Make your own approach plates?

[ClintonBaptiste]

I was just wondering if a program exists where you can create your own approach plates? Mainly to create departures and arrivals which include various types of instrumental techniques. The only program I have so far managed to find is Final Approach 6, however the shareware version I have seems to crash every 5 minutes.

Many thanks

Clinton Baptiste

[FlyingOfficerKite]

... and the reason for possibly contemplating this idea is?

KR

FOK

[chongololo]

We used to make up or modify NDB approaches for our students so that they could get some practice flying them. There weren't any around but there were some AM radio stations.
All we did was find a NDB approach at another airport, run it through the copier, white out the things we wanted to change like frequencies, altitudes and headings etc, then run it through the typewriter and bingo, customized approaches.
Make sure you write "for practice or training only" and test fly it to see that it will work.
Good luck

[Big Pistons Forever]

Rather than make a whole new plate an easy way is to augment training is to just pick any NDB approach out the real book of plates plates and add 2000 ft to every altitude with a grease pencil on a plastic cover. Find a convienent AM radio station and go for it. I also tried to enter the approach off a published transition rather than just go straight to the station to make the exercise more realistic. Also I get the student to do a ground briefing where the appraoch used is the end of a complete simulated flight.

[pipertommy]

Can I download a copy of AM radio station masts? Frequencies.... any good links?
Thanks

[Dan Winterland]

Be careful. Very careful.

I Know someone who parked a very expensive aircraft in a tree (not strictly true, the wings were in the tree - the fuselage actually made it to the airfield) flying a self made approach.

He was unhurt, but doesn't fly as he now has no license.

[chongololo]

That's why you need to test fly it in day VFR conditions.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Rather than make a whole new plate an easy way is to augment training is to just pick any NDB approach out the real book of plates plates and add 2000 ft to every altitude with a grease pencil on a plastic cover. Find a convienent AM radio station and go for it. I also tried to enter the approach off a published transition rather than just go straight to the station to make the exercise more realistic. Also I get the student to do a ground briefing where the appraoch used is the end of a complete simulated flight.

Let me be perfectly clear. Under NO circumstances am I advocating actually flying a made up approach in actual IMC or at night. The idea of flying an approach procedure using a commercial broadcast station is simply for convienence during a day VFR instrument training flight with due care taken to keep an adequate lookout. It frankly boggles my mind that anyone would think they need to caution instructors not to do this under real IMC conditions

[Mickey Kaye]

Also with most airfields around me charging for Instrument approaches it can save the student a fair amount of cash flying the NDB approaches they are most likely to get on test off a local radio station.

[K.Whyjelly]

Also with most airfields around me charging for Instrument approaches it can save the student a fair amount of cash flying the NDB approaches they are most likely to get on test off a local radio station.

Many, many moons ago I learnt the black art of NDB tracking, holding and letdowns using the masts at Droitwich. Always done in VMC with a safety pilot/instructor looking out and with all plate heights plus 1000' so the chance of hitting anything were reduced.

[Shiner Pilot]

It sounds like it won't just be the computer program that crashes!

[what next]

Hello!

Also with most airfields around me charging for Instrument approaches it can save the student a fair amount of cash flying the NDB approaches they are most likely to get on test off a local radio station. I am an instructor, not a student's money saver. If his training plan requires NDB approaches to be flown, then I will happily fly NDB approaches with him. Proper, published, official NDB approaches that he can log in his training records. Real world NDB approaches using real world (aeronautical) NDBs down to real world NDB approach minima, often enough in real instrument meteorological conditions. Only this can show him the real world problems of these approaches. Why ecactly they are called "non precision" approaches. And how far away from the runway they take you and how close to the obstacles. If he wants/needs extra practise at lower cost, then we will do it in the procedures trainer.

But under no circumstances will I ever fly a self-made, unapproved approach procedure and under even "less then no" circumstances will I ever teach someone to fly self-made, unapproved procedures. Flying is expensive. Training to fly is even more expensive. For good reasons!

Greetings, Max

[ClintonBaptiste]

Thanks for all your replies and comments.

Basically the idea behind my question was that I wanted to create a difficult approach for the student to perform without having to tell him what to do.
We are lucky enough to have a VOR nearby our airport which we can use for initial training. (Yes I expect the usual comments about procedures like this) Currently I tippex out the stated altitudes and replace them with the relevant altitudes. Before anyone mentions trees! This is not done lightly, I have Jeppview and several maps and calculate accurate descents, plus having the benefit of a g1000 cockpit we have the terrain feature. It is always done in VFR.
All I wanted to do was create more complex approaches featuring all different types of techniques in order to test the student.

