Am I the only one who still thinks we should teach students to time from FAF to MAP?

[Paul Cantrell]

There is an ongoing discussion at our school about the usefulness of teaching instrument students to time from the FAF to the MAP. One of the other instructors (an ATP who flies regional jets part 121) is of the opinion that GPS has supplanted that - that even flying non-precision approaches you'll still use your GPS to identify the MAP.

I'm probably just old school, but I figure that when the GPS system goes away, or you are flying some POS that doesn't have a good GPS in it, you'll still want to have been trained to start your timer at the FAF. I figure if I don't teach my students to do this now, they won't be in the habit of starting the clock at the FAF.

What do others think? If it changes anything this is helicopter IFR in the USA.

Paul

[Big Pistons Forever]

The only reason the procedure of timing FAF to MAP was adopted was because before the availablity of GPS positioning there was no other universal way to determine arrival at the MAP. Since using time as a proxy for distance run requires a accurate ground speed, something impossible to be sure of particularly as you descend closer to the ground, a GPS derived distance to the MAF will always much more accurate. That being said students should be exposed to the technique in case they ever have to use it. I see no reason to use it on every training approach though.

Related to this question however is the requirement to devlop a mental appreciation of the time/speed/distance calculation in students. That way when they make a data entry mistake and the magic box gives them a silly answer they will recognize it.

[mattpilot]

Uhm... Yea i've always made my students time the approach.

I guess the nay sayers never had a GPS failure (both receiver failure & no signal). I've had a few and don't trust those things completely - just like i don't trust half the equipment on board completely :). Timing the approach is just another backup that adds to SA that should be done.

Also, the examiners in the area i instructed would fail the applicants if they didn't do it - despite having a GPS onboard.

[DB6]

In the UK you have to use timing (assuming no DME) since GPS is not approved as primary navaid. GPS is not approved for use in the airliner I fly either, beyond the IAF, so yes, timing is important. Don't know about the USA but if you're going to fly across the pond you need to know how to.

[woodcoc2000]

Well I was taught "time to see" and time to go-around; but have never used it since in the real world. I guess the only time it would be of any use is when you have a distance derived MAP (MAP at 1DME etc.) and your DME and GPS go out. Given that times are written on approach plates, the only thing that really has to be taught is hit the START/STOP button on the timer as you pass over FAF..http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

[SNS3Guppy]

Timing should always be performed.

[172_driver]

Anybody else uses the 5T's?

Turn
Time
Throttle
Twist
Talk

Works every time :ok:

[establishedonfinals]

I was taught to always time the approach even if there is a DME facility, as there is nothing worse than crossing the beacon, forgetting the timer and then not being able to calculate MAP (as I managed on my first shot at an NDB approach!) An 172, I was taught a smililar method using,
Time
Turn
Throttle
Talk
What's the twist?

[172_driver]

VOR approaches that don't have the station located at the aerodrome, and the radials to track inbound and outbound from the VOR are not the same. Twist the correct outbound radial as you pass over.

Other approaches have fixes along the final approach track defined by cross radials from another VOR. As you pass over the IAF, twist in the next fix to find out when you can descend further.

Two applications of twist I've come across.

[BelArgUSA]

Obvious - timing for approach is rare nowadays - but still required at times.
Non-precision approaches... However rare we do these things.
That is part of a proper briefing.
xxx
I do not time for a precision approach procedure - But...
In some non-precision approaches, VOR or ADF approaches, you need time.
IAF to MAP should always be timed.
xxx
You could not land from a MAP as it is from "above" the threshold of a runway.
You normally approach/land with about 800 FPM descent rate. - Airline jets.
Meaning you need to know from WHERE is a landing becoming IMPOSSIBLE.
xxx
Suppose this - a non-precision approach, time IAF to MAP is 2 minutes.
At 800 FPM rate, and MDA 600 AGL, you will be in position to land 45 seconds before time is over.
So, be ready for a missed approach if you did not see your runway after 75 seconds after the IAF.
So simple - Is it that difficult...?
I agree - it is rare nowadays that procedures require time, yet, it is better to do it by the book.
xxx
:)
Happy contrails

[Keygrip]

I do not time for a precision approach procedure

Just curious, BelArgUSA, when do you start your watch then, if you are part way down an ILS when the glide slope fails?

