can tell you that it IS a problem. Not the toy quitting, but the
absolute lack of understanding of certain concepts (most obviously
significant figures) in the new crop of engineers who were never
forced to master the slide rule. It's not that you CAN'T teach these
concepts without a slide rule - but with the calculators, you can get
by with not teaching them.

Meanwhile, look at your whizwheel and tell me slide rules are
obsolete.

Michael
  #3  
Old July 9th 03, 05:49 PM
Michael
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

David Megginson wrote
I think that the only way that a LOC or VOR approach would be
significantly easier than an NDB approach is if you were chasing the
needle: if you chase the CDI in a VOR or LOC approach, you still stay
close to track (in a constant series of S-turns); if you chase the NDB
needle, you end up approaching the NDB downwind from the track.


You got it. The other difference - with the NDB, you absolutely must
keep the DG (if available) on the correct compass heading.

I'm not nearly good enough to do a lot of mental math on any approach
(not as long as they maintain that picky requirement about not flying
into the ground), so I just leave my ADF card with north at the top
like a fixed card, and remember how far my wind-correction angle is to
the left or right, just like I do with a VOR or LOC approach. As long
as the NDB needle position is the same as my wind-correction angle,
I'm on the approach track.


How about when you're doing the procedure turn? How do you know when
to start your turn to your final approach course? More mental math?

The only difference is the fact that the ADF starts (sort-of)
reverse-sensing after station passage, so that what starts out like a
LOC approach can end up like a LOC(BC) approach. I just remember

Push the head, pull the tail

and everything usually works out fine.


More stuff to remember. The VOR needle keeps working the same way
throughout the approach.

You can teach those skills without the ADF, but without the ADF you
can get by with NOT teaching those skills, save 10 hours, and the
student can still pass the checkride.


I find it hard to believe that anyone could pass an IFR checkride by
chasing a CDI in a zigzag -- can they?


Yes. They can. I've seen it happen. Just like students who drive
the airplane onto the runway can pass the private checkride in a 172
or Cherokee, when a Cub or a Champ would eat their lunch for doing it.
I've seen that happen too.

Like I said - you don't need an ADF to teach these basic skills - and
they are basic - but without the ADF, you can get by without teaching
them, and many do.

Michael
  #4  
Old July 9th 03, 07:43 PM
Andrew Gideon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Michael wrote:

David Megginson wrote
I think that the only way that a LOC or VOR approach would be
significantly easier than an NDB approach is if you were chasing the
needle: if you chase the CDI in a VOR or LOC approach, you still stay
close to track (in a constant series of S-turns); if you chase the NDB
needle, you end up approaching the NDB downwind from the track.


You got it. The other difference - with the NDB, you absolutely must
keep the DG (if available) on the correct compass heading.


I'm getting a mental picture of someone unfamiliar with how the ADF works
trying to fly an NDB approach traveling forever in circles around the
beacon.

- Andrew

  #5  
Old July 9th 03, 07:49 PM
David Megginson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Michael) writes:

How about when you're doing the procedure turn? How do you know when
to start your turn to your final approach course? More mental math?


There are big marks on the ADF indicator every 45 degrees, just as
there are on the HI. Depending on which side I'm coming in from the
PT, I wait until the needle is close to the 45-degree mark to the left
or right of the top of the indicator, then turn in.

The inbound turn is actually one of the few places where the NDB
approach is easier -- the LOC sometimes comes across so fast that my
inbound turn from the PT becomes an S-turn, especially if I have a
tailwind (i.e. a crosswind for the final approach). The ADF always
gives me lots of warning as I approach the track and never forces me
to snap into a 30-degree bank just to stay within the protected area.

I hope that there aren't any instructors who force students to do
complex mental math for this kind of thing instead of just using the
big, easy marks on the ADF indicator. If instructors do that, no
wonder people hate NDB approaches so much!

More stuff to remember. The VOR needle keeps working the same way
throughout the approach.


Quite right. As someone else mentioned, though, the LOC(BC) approach
can be even more of a challenge. Not only do you have the reverse
sensing, which can be a big problem if you don't have special
equipment and you're not current with LOC(BC) approaches, but you also
have the exaggerated sensitivity near the threshold approach, at
exactly the time that you don't want to destabilize your approach by
chasing a wandering CDI.

I find it hard to believe that anyone could pass an IFR checkride by
chasing a CDI in a zigzag -- can they?


Yes. They can. I've seen it happen.


OK, now I see what you mean about the NDB approaches forcing
instructors to teach basic skills that they might otherwise neglect.
I don't particularly like that argument -- it's the same as the flawed
argument that teaching Latin helps people learn English grammar -- but
at least I can see where you're coming from. Perhaps raising the test
standards in that area would be a better solution.

For me, finishing up my instrument rating in Eastern Ontario, NDB
approaches and enroute navigation along LF/MF airways are simply a
fact of life and will likely be so for a while after my flight test.
I make no claim that NDB approaches are especially virtuous or make me
a better pilot, but the alternative (an IFR-certified GPS) is
prohibitively expensive -- a whole year's flying expenses for my
Warrior II -- and even then, it wouldn't let me fly IFR in much of the
far north.


All the best,


David

--
David Megginson,
, http://www.megginson.com/
  #6  
Old July 9th 03, 08:03 PM
David Megginson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Andrew Gideon writes:

I'm getting a mental picture of someone unfamiliar with how the ADF works
trying to fly an NDB approach traveling forever in circles around the
beacon.


At least they'd be near the airport when they finally ran out of fuel.


