Its a little booklet of freedom

[Shiny Side Up]

Those who seek to reap the blessings of freedom must undergo the fatigue of upholding it. -Thomas Paine

Now you're all going to say "Shiny, that's a little melodramatic to be starting a thread with, what gives?" And you might be right, but Mr. Paine's words do sort of sum up what I'm after here today, albeit in a round about way. Let me go back a bit.

The other day, we're talking about flight plans in ground school. Yes I know, ground school, that thing most try to sleep through so they fulfill the hours, as part of the arcane recipe for getting that little booklet of freedom. Someone groans and with a roll of the eyes, there's a "why do we have to learn this?" besides it being part of the tested knowledge. I patiently explain how and why flight plans are somewhat useful to file for a variety of reasons...

"But Shiny, why do I need to learn this?"

The student proceeds to tell me how for the remainder of his days, to avoid doing the complex items at the back of the CFS he is always going to file itineraries with his wife as a responsible person, thus never have to file a plan, thus shouldn't have to learn this. In the same group, another student bemoaned having to do any flight planning at all, since he was going to use a GPS and always fly with full tanks.

I suppose he's probably right. Maybe for the remainder of his days he will never have to re use that little bit of information. Just like lots of bits of information people are required to learn to get the little booklet of freedom. Maybe one will always tell his wife, the other will forever fly self restricted with a full load of fuel.

Here's the problem though: By having the little booklet of freedom you are saying that you do know the pieces of information required by its acquisition process. You might never use them, but you could, since that little booklet has very few restrictions in the big scheme of things. You get it in your hot little hands and you could flash off on an epic journey from St John's to Victoria, stopping by Alert on the way. You could buy an Otter and go beat up some bush, or just take a try at ripping around in a Pitts. The promises above, also have no guarantees to be kept. Our full tank guy might one day be presented with the difficulty of not being able to acquire fuel as planned, Our non flight planning guy might someday not have his wife (maybe she'll divorce him having to babysit all his flying).

While you might restrict yourself by your limited imagination, the little booklet by and large doesn't, and can be expanded anyways to add more freedom if you choose to undergo more effort to do so.

Its like when I had another student complain that I made him learn about NDB approaches when he got his instrument rating. "But I'm never going to do one" he wailed, "I'll never have cause to fly anywhere or ever get myself into having to do one." Never say never. The little sticker of freedom that goes in the booklet says you can do one, and your gravestone ain't going to read "couldn't do an NDB approach" when you go back on your oath never to do one.

We don't issue licenses with restrictions on them. We don't issue "paved runway only" licenses, we don't issue "ILS approach only" IFR ratings, we don't issue "Class G airspace only" permits. While I suspect that a good many people would jump at the chance to give up a bit of their freedom to make getting a little booklet easier. Maybe one day they'll get their wish and we'll have all sorts of graduated licenses to fly even the simplest of aircraft. Paperwork upon paperwork.

But not yet. Exercise your freedom while you have it. Work hard to get and keep it.

[Colonel Sanders]

I was at 10,000 today on top of a solid layer and it was an NDB approach that put me on final.

It pays to be flexible.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The last for real NDB approach I did in actual IMC without some sort of GPS to give me final approach guidance was in 1994.

If you are not using a GPS to align the flight path of the aircraft with the runway centerline while flying the approach track inbound, you are doing it wrong.

However the basic premise of Shiny's post is correct. Understanding the basics is important but I think flight training is fundamentally flawed in the way it teaches many things. Navigation is a good example. The last time I filled in the 101 boxes on the typical navigation flight planning sheet was when I did my CPL flight test in 1986. That was also the last time I ever put drift lines on a chart.

Yet somehow I managed to find my around even in the pre GPS days. So how is that possible ? Well my instructor, to his credit worked me pretty hard on my map orientation skills so I could figure out where I was by comparing the view out the window with the map and then use that to estimate a heading to fly. I also quickly picked up on a series of simple block fuel flows and miles per minute mental calculations that let me estimate pretty accurately how long it was going to take to get somewhere and how much fuel I was going to use.

Just because we always did something does not mean we should keep doing it. Some of the boredom in class is from smart people who know useless information when they are force fed it.

GPS is IMO one of the greatest flight safety innovations of all time. How to get the most from a GPS, what information it provides that is vital, and what doesn't matter at all, is entirely teachable. However using it effectively, including where the gotcha's are, is pretty much entirely absent in PPL training.

The current PPL curriculum is effectively unchanged since WW 2. 70 years later is this still the best we can give our students ?

[cdnpilot77]

If you are not using a GPS to align the flight path of the aircraft with the runway centerline while flying the approach track inbound, you are doing it wrong.

Some of us do not have RNAV authority and therefore do not rely on GPS to do an approach.

