Its a little booklet of freedom

[cdnpilot77]

BPF, I find many flaws in your insistent reliance on GPS. What would you do without it? I think we should have left it at agree to disagree.

[AirFrame]

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.

With a modern GPS, *every* airport can have an approach, even a small grass strip in the middle of nowhere. It's just software when you have such a precise location mechanism.

Or in the case of many pilots, three location mechanisms... The GPS in the panel, the one in your cell phone, and the one in your tablet. I'm another person who has never seen a GPS signal fail, but I keep hearing that it's possible so I try to stay ready for it.

I've flown two aircraft in my life that had an ADF. One was the airplane I learned to fly in, the other was my father's 1947 Cessna 190. Once I understood how it worked for navigation as a last resort, we only used it for listening to AM radio.

[CpnCrunch]

BPF, I find many flaws in your insistent reliance on GPS. What would you do without it? I think we should have left it at agree to disagree.

He isn't saying he relies on the GPS. He's just saying he uses all the aids available. I think it boils down to cross-checking your data, whether it is fuel load, fuel flow, distance, position or anything else critical to flight. You can cross-check using BPF's 'that looks about right', or using another instrument, etc. A while ago another pilot measured the distance we were going to fly by using his map and a ruler and he came up with a value twice what I came up with using Air Nav Pro. "Did you use the half-mil ruler on the VTA" I asked. Oops! TLAR probably would have spotted that error.

I've had the GPS on my phone fail a few times, but have never seen an aviation GPS fail (although it certainly could). Once I had to take my phone apart and reseat the antennas because the GPS stopped working completely.

[cdnpilot77]

BPF, I find many flaws in your insistent reliance on GPS. What would you do without it? I think we should have left it at agree to disagree.

He isn't saying he relies on the GPS. He's just saying he uses all the aids available. I think it boils down to cross-checking your data, whether it is fuel load, fuel flow, distance, position or anything else critical to flight. You can cross-check using BPF's 'that looks about right', or using another instrument, etc. A while ago another pilot measured the distance we were going to fly by using his map and a ruler and he came up with a value twice what I came up with using Air Nav Pro. "Did you use the half-mil ruler on the VTA" I asked. Oops! TLAR probably would have spotted that error.

I've had the GPS on my phone fail a few times, but have never seen an aviation GPS fail (although it certainly could). Once I had to take my phone apart and reseat the antennas because the GPS stopped working completely.

My question is what if it does fail? What do you do then? Isnt our profession bound to consider the "what ifs"? I have had a GPS fail recently, black screen coming out of Gatineau. It's not the first time, however, it's more often been losing a signal. It is a great and nearly essential tool no doubt, but if you can't fly an NDB approach without the use of one then, as previously suggested in the original post, should you have an IFR ticket in Canada that says you can?

[CpnCrunch]

It is a great and nearly essential tool no doubt, but if you can't fly an NDB approach without the use of one then, as previously suggested in the original post, should you have an IFR ticket in Canada that says you can?

Yes, agreed. There are quite a few airports in Canada that only have NDB approaches (CEG4 comes to mind).

I actually quite like the ADF - it's a very handy tool to use to verify that you're heading towards an airport. It's just difficult finding one in a plane that actually works.

[cdnpilot77]

It's just difficult finding one in a plane that actually works.

I don't think there is much argument there. Fortunately, ours seems to work well....knock on wood.

[photofly]

but if you can't fly an NDB approach without the use of one then, as previously suggested in the original post, should you have an IFR ticket in Canada that says you can?

It says you're allowed to, it doesn't certify that you're capable. You can get an IR without having seen an ADF. It remains up to you to avoid situations where you'd have to fly an NDB approach, if you can't, as with all skill decisions, in flying.

There's no difference between that, and flying a plane not equipped with an ADF.

[Shiny Side Up]

but if you can't fly an NDB approach without the use of one then, as previously suggested in the original post, should you have an IFR ticket in Canada that says you can?

It says you're allowed to, it doesn't certify that you're capable. You can get an IR without having seen an ADF. It remains up to you to avoid situations where you'd have to fly an NDB approach, if you can't, as with all skill decisions, in flying.

One can view it that way if you want, and I suppose that's what most pilots want to do. I wish more people were more interested in widening their knowledge base. Something like how to use an ADF, for example, is a pretty small jump that one is asking in one's knowledge base, considering that as an instrument rated pilot you already are troubling to become proficient at a very relevant and connected set of skills. Even if one is never to see an ADF, don't we require pilots to be able to do a Non-precision approach? As a pilot do you want to only be able to do one type?