[Dan Winterland]

If the glideslope fails, you go around. Quickly converting to an unbriefed, unplanned and uncleared Non Precision Approach in a commercial airliner is not really a viable or safe option.

Timing comes from the days when there was no distance incdicators except markers or cross bearing from other beacons. As most ILS approaches in use use DME for distance and most NPAs are now effectively a RNAV overlay, timing is not really necessary.

In the real world, people just don't do it. I haven't timed an approach for years.

[Keygrip]

Who mentioned a commercial airliner - or multi crew - or "unbriefed".

Could a single pilot, PA28?, not brief him/herself "ILS, yada, yada, yada, in the unlikely event of glideslope failure, time to MAP will be..."?

Let's get really mean: Single pilot, light multi engine aircraft, asymmetric, one very sick passenger, very low on fuel, Cat1 minima weather, aircraft few miles behind has declared an emergency for an undercarriage problem and is likely to crash land on runway (and close it).

Go around, or start the watch? (or call Joe Patroni).

[BelArgUSA]

Read what Dan Winterland writes here above.
We do not time for a precision approach.
You are "going to" a Decision Altitude, not a MDA based on time.
xxx
I used to do that when I had a fresh IR on my licence,,,
With airlines, we never did for an ILS.
Glide slope failed. we would go around, come back for LOC approach (+new briefing with time).
xxx
IR students often do time their ILS approaches, and do like you describe.
In practice with 20,000 hrs line flying, never did, and G/S failure (alone) never happened.
And I do not teach this in jet/airline simulator training environment either.
xxx
I know your FAA/CFIIs are probably telling you to "time" from the FAF.
Do like they tell you... but -
I would instead recommend instead you monitor the audio IDENT for the ILS.
Like you do for an ADF/VOR approach.
If something does not work, or stops working, go for a missed approach.
xxx
All the best -
:)
Happy contrails

[bArt2]

If the glideslope fails, you go around.

If the glideslope fails I would continue to the localiser minima which would be the briefed backup approach. This is not unsafe as you do not need to change your tracking nor your descend rate. If you are already below loc minima you would exute the missed approach.

Bart

[BelArgUSA]

I would not recommend to do that.
xxx
Ok, you mention a briefing, and alternate briefing, and... MAP briefing then.
It is getting quite confusing to the F/O and the F/E I would be with.
Since you tune the ADF on the LOM as well, why not brief for NDB approach as well.
Let us keep the things simple and clear in the flight deck...
xxx
I mentioned above, I have never seen a G/S failing separately.
If there is a G/S failure, I would go around and investigate the how and why.
Flew with many airlines... none did have such procedure.
Not even with Sobelair... I flew OO-SJP there in the 1970s...
xxx
Prochaine fois que je suis à BRU, on discute cela devant une kriek ou geuze.
Alleye - tot ziens...!
:ok:
Happy contrails

[SNS3Guppy]

While timing has negligible value on an ILS with fully functioning components, I still strongly recommend always timing the approach, for several reasons. One is that it should become a habit. Get in the habit of starting the clock when you pass the FAF. It's certainly required for many nonprecision approaches, and may be required if you have to shoot a localizer approach. It's also an additional means of monitoring the approach you're flying, precision or otherwise. Time is an integral function of everything we do, and a basic part of the equation in how we fly. We travel so far in so much time, burn so much fuel in so much time, etc. Time is important. It's important an approach. Always get in the habit of timing an approach. If it's a universal habit, it's hard to forget when you go do an NDB or VOR approach. Always time.

It's well to say that a large commercial airplane won't complete an approach on the localizer if the glideslope fails, or that one never fails...but I've certainly had it happen, and certainly completed the approach on the loc. If you have the fuel and the time in your tanks to go around, it's generally recommended that you do so...including rebriefing the approach as a localizer-only approach. Especially if the localizer approach involves a series of step-down fixes. Don't assume that because you have a power setting and descent rate that was working on the glideslope when it failed, that you can keep using that for the non-precision localizer-only approach...all of a sudden the step down fixes and crossing restructions take on a lot of meaning.