Like i said, thanks for the comments.

ClintonBaptiste

[Big Pistons Forever]

Hello!

I am an instructor, not a student's money saver. If his training plan requires NDB approaches to be flown, then I will happily fly NDB approaches with him. Proper, published, official NDB approaches that he can log in his training records. Real world NDB approaches using real world (aeronautical) NDBs down to real world NDB approach minima, often enough in real instrument meteorological conditions. Only this can show him the real world problems of these approaches. Why ecactly they are called "non precision" approaches. And how far away from the runway they take you and how close to the obstacles. If he wants/needs extra practise at lower cost, then we will do it in the procedures trainer.

But under no circumstances will I ever fly a self-made, unapproved approach procedure and under even "less then no" circumstances will I ever teach someone to fly self-made, unapproved procedures. Flying is expensive. Training to fly is even more expensive. For good reasons!

Greetings, Max

Hello !

The easy way is to just take the students money and avoid using any imagination to improve training outcomes.

At my home field I always started the in the airplane NDB approach procedure at a nearby commercial radio station (all done in day ,good VFR conditions ,of course). It was a great spot as it was out of the way of all the regular traffic and you could get 3 times as many approachs done in a lesson as compared to what would be possible at the busy airport that was home base. IMO it was better training for the intial lessons because the student could concentrate on the procedure without being rushed around by ATC. I could also vary the final approach course to give a crosswind. After the student had a go at few of these approaches we would them graduate to the "show" and do the approaches at the airport.

[what next]

Good morning!

IMO it was better training for the intial lessons...

The best training for the initial lessons is a procedures trainer. There is a good reason why our authorites forces all IFR/CPL/ATPL FTOs to buy FNPT II training devices. And why the first 30 (or so, depending on the training scheme) hours of instrument training are flown on such devices. Apart from providing an excellent training environment, they (ours at least) goes at less than half the hourly rate of the cheapest IFR equipped single. So it is not about taking the students money, but about making the most of his money!

And since the procedures trainer has a worldwide database of aerodromes, we can start with simple procedures and move to more and more complicated ones during the training without having to invent anything ourselves.

Regards,
max

[Big Pistons Forever]

Good morning!



The best training for the initial lessons is a procedures trainer. There is a good reason why our authorites forces all IFR/CPL/ATPL FTOs to buy FNPT II training devices. And why the first 30 (or so, depending on the training scheme) hours of instrument training are flown on such devices. Apart from providing an excellent training environment, they (ours at least) goes at less than half the hourly rate of the cheapest IFR equipped single. So it is not about taking the students money, but about making the most of his money!

And since the procedures trainer has a worldwide database of aerodromes, we can start with simple procedures and move to more and more complicated ones during the training without having to invent anything ourselves.

Regards,
max

You absolutely want to nail down all of the procedures in the sim before you get near the airplane, however there is a reason it is called a "procedures" trainer and not a "accurate repesentation of how the aircraft actually operates" trainer. I find this is especially true for NDB training as the ADF needle actually points at the station in the procedures sim. Great for picking up the theory of NDB tracking not so great for managing all the various real world errors that affect the ADF plus the added pressure of actually flying a real airplane not sitting in a quiet room. Every instructor develops their own style but in my opinion the good ones have an open mind to new ideas.....the less good ones just ridicule anyone who doesn't follow their preconcieved notion of the "right "way to instruct.

[what next]

...however there is a reason it is called a "procedures" trainer and not a "accurate repesentation of how the aircraft actually operates" trainer.

Exactly! That's why there is aother 30 hours (or so, depending on the type of course) of real world flying after the basic training in the synthetic training device.
And if I see that a student still has his difficuties then (and if so, it's most likely going to be the NDB approaches and holdings) we go back into the FNPT for an hour. Instead of wasting time and fuel and money doing home-made AM-radio-station approaches. That was my point. Maybe I expressed myself poorly.

Regards, max

[Skipping Classes]

what's next

the original poster asks about software not about your personal views on flight training, which are irrelevant to this thread.

you come across as very inflexible and judgmental person who has problems with recognizing any other opinion except of his own.

this is really not appreciated in the modern airline cockpit, so unless you only train ppl and rpl students you (and your students too) would benefit from reconsidering your attitude :8

[what next]

the original poster asks about software not about your personal views on flight training, which are irrelevant to this thread.