I suppose its great to just keep sticking with being specialized in one thing and doing some fist bumps after you've stayed inside your comfort zone for the hundreth time. I just wish pilots were cut from a more heroic cloth instead of ones who self limit their horizons.

[Big Pistons Forever]

My question is what if it does fail? What do you do then? Isnt our profession bound to consider the "what ifs"? I have had a GPS fail recently, black screen coming out of Gatineau.

So what are you going to do you do if your ADF (or the associated NDB) fails while you are IMC half way through your approach ?

[Big Pistons Forever]

Even if one is never to see an ADF, don't we require pilots to be able to do a Non-precision approach? As a pilot do you want to only be able to do one type?

No we want IFR pilots to be able to understand all of the benefits and potential risks of every type of approach aid and use the best type of approach for the situation, that is the one that will be the most accurate and allow the safest flight path. That will pretty much never be an NDB approach without using any GPS information to enhance accuracy

I suppose its great to just keep sticking with being specialized in one thing and doing some fist bumps after you've stayed inside your comfort zone for the hundreth time. I just wish pilots were cut from a more heroic cloth instead of ones who self limit their horizons.

I understand where you are coming from and I am as frustrated as you are at the distressingly large number of students who just want to do/know the absolute minimum to pass the test. Unfortunately being lazy and unmotivated is a character flaw that is likely a lifelong affliction. However I am bothered when I see bright keen students get a puzzled frown and ask why do I have to know this and I can't give them any kind of sensible answer. A lot of the foundation stuff in flying is timeless but some stuff has moved on in the last 70 years. There is plenty in the PPL knowledge syllabus that has no useful function other than to provide material for toughy trivia questions on exams.

As for PPL navigation I see plenty of students so caught up in filling in the flight log boxes and drawing lines on the chart without really understanding what they are doing as it is all rote learning and they are just as helpless without the form as children of the megenta are without the magic box. Personally I think PPL training would be a lot better if students were prohibited from drawing on the map. On the flight test the examiner points to some place on the map and says " take me here ". The student has to point the airplane in the approximate right direction and then map read his/her way based on what they see out the window.

.

[cdnpilot77]

My question is what if it does fail? What do you do then? Isnt our profession bound to consider the "what ifs"? I have had a GPS fail recently, black screen coming out of Gatineau.

So what are you going to do you do if your ADF (or the associated NDB) fails while you are IMC half way through your approach ?

That's a silly question to try to prove a point. This question can be asked for any approach aid. My question was direct, You are relying on the GPS to save the day, so again I ask, what are you gonna do if your ADF is serviceable but your GPS craps out?

[Shiny Side Up]

However I am bothered when I see bright keen students get a puzzled frown and ask why do I have to know this and I can't give them any kind of sensible answer. A lot of the foundation stuff in flying is timeless but some stuff has moved on in the last 70 years. There is plenty in the PPL knowledge syllabus that has no useful function other than to provide material for toughy trivia questions on exams.
.

You're right, there is some stuff there that's really not useful at all, or at least not the level that the test asks for. The compass errors come to mind. In real use, you just need to know that the compass doesn't read accurately in simplest terms flying straight and level at constant speed. No one is out there figuring out leads and lags anymore, if they ever did. Info of that sort I tend to preface with "You need to know this for the written but in real life this is what you need to know." For many things though that's not cut and dried. Everything else that may not seem important immediately I can come up with useful instances for the knowledge. Things that have happened to me, or some one I know and in a lot of cases that bit - saved their bacon, sometimes just saved them money, or other major inconvenience. Good things to know as an aviator unless you like to shell out extra money and have angry passengers or otherwise fall afoul of all the hazards waiting for the unwary.

Increasingly, its "that won't happen to me" or "I'm never going to do that!"

For example, "I'm never going to get lost!" or "I'm never going to run out fuel!"

No one ever plans to die in an airplane either.

[Big Pistons Forever]

My question is what if it does fail? What do you do then? Isnt our profession bound to consider the "what ifs"? I have had a GPS fail recently, black screen coming out of Gatineau.

So what are you going to do you do if your ADF (or the associated NDB) fails while you are IMC half way through your approach ?