One really needs to consider what one is flying and the circumstances under which it's being flown before speaking in absolutes, however. To say that one should never complete the approach on the localizer assumes that one has no concerns in the world about fuel, about going somewhere else, etc. Particularly in today's environment where many firms are taking away captain's discretionary fuel, where tankering fuel isn't what it used to be, and where a long trip is involved with few options...going around simply because the glideslope went out may not always be the best option.

A fuel reserve is required to depart, not to arrive. One may plan for adequate fuel, but it may not always be there on arrival due to a number of factors ranging from unforecast conditions to re-routing to equipment failures, etc. Upon arrival, we look at a cost of nearly ten thousand pounds of fuel if we have to go around; that can eat a considerable part of what we have left. With that in mind, it may be very appropriate and safe, depending on the nature of the arrival, existing conditions, etc, to continue without the glideslope; it's subjective and by no means an absolute. In that case, one will be grateful for having timed the approach.

Some years ago I was joining the localizer at an airport served by three roughly parallel ILS's. One was down following a lightening strike earlier. That left two approaches. As the glideslope can alive and was captured, it failed, and ATC reported that the glideslope was out. We were given the option to continue or abandon the approach. We were far enough out we had ample time, and elected to continue. Shortly thereafter the localizer failed. Owing to weather in the area, fuel, and the fact that there was a long line to go back around and try it again, and conditions were deteriorating, we were able to transition to the parallel approach with the help of ATC. I already had both plates available and had reviewed both approaches, and as was my practice at the time, had reviewd both with a glideslope failure in mind. While on the second approach, the glideslope also failed, and as we became visual, the loc also failed. All other traffic was diverted, and at that point we really didn't have diversion fuel (for reasons that aren't important here). We were the last one in. Massive electrical failures and problems downed all the approaches and the airport was closed to approaches for a time.

This is admittedly a rare sort of occurence, but it can happen. I've experienced it, and while I wouldn't base timing strictly on a rare experience, it's a good habit in general. Timing doesn't cost you anything, and if you get in the habit of always hitting the timer then you're consistent through all your approaches. It simplifies your practices. In a light airplane, I still check gear down in a fixed gear airplane...do I need to do that? No...the gear is always down. But it's an ingrained habit, and I do it univerally in whatever I fly to keep it as a habit. Timing the approach is the same way.

Time the approach.

[BladePilot]

Mods,
give SNS3Guppy his own forum, you could call it 'ask SNS3guppy':ok:

[IO540]

In the UK you have to use timing (assuming no DME) since GPS is not approved as primary navaid

Reference please!!! :ugh:

[my bold]

[what next]

Hello!

It's certainly required for many nonprecision approaches...

Not in our part of the world! When I got my instrument rating 20 years ago, timing approaches had long been deleted from the training syllabus (interestingly, "time-distance-checks" were still haunting us then... but they have disapperared in the meantime as well).

In order to make timing meaningful, you need to know your groundspeed accurately. You get accurate GS measurements from things like GPS, DME or INS. If you have either of them, you also have accurate position information. Much more accurate than what you will get from using your stopwatch and quick mental calculation. That's why we don't teach it any more.

I once flew with a guy who had the die-hard habit of pressing his stopwatch when he stated his approach. When I asked him one day, after how many minutes he expects us to be at minimums, he answered: "When the DME reads zero"... :)

Greetings, Max

[DB6]

IO540: First Non-Precision GPS Approach Introduced in the UK | CAA News | CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=14&pagetype=65&appid=7&newstype=n&mode=detail&nid=1676)

[Lookforshooter]

'Children of the Magenta': Need I say more?

[tbavprof]

What's the criteria for the new UK GPS approach if you get a RAIM alarm FAF inbound? No timing? Sorry, we've had "overlay" approaches for years. Brief the approach that the overlay is based on as a back-up to GPS failure, with appropriate monitoring and decisioning points (including time, MAP, and MDA). Same as you would on an ILS with loss of glideslope switching to localizer only.