[Big Pistons Forever]

If you are not using a GPS to align the flight path of the aircraft with the runway centerline while flying the approach track inbound, you are doing it wrong.

Some of us do not have RNAV authority and therefore do not rely on GPS to do an approach.

So are you saying you totally ignore available GPS information and put your complete trust in the ADF needle to safely find the end of the runway ?

[Pop n Fresh]

You're one of those crabs that doesn't like cloud paper either.

[Pop n Fresh]

I read more of your thing and I'm a little upset about your reliance on the voodoo known as GPS but this part helps soften my feelings towards you.

?...Well my instructor, to his credit worked me pretty hard on my map orientation skills so I could figure out where I was by comparing the view out the window with the map and then use that to estimate a heading to fly. I also quickly picked up on a series of simple block fuel flows and miles per minute mental calculations that let me estimate pretty accurately how long it was going to take to get somewhere and how much fuel I was going to use.

[cdnpilot77]

If you are not using a GPS to align the flight path of the aircraft with the runway centerline while flying the approach track inbound, you are doing it wrong.

Some of us do not have RNAV authority and therefore do not rely on GPS to do an approach.

So are you saying you totally ignore available GPS information and put your complete trust in the ADF needle to safely find the end of the runway ?

I'm saying that I am competent and confident in my abilities to shoot an NDB approach if needed and do so legally without complicating things by adding an additional instrument, that I am not legally able to use, into my scan. Instead I concentrate on making sure I do the NDB approach appropriately. I am also a big chicken so if things aren't exactly as they should be then it's an instant pull up and go around.

[CpnCrunch]

So are you saying you totally ignore available GPS information and put your complete trust in the ADF needle to safely find the end of the runway ?

I'm saying that I am competent and confident in my abilities to shoot an NDB approach if needed and do so legally without complicating things by adding an additional instrument, that I am not legally able to use, into my scan. Instead I concentrate on making sure I do the NDB approach appropriately. I am also a big chicken so if things aren't exactly as they should be then it's an instant pull up and go around.

You're putting a lot of trust into an ancient, flaky piece of technology. There are so many reasons why a 40 year old ADF may not be entirely accurate. Every single plane I've flown for the last decade has had a broken or at least flaky ADF, apart from flight school planes. I certainly wouldn't trust it with my life.

Compare to a GPS that uses the special and general theories of relativity to calculate time signals to 30ns accuracy, and can tell you whether or not the position fix is accurate (and how many meters it is accurate to).

Just because it's not legal to use it as your primary navigation method doesn't mean you can't look at it to confirm what your ADF is saying. There have been quite a few fatal accidents that we've discussed here that could have been avoided by the pilots double-checking their position on a cheap GPS.

[cdnpilot77]

Let's be clear, I have the GPS set up to get out of any situation should something go haywire but when I am flying an NDB approach, I fly an NDB approach.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I'm saying that I am competent and confident in my abilities to shoot an NDB approach if needed and do so legally without complicating things by adding an additional instrument, that I am not legally able to use, into my scan. Instead I concentrate on making sure I do the NDB approach appropriately. I am also a big chicken so if things aren't exactly as they should be then it's an instant pull up and go around.

I still do not understand why you would deliberately deprive yourself of information that will make the approach better like distance to the MAP, real time aircraft track that will allow you to assess how effective your wind correction is and a near instantaneous ground speed readout that will alert you to wind sheer ?

[cdnpilot77]

Perhaps if the situation dictated that necessity, I would. I do have the ability to think on a situation to situation basis. However, as I stated, when I am flying an NDB approach I fly an NDB approach, not a hybrid of my own creation or an overlay or anything else. I concentrate on what the plate tells me I should be doing at that airport to stay safe for myself, my crew and my pax.

[CpnCrunch]

Just because you're flying the NDB approach according to the ADF needle doesn't mean you're actually on the NDB approach, even if your skills are perfect.

[cdnpilot77]

I've also seen GPS updates come with improperly loaded databases...what's your point?

[Big Pistons Forever]

. However, as I stated, when I am flying an NDB approach I fly an NDB approach, not a hybrid of my own creation or an overlay or anything else. .

As I said earlier in my personal opinion you are doing it wrong by not utilizing every available navigational aid.

You as the PIC, of course get to make the choice of how you are going to fly any approach. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one....

[Big Pistons Forever]

I've also seen GPS updates come with improperly loaded databases...what's your point?

I have seen the ADF point at a distant thunderstorm instead of the beacon, or exhibit a host of other errors that where not detectable by the pilot and significantly degraded safety where flying the correct ADF bearing caused a deviation from the actual desired track.

So what is your point ?

As for database errors, I have personally never seen an improperly loaded approach database. If that where to happen I am confident I would catch it as the pre approach waypoint check would reveal a discrepancy between the approach plate published bearing/distance between each waypoint and the GPS FPL screen.