That's a silly question to try to prove a point. This question can be asked for any approach aid. My question was direct, You are relying on the GPS to save the day, so again I ask, what are you gonna do if your ADF is serviceable but your GPS craps out?

Well first to be deprived of GPS information the GPS satellite system itself would have to fail to generate usable position information which is extremely unlikely. A possibility would be the aircraft GPS box had failed. In which case I would monitor the ADF needle which I am going to do anyway, and use the moving map on my I pad, to monitor my position on the approach. However like any approach I would asses the risks of continuing including the terrain, weather conditions and whether I can achieve todays operational objective even if I go somewhere else better.

That is ultimately the point I trying to make which you seem willfully blind to. Being a good IFR pilot is not being ace of base on stand alone ADF approaches, it is having the ability to use all the available aids to maximize the accuracy and safety of you approach. That is why I stand by my contention that if you are doing a NDB appraoch and you are not integrating GPS derived track/distance and GS information in it you are doing it wrong.

No back to my question. You are track inbound on your NDB approach letting down to the FAF crossing altitude with the FAF still ahead of you and your ADF dies. Oh and by the way the missed approach has a turn right after the MAP to avoid terrain. No problema you start climbing use the GPS to go to the MAP and start the turn.......................Oh wait I forgot you have deliberately decided not to include any GPS information in your scan and so no help there.

I guess climb and time to the MAP except you don't really know where you are so the time is at best a guess. Yup that is so much safer then using that infernal GPS.....

[Big Pistons Forever]

Shiny

For every license and rating there is a hierarchy of knowledge

-Must Know
-Should Know
-Nice to Know
-Interesting but with little practical benefit

I think in general flight training does not do a particularly good job of teaching subjects in that order. All information is often treated as having the same value when clearly it does not. We are not the Air Force with unlimited time and budget who can teach everything to the 100 percentile, there are time and money limits to civil training. Therefore it would seem to me scrubbing the training of low value added concepts like timed turns and using that air time to say practice slow flight handling, would make for better pilots.

I think there should be much more evidence based direction in flight training. We know where pilots are screwing up and the curriculm should be changed to address that. For example pilots are not getting lost because they did not use the drift lines on the chart, they are often getting lost because they headed off in the wrong direction and did not have the TLAR skills to say "hey that ain't right !"

[cdnpilot77]

That is ultimately the point I trying to make which you seem willfully blind to. Being a good IFR pilot is not being ace of base on stand alone ADF approaches, it is having the ability to use all the available aids to maximize the accuracy and safety of you approach. That is why I stand by my contention that if you are doing a NDB appraoch and you are not integrating GPS derived track/distance and GS information in it you are doing it wrong.

No back to my question. You are track inbound on your NDB approach letting down to the FAF crossing altitude with the FAF still ahead of you and your ADF dies. Oh and by the way the missed approach has a turn right after the MAP to avoid terrain. No problema you start climbing use the GPS to go to the MAP and start the turn.......................Oh wait I forgot you have deliberately decided not to include any GPS information in your scan and so no help there.

I guess climb and time to the MAP except you don't really know where you are so the time is at best a guess. Yup that is so much safer then using that infernal GPS.....

Ah so we are also adding in the iPad moving map also, I thought we were subtracting instrumentation not adding it, but that's also a legal IFR navigation aid right? You missed a point I made many posts ago that you were "willfully blind too". I have the GPS as back up always. I guess I am just a bad IFR pilot. I have never so much as scratched an airplane, but because we have different views on the reliance on technology that I have personally had fail, I am a bad pilot, interesting strategy.

You can think its "wrong" all you want, but that is such a blindingly ridiculous statement as the approach plate shows how to intercept an inbound track using the nav aid. It doesn't say use your GPS to line you up and then give 'er. Wonder what TC would say is the correct way or the wrong way on a standalone NDB approach?

[Shiny Side Up]

We're in agreement there BPF. The point is though people would rather have specific tailored flight training, but that's not what the license represents. That's not what being a pilot represents. One can't say what the future holds. For example someone might be dreaming of being a Cirrus guy who only makes flights from paved strip to paved strip. Maybe you feel you won't ever need to know about soft fields. Maybe you even feel that you won't need to know about how uncontrolled airports work. You're not going to need to know what spins are since you're just going to stay away from them, or how to conduct a glide to a field since you have a chute.

But we don't deliver specific licenses to fly, we give an almost unlimited one. I guess I just feel differently about that idea than most do.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Now back to my question. You are track inbound on your NDB approach letting down to the FAF crossing altitude with the FAF still ahead of you and your ADF dies. Oh and by the way the missed approach has a turn right after the MAP to avoid terrain.