Doesn't anyone do an off-airport NDB approach? How can you not time?

[bookworm]

Doesn't anyone do an off-airport NDB approach?

Not really. The classic set-up before DME became widespread was to have an NDB sitting at the OM for the ILS, and hence in the absence of the ILS, the approach of choice was an NDB approach based on timing from a beacon 5 miles off-airport.

In the UK over the last 30 years, ILSs have been paired with DMEs -- I can't think of one that's not. Rather than maintaining an NDB at the OM at each end, NDBs have been moved on-airport, and the approach used is an NDB/DME approach to that on-airport aid. I can't think of an airport in the UK with an off-airport NDB. I just looked at Norwich, which I haven't been to for years, but used to have an ILS with markers, an LOM and no DME. That has moved its LOM on airport and had a DME for years. In Germany, timing is not even authorised as a method of locating the MAPt for any NPA I've seen.

Moreover for commercial air transport, anything other than a constant angle NPA using a distance indication has become unacceptable. Losing that distance indication is an event that must trigger a go-around.

So the discipline of starting the watch at the FAF helps you in the case where both the DME and the GPS decide to fail, there's no radar and the beacon itself does not provide a convenient MAPt. For an ILS, add the condition that the glideslope also decided to fail. In the modern European environment, it's getting to the stage where the value is not worth the cost of the workload and break in the scan to start the watch.

[SNS3Guppy]

An ILS with a compass locator is not an NDB approach. An NDB approach involves an approach based on an NDB as the primary navaid.

There are more approaches in teh world than what is found in the UK...and there are a great many NDB approaches still in use out there.

[tbavprof]

Thanks, Guppy. Don't think I've ever tried (or even want to) use an LOM for an NDB approach. I had another couple of questions based on the response.

Rather than maintaining an NDB at the OM at each end, NDBs have been moved on-airport, and the approach used is an NDB/DME approach.

I have to admit, I've never run into an NDB/DME approach. Or, at least one that required a DME for MAP identification.

but used to have an ILS with markers, an LOM and no DME. That has moved its LOM on airport and had a DME for years.

Pardon my ignorance again, but how do you move an outer marker onto the airport?

And what was the LOM doing out there before? Some ILS approaches I've flown use it as an IAF, but inbound on the localizer it's the place to start the clock in case glideslope is lost, since FAF is glideslope intercept established on the localizer inbound.

The little flashing blue light and beeping also seem to make a convenient point for the hand-off from approach to tower.

[bookworm]

I have to admit, I've never run into an NDB/DME approach. Or, at least one that required a DME for MAP identification.

Difficult to find an NDB approach that's not paired with DME in many parts of Europe. If the MAPt is not defined by DME, it will usually be at the beacon.

but used to have an ILS with markers, an LOM and no DME. That has moved its LOM on airport and had a DME for years.

Pardon my ignorance again, but how do you move an outer marker onto the airport?

I'm sorry I expressed that badly. The Locator (NDB) part of the LOM was moved on airfield. The markers were decomissioned, since the DME defines an equivalent location.

Here are the approaches:
ILS 27 (http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/current/ad/EGSH/EG_AD_2_EGSH_8-3_en.pdf)

NDB(L)/DME 27 (http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/current/ad/EGSH/EG_AD_2_EGSH_8-6_en.pdf)

The equivalent has happened at virtually every UK airport that used to have an off-airport NDB.

[bookworm]

An ILS with a compass locator is not an NDB approach. An NDB approach involves an approach based on an NDB as the primary navaid.

Of course it does. And when the ILS is off, that's exactly what you have, an NDB approach based on the (obviously off-airport) locator. The vast majority of off-airport NDB approaches in the UK were based on such locators. The demise of the ILS with LOM means that there are none (or almost none, I haven't searched exhaustively) left.

There are more approaches in teh world than what is found in the UK...and there are a great many NDB approaches still in use out there.