[B52]

NDB approaches are still a necessary skill that must be demonstrated upon an initial or to renew an instrument rating in other countries.

When I first arrived in Canada in the late 80's dam near every aircraft I flew had problems with ADF and it was more often than not they two adf's did not work or had such serious problems as to make them
unusable for for IFR.

Only the more prosperous of companies kept their ADF's working and even then, I noticed that the inflight performance was most of the time not what it should have been.

GPS makes them a relic of the past, and what few remain will be gone soon, until space debris explodes and turns every GPS bird into a million more anti-satelite missiles.

AR

[cdnpilot77]

I am actually a little surprised with you BPF. Being a very experienced instructor with a long and illustrious career, I'm surprised that you would encourage students that doing a full procedure NDB approach is nonsense and that all you need to rely on is a GPS to get you on your final track. What if your student is somewhere that only has an NDB and the GPS lost the signal or power just prior to starting the approach? Then what, turn back, go home? Or should they use the skill set that is taught and expected when issuing an IFR ticket?

I am acutely aware of the limitations and false reading errors of an ADF needle. I also mentioned that I am a big chicken, if things are not as they are supposed to be I bugger off. The GPS is a back up if things go foul, I don't rely on it as a primary instrument which is exactly what you are suggesting to do.

[Shiny Side Up]

The last time I filled in the 101 boxes on the typical navigation flight planning sheet was when I did my CPL flight test in 1986. That was also the last time I ever put drift lines on a chart.

Please, BPF, you exaggerate. On most sheets I find for flight planning, there are maybe 12 boxes to fill - such sheets are often combined with a W&B calc and a T/O distance chart to make it look complex and imposing, but its not. You're right, no one in their right mind actually does one of these things, but it does serve a purpose. Mainly that because I know how it works, I can also check any of the multitude of easier means to do flight planning. Happened the other day, I made a mistake, forgot to change up the aircraft I was in and 160 knots vs 130 knots with the online tool we use I easily spotted. By contrast, I was watching an instructor and student do "flight planning" using some app the other day and were adamant that they needed a full top up of fuel to get home. Not having a means to pay for it being the problem, they couldn't spot the error. We had this odd conversation:

"Is there some way we can get a fill and arrange for payment later?"

"Why don't you have enough to get home?"

"Well the flight plan app says we need more."

"How much do you have left?

"30 gallons."

"How much did you start with?"

"40 gallons"

"And you just flew here from home?"

"Yes"

"I think you need to do your figuring again."

Student made an error, but what was sad was the instructor couldn't spot it and of course no flight planning app could be wrong. GIGO.

Just because we always did something does not mean we should keep doing it. Some of the boredom in class is from smart people who know useless information when they are force fed it.

I would beg to differ that its useless. It just my not be useful at that exact moment, or it just may not be apparently useful.

The point is the license - that magic paper piece of freedom - technically allows you to go fly an airplane without a GPS. So while yes training should be updated to reflect its use, it still must by needs include the skills required before its advent.

Or should we have a graduated license these days that limits people to visual range of their home aerodrome unless they are GPS equipped?

Just a few days ago a few 200 hour wonders would have been stranded here when their GPS ceased its delivery of magic information. What was less funny was that they were prepared to make their company swallow a couple thousand dollar repair bill before the could continue, such they felt its necessity to heir safe ability to fly. Wouldn't even risk a short jaunt (apprx 35 miles) where they could get it fixed. Loose antennae cable behind the headliner. Sort of like calling a repair man to plug in your tv. But I'm getting ahead of myself, but maybe some ability to use a map might have saved those fellows some stupid expenditures, that's just me though.

Maybe they should have had a graduated license that required them to also have a back up GPS...

I was at 10,000 today on top of a solid layer and it was an NDB approach that put me on final.

It pays to be flexible.

The crux of the matter. As a pilot you're not supposed to be a specialist. You're supposed to have a wide range of capabilities. I'm always disappointed when I get some students who have only one mission in flying. Narrow possibilities. If you could absolve them of knowing anything but besides what they perceive is directly relevant to their mission objective, and that made getting a piece of paper to do it, they'd do it in a heartbeat. I see people who pride themselves on being specifically capable.

It does pay to be flexible. Maybe not fast enough for the me first now world, but lots of bits of aviation info are a lot like condoms or guns. Best to have them and not need them than to need them and not have them.

[Big Pistons Forever]

What if your student is somewhere that only has an NDB and the GPS lost the signal or power just prior to starting the approach? .

I have personally never seen a GPS fail. The good news is that if it were to fail or even suffer degraded accuracy it will annunciated the failure. I have on 2 occasions seen an NDB fail. The first one was a beacon failure and the absence of the ident was the clue. The second one was the truly scary one as it involved a failure of the ADF which resulted in the ADF only pointing to stations on the right of the aircraft. I was well to the left of track but the ADF needle still pointed straight up. Fortunately we were in center airspace and they called us up and asked where we going

I teach real world IFR flying not the "pass the TC flight test IFR" you find at flight schools. That instruction emphasizes using all the nav aids you have to maximum advantage.