All the best,


David

--
David Megginson, , http://www.megginson.com/
  #7  
Old July 9th 03, 08:43 PM
Dan Luke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Michael" wrote:
What you are seeing are the death throes of an obsolescent technology.

It's
not a pretty picture.


You mean like the taildragger? It's been obsolete for decades, but
10% of my total time is tailwheel time.


Yes. The taildragger also still has certain operational advantages and
nostalgic appeal. But what does it hurt to keep taildraggers around as long
as people want to fly them?

...GPS - too expensive, and with a user interface not
ready for prime time.


That's what I meant by "death throes" and why it isn't pretty. The same
thing could have been said of word processors when they appeared.

Expert practitioners cling to their skills
because, well, they're experts.


No, becaue it's the only way they have to use many airports. Half my
actual approaches are NDB. My enthusiasm for spending a lot of time
and money and reducing the redundancy in my airplane (I would have to
remove either the ADF or LORAN to add an IFR GPS to my panel) is very
low. Thus I'm glad the FAA keeps the NDB approach alive.


In your place I might feel the same.
I kept my ADF when I installed an approach GPS three years ago, but I
haven't used it except, rarely, for practice.

Actually, as a senior engineer at one of Honeywell's big competitors,
I can tell you that it IS a problem. Not the toy quitting, but the
absolute lack of understanding of certain concepts (most obviously
significant figures) in the new crop of engineers who were never
forced to master the slide rule. It's not that you CAN'T teach these
concepts without a slide rule - but with the calculators, you can get
by with not teaching them.


Yes, it is true that practically everything is dumbing down. Technological
advancements often drive this. GPS for pilots is a great example. I'm not
arguing that this is a good thing, only that it is inevitable. Easier wins
every time. Despite the miserable MMI's of certified GPS's, it's still a lot
easier to *fly* a non-precision approach with one than it is with an ADF.
All you've got to do is make track=bearing and you're right down the pipe.

Meanwhile, look at your whizwheel and tell me slide rules are
obsolete.


I don't have a whizwheel. I have an electronic E6B.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM


  #8  
Old July 9th 03, 09:58 PM
Andrew Gideon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

David Megginson wrote:


There are big marks on the ADF indicator every 45 degrees, just as
there are on the HI. Depending on which side I'm coming in from the
PT, I wait until the needle is close to the 45-degree mark to the left
or right of the top of the indicator, then turn in.


Laugh It took me a while to figure out what you meant by this. My mental
picture of the process is sufficiently different from yours that I'd no
idea from where you were getting the number 45. It finally dawned on me
that you're flying a 45 degree intercept to the inbound course.

I know when to turn because the ADF is telling me that I'm close to the
desired inbound course. I tend to do this by mentally overlaying the
picture of the HI with the picture of the ADF, but I'll turn the card if I
think of it.

It never occurred to me to see it as you do, although of course we're doing
precisely the same thing.

The inbound turn is actually one of the few places where the NDB
approach is easier -- the LOC sometimes comes across so fast that my
inbound turn from the PT becomes an S-turn, especially if I have a
tailwind (i.e. a crosswind for the final approach). The ADF always
gives me lots of warning as I approach the track and never forces me
to snap into a 30-degree bank just to stay within the protected area.


For this reason, why not a 30 degree intercept to a localizer? It slows the
needle.

- Andrew

  #9  
Old July 9th 03, 11:12 PM
Michael
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

David Megginson wrote
OK, now I see what you mean about the NDB approaches forcing
instructors to teach basic skills that they might otherwise neglect.


Like I said, you don't need the ADF to teach those things. On the
other hand, without the ADF, you can get by without teaching them. I
don't believe that's a good enough reason to put an ADF in every
instrument trainer - you'll recall I was the one who proposed an
instrument rating not valid for ADF approaches as the solution for
those who didn't learn the necessary skills. It's the same solution
used for taildraggers, and I think it works OK.

Perhaps raising the test
standards in that area would be a better solution.


Maybe. Or maybe in the modern world we just don't need to force
people to learn those basic skills. Look at how many pilots fly just
fine for years without really learning to use the rudder or make full
stall landings. Those things are not tremendously relevant in today's
trainers (C-172's and Cherokees) under most conditions, and they're
REALLY not relevant in today's transport category airplanes. Thus I
can easily see why one of those career-track programs wouldn't bother
teaching those skills.

The same applies to the ADF. For this reason, a lot of the
career-track operations just don't have ADF's in any of their
airplanes. And that's fine. My real goal with the ADF limitation is
to make it impossible for the graduates of those programs (who are all
CFII's) to teach IFR in the world of light GA, where the NDB approach
is alive and well, without being forced to develop those basic skills.

Michael
  #10  
Old July 10th 03, 12:11 AM
Andrew Gideon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

PaulaJay1 wrote:


Once they get down wind of the airport, they will fly right in


On CDW's NDB-A, one must pass the beacon to descend to the MDA. But if
one's forever trying to reach the beacon (shades of Zeno, here), one'll be
stuck in the clouds.

- Andrew

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Good prices on Aeroshell oils at Sams club Fastglasair Home Built 4 October 2nd 04 11:30 PM
Good plans-built Light Sport Aircraft Rob Schneider Home Built 15 August 19th 04 05:50 PM
Free Volksplane to good home, located in Chino Hills CA Bryan Zinn Home Built 3 July 18th 04 02:55 AM
Engine update, good and bad news nauga Home Built 3 June 25th 04 06:26 PM
bulding a kitplane maybe Van's RV9A --- a good idea ????? Flightdeck Home Built 10 September 9th 03 07:20 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.