True enough. But in the environment I fly in, the off-airport timed NDB approach is dying out, and I think it's appropriate to teach students the skills they're likely to need in the environment they'll fly in. If the OP is flying in a different environment, the training need may be different.

[SNS3Guppy]

Of course it does. And when the ILS is off, that's exactly what you have, an NDB approach based on the (obviously off-airport) locator. The vast majority of off-airport NDB approaches in the UK were based on such locators. The demise of the ILS with LOM means that there are none (or almost none, I haven't searched exhaustively) left.


Actually, no. You're talking about two different approaches, and indeed, two different kinds of approaches.

If the locator for a given approach is also used to form an NDB approach, then so be it...but an ILS approach with a compass locator is an ILS approach. It is not an NDB approach.

If the compass locator is then used as the basis of a stand-alone NDB approach, then that is an NDB approach.

When one undertakes an ILS with inoperative components, one may have different minima based on those components, such as a higher MDA for a glideslope inoperative. However, if one has neither a localizer or a glideslope, one isn't flying an ILS approach. If one has only a compass locator, one isn't flying the published ILS. One will be flying something else...a published NDB approach, perhaps...or one won't be flying the approach at all.

But in the environment I fly in, the off-airport timed NDB approach is dying out, and I think it's appropriate to teach students the skills they're likely to need in the environment they'll fly in. If the OP is flying in a different environment, the training need may be different.


One should not pick and choose the skills which one teaches when molding an IFR pilot. The ability to understand an NDB approach is really the basis for understanding any approach. When I fly an approach using an RMI, I fly the same techniques and method regardless of whether the approach is predicated on an NDB or a VOR. Timing is applicable, and should be performed whether or not one has DME. It's a valuable habit and practice to time turns, holds, and approaches regardless of whether the timing is necessary for that particular turn, hold, or approach.

Understanding the relationship of one's position to the course and to the navaid is crucial, and applicable, whether one uses a RMI or not, and whether one flies a timed approach or not. We're talking about basic skills that need to be taught to, and understood by all pilots intending to undertake instrument flight...even those who are children of the magenta line.

[what next]

Hello!

We're talking about basic skills that need to be taught to, and understood by all pilots intending to undertake instrument flight...even those who are children of the magenta line.

So let's hope Mr. "JAA" or "JAR-FCL" or whatever his name may be is following this discussion! As in IFR instructor for a commercial flight training organisation within JAA country I have to teach according to our government-agency-approved syllabus and training plan. This plan does not include timing other than for flying holding patterns. But I don't think that our trainees are bad pilots who lack fundamental flying skills. And their employers obviously don't think that either.

I find it amazing that after 100+ years of human flight such fundamental differences regarding the same thing still exist! Earlier this year I spent a couple of weeks in the United States for a type-rating and was not allowed to share sim-sessions with an Americal colleague because of the differences in FAA and JAA syllabi concerning non-precision approaches. Instead, each of us was given a "right seater" (all of them TRIs!) for every training session... Maybe it's time we find worldwide consensus regarding these issues.

Greetings, Max

[SNS3Guppy]

Max,

No law exists which states you must teach to the minimum standard. Keep that in mind.

Simply because you are not required by law to teach fundamental skills and proper practices, doesn't mean that you should refrain from doing so.

[bookworm]

If the locator for a given approach is also used to form an NDB approach, then so be it...but an ILS approach with a compass locator is an ILS approach. It is not an NDB approach.

If the compass locator is then used as the basis of a stand-alone NDB approach, then that is an NDB approach.

Exactly. Read what I wrote once again.

"The classic set-up before DME became widespread was to have an NDB sitting at the OM for the ILS, and hence in the absence of the ILS, the approach of choice was an NDB approach based on timing from a beacon 5 miles off-airport."

NDBs do not, generally, fall from the sky into convenient locations to create a straight-in off-airport-NDB approach. They are placed there for a reason. I explained that reason, and further, the reason why such NDBs, and the approaches associated with them are being decomissioned, at least in western Europe.

One should not pick and choose the skills which one teaches when molding an IFR pilot.