Still waiting for you to tell me what you are going to do in the situation described above. I told you what I would do, use the GPS to go to the MAP and then make the turn. What are you going to do and please explain how it is better than my plan ?

[cdnpilot77]

I did answer you, at least twice, maybe 3 times...I have the GPS as a backup if things go haywire with the ADF or the beacon itself. It was disclaimed in one of my very first posts. I am not trying to convince you to do it my way, I couldn't care less how you do it, but to suggest that I am doing it wrong by doing an NDB approach by the book is well, ridiculous, for lack of a better term.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I did answer you, at least twice, maybe 3 times...I have the GPS as a backup if things go haywire with the ADF or the beacon itself. It was disclaimed in one of my very first posts. I am not trying to convince you to do it my way, I couldn't care less how you do it, but to suggest that I am doing it wrong by doing an NDB approach by the book is well, ridiculous, for lack of a better term.

So it is OK to use GPS as the sole means of navigating if the ADF were to become unreliable but it is absolutely verboten to use GPS derived information like distance to the FAF or a comparison of track vs bearing to see how your wind correction is doing, when flying the approach right up to the moment the ADF failed

[cdnpilot77]

So it is OK to use GPS as the sole means of navigating if the ADF were to become unreliable but it is absolutely verboten to use GPS derived information like distance to the FAF or a comparison of track vs bearing to see how your wind correction is doing, when flying the approach right up to the moment the ADF failed

Take it however you wish...if the situation is that dire where I am in the rocks hell yeah I am going to use everything at my disposal to get out safely, what is so hard about that to understand? I would do the same if I were on a VOR or an ILS or whatever. I will say it one more time, If am doing an NDB approach, I do an NDB approach, not a hybrid or blah blah. This is NOT "wrong" as you continually suggest. It's actually right, very right, so says the magic cap books or jepps or foreflight or whatever you use. Show me a cap for a standalone NDB approach that says "set up for your final course using your GPS and follow the needle in" and I will oblige and make sure I do that if I ever go to that specific approach.

[trampbike]

Seems like you two guys are basically saying the same things...
It's good to be able to do every kind of approach on their own, and it's good to know how to supplement that with any other tools you can have at hand.
Looks like common sense to me.
There is no such thing as too much situational awareness.

I have very little IFR experience, but I have just enough to have experienced a RAIM failure right at the FAF once.

I did practice flying full procedure NDB approachs with every other tools off, just for exposure.
Most of the time though, I still like to have my navaids sequenced on the GPS and I bring a secondary needle on the EHSI, just because I can, and... there is no such thing as too much S.A!!

As the Colonel would say, if it's in the aircraft, you should know how to use it, and it'd be dumb to not use stuff that could be useful.

[CpnCrunch]

Take it however you wish...if the situation is that dire where I am in the rocks hell yeah I am going to use everything at my disposal to get out safely, what is so hard about that to understand? I would do the same if I were on a VOR or an ILS or whatever. I will say it one more time, If am doing an NDB approach, I do an NDB approach, not a hybrid or blah blah. This is NOT "wrong" as you continually suggest. It's actually right, very right, so says the magic cap books or jepps or foreflight or whatever you use. Show me a cap for a standalone NDB approach that says "set up for your final course using your GPS and follow the needle in" and I will oblige and make sure I do that if I ever go to that specific approach.

So do you not verify your track against a GPS at all? If not, how do you know for sure that the ADF is actually pointing at the NDB? Do you take it on faith that it's working correctly?

[cdnpilot77]

How in the world did anyone ever fly a single NDB approach before GPS?

[Big Pistons Forever]

How in the world did anyone ever fly a single NDB approach before GPS?

Well I had about 10 years of IFR flying before GPS became commonly available and I can say the answer to your question is the "approach usually did not go as well as it did after I had the benefit of GPS derived positional information"

But hey if you deliberately want to deprive yourself of navigational information that will make the approach more accurate you are certainly within your legal rights to do so, I just can't get my head around why you would want to.

[cdnpilot77]

Hahaha, I am not "depriving" myself or my airplane of anything. Anyways, It's been fun and an interesting debate, but I am getting the feeling that you are not used to having people disagree with your philosophies so before the mudslinging begins, I will push back from the table and wish you all the best and fly safe!