Interesting factoid: New Boeing 737 Max, 777, and 787's are not available with an ADF as Boeing did not bother to certify them.

The bottom line is that ADF is obsolete technology that has been overtaken by better ways to navigate.

[cdnpilot77]

The bottom line is that ADF is technology that has been overtaken by better ways to navigate.

I mostly agree with you there but have removed one word. It is not obsolete because it is still the primary (and only) legal nav aid in some places (CYLD is just one example) to do an IFR approach. Because this is a place that I go to occasionally, I choose to stay current and competent in my NDB approach skills.

[Big Pistons Forever]

"Is there some way we can get a fill and arrange for payment later?"

"Why don't you have enough to get home?"

"Well the flight plan app says we need more."

"How much do you have left?

"30 gallons."

"How much did you start with?"

"40 gallons"

"And you just flew here from home?"

"Yes"

"I think you need to do your figuring again."

.

What you pointed out is exactly what we are not teaching. The most important part of flying is having a good sense of TLAR (That Looks About Right). Yet our navigation training emphasizes written exams with questions like "the fuel required for a trip from CYXX to CYABC" has 4 answer choices: 11.1 gals, 11.3 gals, 11.5 gals or 11.7 gals.

or: nav logs that have a column for CAS and IAS ( in a C 150 ) but no discussion about how much contingency fuel should you be carrying and why.

or: or lectures on obscure METAR abbreviations when all you have to do is select "plain language" on the web site, but no discussion on the big picture of "what is making the weather" and "is it going to matter for my flight ?"

or elaborate procedures for doing a diversion but never talk about using the "nearest airport" function on a GPS

or drawing lines all over the chart but no discussion about what to do when the chart and the view out the window are not the same

or etc etc

[Big Pistons Forever]

The bottom line is that ADF is technology that has been overtaken by better ways to navigate.

I mostly agree with you there but have removed one word. It is not obsolete because it is still the primary (and only) legal nav aid in some places (CYLD is just one example) to do an IFR approach. Because this is a place that I go to occasionally, I choose to stay current and competent in my NDB approach skills.

I never said don't look at the ADF I said use all the aids. So for a place with an NDB only approach I load the advisory overlay in the GPS, use the HSI track bar to turn to the final approach track and use the distance display to manage a stabilized CDA approach. That way I break out, everytime with the with the aircraft flight path aligned with the runway centerline and a stabilized descent rate that will get me to the touchdown zone, and yes I have monitored the ADF needle as a sanity check something I do even on certified stand alone LPV approaches.

Like I said wise pilots use all the aids.

I don't miss the old pre GPS days of dive and drive and then the low level maneuvering required to line up because the runway was hardly ever exactly straight ahead.

You want to wear the ADF hair shirt when there is a better way, fill your boots, but you won't change my mind.

[JeppsOnFire]

BPF says he has never seen a GPS fail. I find that remarkable. I have seen many Garmin GPS's fail. I have also seen quite a few FMS's revert to DR mode which also fails the EGPWS (causing last minute change to airways). I have also had several RAIM NOT AVAILABLE situations. It does happen.

[Shiny Side Up]

What you pointed out is exactly what we are not teaching.

No, what I'm pointing out is people don't want to learn these things. To be able to do TLAR, you need to have sort of a grasp behind basic math behind it, and sometimes that means going through step by step filling in boxes for some people, sometimes you need to draw lines on paper to get the picture across.

All the things you've mentioned, we do. Not all instructors granted, but there's people out there knowing this and trying to teach it. I just get frustrated when there's just resistance to everything that may not be directly what people think they need to know now. The NRST functions of a GPS is actually a good example. Try to explain to someone that someday being fairly practiced with how that works might really be important to spend boring time on now, you can almost never get across. Instead rather I get people after the fact - the "holy shit, I had a really bad day out there and I think I need to review some stuff". Even something like NRST which seems simple often isn't. For instance, many don't know that you can set up your defaults when you hit nearest for it to bring up airports of a certain size, paved surfaces, or ones with an approach. Might be useful ahead of time to learn how to do that (a simple matter really) rather than when you're in trouble. Of course one might go their whole flying career without having to need to use it when the chips are down, and of course that's at the back of the minds of many, so why bother to put the effort in.

The ADF has somewhat become sort of a red herring in this thread. Learning the principles of an old school timed non precision approach has some merit though. While there does exist the possibility of having everything go to crap except your ADF and need to use it to get yourself out of the soup, the ideas behind it can be extrapolated for a variety of uses. If one is imaginative that is, but that's a trait that's sorely undervalued in pilots these days.