I have a lot of sympathy for that argument. However there comes a time when the requirements to train for the modern environment outweigh the need for those skills that have fallen into disuse. Would you teach A-N range tracking? At one time, it was highly relevant to the IFR pilot.

[SNS3Guppy]

A ridiculous comparison.

The AN range is no longer in use.

The clock still works just as it always did, and still has applicability to basic navigation skills...including flying an approach.

Timing one's fuel, timing one's turns, timing one's hold, and timing one's approach is still very much a useful, appropriate thing to teach and to practice in instrument flight.

[Lookforshooter]

Anyone in here hoping that the GPS will always work, hasn't seen one go out on them right before an approach...very interesting to see the moving map flip around...stand alone GPS approaches always made me nervous..(Hollister Airport, USA)...with no colocation of an NDB, VOR...ect ect, hoping RAIM was working...ect...and of course we can talk about a corrupt database in the FMS or GPS...that said...call me 'old school'...when passing an instrument ride meant nailing your airspeed, and knowing the head or tailwind, ergo proper groundspeed, so when you time ran out on a non precision approach, you were actualy close or over the airport...but not past...needless to say...any instructor or pilot that can't, won't, or doesn't consider doing a timed approach, is yet another pilot that is simply relying on technology to save the day, rather then pilot skills....on that note...open up your Jepps and find NDB after NDB approach, or a LOC approach with no DME, or Backcourse..no collocated VORS to tell you when to miss, ect ect...the world becomes pretty boring only landing at big airports with all the goodies...there is a whole world of airports out there with minimal nav aids....and on that note...while I fly jets for a living with all the goodies..I am currently getting my com/inst helo...and guess what? Had to brush off the lapboard and clock...because the helicopter doesn't have DME/GPS/FMS, ect ect.....

[SNS3Guppy]

You're currently working on your helicopter ratings, huh? Your previous screen-names professed to be a highly experienced helicopter pilot. Of course, you really blew that one day by asking on the helicopter forum if there were any "real helicopter pilots who could..."

[Lookforshooter]

Guppy...just shut up...I am dual rated in planes and helos, with single pilot exemptions in 6 Citation models...I also hop in and out of some larger jets as SIC..happy? Gosh I would luv to meet up with you in the cafeteria at Simuflite...that would be an interesting conversation. It would never happen...you need a PC to hide behind.

[SNS3Guppy]

Dual rated, are you? You recently told us you're a helicopter student pilot in Torrance, California (USA). Imagine that.

You've asked before if there are any "real helicopter pilots" who can answer a question for you...strong intimation that you are NOT.

You hop in and out of "some of the larger jets" as a SIC? Really? Which ones? Obviously not the LR60...you posted on that recently and had no idea what you were talking about...and couldn't cite the source of your imagined data.

A single pilot exemption in six different citations? How impressive...nearly like being single pilot in six different single engine cessna's...not much faster, either. Which ones, then? You're not one of those hair-on-fire guys that's got the only single pilot exemption in the Citation X, are you? Or perhaps you invented the Citation III? Tell us about flex in the Lear, again. When you're on that microsoft flight simulator, you can be single pilot all you want...but here it doesn't really count, you see.

...just shut up...


What do you suppose you might say if you were more than 14 years old, and a professional?

Gosh I would luv to meet up with you in the cafeteria at Simuflite...


Only possible if you actually were to go to Simuflite. No need for that while you're flitting around in your microsoft flight simulator.

[Dan Winterland]

Now now! :ugh:

Back to the original topic, I think there's a little confusion as to what an 'overlay' approch is. In a modern airliner, if the GPS fails on the approach, you don't suddenly lose your position. Different installations use different position updating mechanisms. I've flown 4 types with GPS updated Inertial Reference Systems (IRSs) and they all did it differently, but this is how the A320 works - which is pretty typical.

The IRSs give a position to the Flight Management Guidance Computers (FMGCs). The IRS position is constantly updated by the two Multi Mode Receivers (MMRs). Each MMR has a VOR, an ILS, several DMEs and a GPS. An NDB is optional but doesn't update the IRS position. The IRS 'blends' this information to give a best position based on the quality of the position information. The pilots get an indication of the quality in the form of an Actual Nav Postion error and where the information is coming from - Invariably the GPSs as they're the most accurate. The pilots must verify the accuracy of the fix prior to an approach. Just seeing 'GPS Primary - Accuracy High' on the progress page is sufficient according to our SOPs.

If a Non Precision Approach is flown, the FMGC will navigate from waypoint to waypoint from it's database. If the approach is in the database, then the waypoints will exist. If you lose the GPS, all that will happen is that the annotation 'GPS Primary' will dissappear, but you will still get the IRS position which will now be updating from radio nav aids if available and still probably be 'Accuracy High'. If not, the position will take a long time to become too inaccurate to use - if ever.

However, we still have to have the NPA raw data displayed unless it's a GPS approach (which we can do at the TERPS arifields in our network) when we must verify that both MMRs are receiving a valid GPS signal.

We do have a couple of airfields in our route system which have non overlayed NPAs, but these don't have waypoints and therefore don't appear in the FMGC database. We're not prohibited from flying them, but we would never chose to fly one if there is an approach in the database we could use. In a commercial operation, there is just no justification in increasing the risks.

Incidently, on the Nav Display, time to the next waypoint is dispayed - so we do have automatic timing. And on the Airbus aircraft, you can press the APCH button on the AP control panel as you would on an ILS and the aircraft will fly the NPA as if it were an ILS - and very accurately too.

I noted the remark about 'children of the magenta' - this system breeds them. But in modern commercial operations, safety is the main concern and this way of doing things is certainly very safe. My company's network has a lot of NPAs into difficult airfields with poor weather and terrain. Kathmandu is one of them. I wouldn't like to be using any other system.



And still no need to time! :D

[Lookforshooter]

There is a philosophy to flying that I learned that came from a Type A approach to operating a plane. It goes like this...you take off, you lose an engine, deal with it...you lose some radios, deal with it, you lose presurization, deal with it...and so on...until your a dark aircraft at night, no power, no electrical, gliding to the field...there is no excuse to crash a plane. The worst that should happen is you become a glider to an off airport landing. Flash forward to how people are taught instruments today..when a pilot I know, CFII, did a trip with me to a Britney Spears concert...he got the ILS into Tacoma, followed the needles down(they didn't move) to a point where I asked him what he was doing...he looked around, then you saw the look on his face, utter disgust. He hadn't put in the actual ILS frequency, and checked auraly for the code. Since we were partialy IMC and I was using some goodies on my side of the plane, we were ok...Dinner was....aukward...he knew he would have flown it down, of course, and killed everyone. Sobering. He had a thousand hours and taught at Hillsboro Aviation in Oregon. He told me that they could use the GPS moving maps to do holds, ILS's ect...that was thier situational awareness, and they didn't have to time anything. I had dimmed the GPS display on his approach. He flies an Astra SP, because he is buds with the boss's son. Children of the Magenta came from a video presented to the instuctors at Simuflite..and basicaly documents all these pilots leaning on GPSs/FMS and moving maps to tell them where they are. Even questioning the veracity of timing approaches illustrates how endemic and dangerously shallow instrument skills have become. I am told at school that making a pilot, hand fly using 'raw data' ...meaning just ILS needless and no other goodies is considered an emergency procedure.

[tbavprof]

Even questioning the veracity of timing approaches illustrates how endemic and dangerously shallow instrument skills have become. I am told at school that making a pilot, hand fly using 'raw data' ...meaning just ILS needless and no other goodies is considered an emergency procedure.

That is truly frightening, especially knowing the theory behind that training is to put folks up front of huge, fast-moving aircraft as quickly as possible.:uhoh:

Look4, is there are copy of that movie you mentioned publicly available?

[SNS3Guppy]

lookforshooter, a troll who's been banned under numerous other names, has been...banned. Again. Not to worry, however, he's already posting under the name nonflushinglav, and will probably wrap his little troll fingers around the keyboard shortly to answer your questions.