My answer(s) were not directed at the original poster. As a matter of fact, almost nobody's answers were, at least not regarding his question about software (the answer to wich is simply "JeppView").

this is really not appreciated in the modern airline cockpit, so unless you only train ppl and rpl students you (and your students too) would benefit from reconsidering your attitude

Aha. You mean, if I dump all the stupid ballast called "JAR-FCL" and "training syllabus" and go circling overhead radio masts with my students they will stand a better chance of getting a job in a modern airline cockpit? You think I will keep my own job in a transport category aircraft for long, if I start making-up my own approach procedures? Using software downloaded from the internet? Maybe you are right, who knows.

[Skipping Classes]

there are many reasons why somebody may want to make own approach plates and if you can only think of "dumping all the stupid ballast called "JAR-FCL" and "training syllabus" that says more about your way of thinking than of the posters

thinking outside of the box and knowing how to do it absolutely safe will for sure increase anybody's chances for getting and keeping an airline job :)

not to mention that practicing an ndb approach at a high altitude gives you an increased margin of safety

[pablo]

the stupid ballast called "JAR-FCL":ok::}:E

Sorry couldn't resist

Back to serious business... I think our colleague Max has a point here about avoiding "home-made" stuff, but to be honest it's a major fault of the FTO where the training is being performed to not have a clear policy regarding this kind of stuff and a proper syllabus where the training program is carefully detailed.

Same applies from the very basics of ABC flight skills up to advanced training. There must be a standard workmethod that instructors must follow within an FTO.

Rant mode off, sorry fellas I had a bad hair day!

Cheers / Pablo

[sherig]

What's the issue with practising NDB approaches/tracking at a radio station in IMC so long as you're above MSA?! You can keep an eye on where you are using a legitimate nav aid...

Alternatively, use an NDB located at an airfield outside controlled airspace (adding a few thousand feet to stay outside the ATZ)... Just phone ATC to ask before you go.

[pablo]

Hi,

I think tracking/intercepting practice is a different thing to imitating an approach.

In any case everyone is entitled to his/her opinion and workmethod as far as it's within the rules.
If you fly VFR with the student under the hood and you keep a look out I guess you can do anything that is compliant with VFR. But then again, there are many things that are within regs. that I think are not very sensitive or efficient to do.

In my last FTO they used to have a "home-made" procedure but it was "official" (ATC and CAA approved, and it was standard/official for all instructors).

And final word of advice... in my short instructing career I have already seen many unprofessional attitudes/predispositions in students (as far as watching youtube in class, with a laptop that was supposedly use to take notes and follow-up the slides, dodgy flying, having mp3 with earbuds while taxiing, etc...). I think sometimes we gotta try and stay on the "stiff upper lip" side and overdo the show a little bit, so they get serious about it.
In fact I used to be a bit more laid back and friendly, and always trying to be flexible (like some of you guys mention here, going the extra mile so the guys save a few bucks) but I realized it was a mistake.

I'm don't mean that we all become "self-important jerks", just a bit on the "stiff upper lip" side.


Just my $0.02 (simulated, of course)

Cheers / Pablo

[Mickey Kaye]

I’m with Big Pistons Forever they are a potentially useful teaching aid.

Also bare in mind that two of the three “international regional airports” with official approaches that are within 30 mins flying from where I am based and you have to book a training slot. So if they say no then the flights cancelled - not good for the student and not a good way to stay in business. Plus an hour flying there and back again isn’t ideal

Also most GA airports that do have an NDB none of them have an official NDB approach. So training from these places is going to be largely unofficial approaches aswell.

I’ve also yet to fly from a school with an approved procedures trainer. There is a school close to my that use to have an approved “procedures trainer” but it was costing 10 grand (allegedly) so its no longer approved.

Yes it would be great to fly approved approaches for every lesson but in the hand to mouth existence of every flying school that I have flown from you can't. You simply have to deliver the best training you can within the constraints that you have to work with.

[pablo]

Hi MK,

I bear with you, and I understand your point, but in most places the same principle applies if you want to practice ILS or VOR approaches. One of the schools I worked at the only option to fly VOR or ILS was to fly for 30 mins to a nearby airbase, do the airwork, and come back home.

Cheers / Pablo

[what next]

Hello!

You simply have to deliver the best training you can within the constraints that you have to work with.

Yes, sure. But don't forget that you, the instructor, are also a role model for your students. Everything that you do is "the right thing" for them, because they do not know better (yet). If you go flying with them on overloaded planes (as I have seen very often, especially in summer with big guys in C152s) then they will come to the conclusion that overloading an airplane is perfectly normal and acceptable. And if you train them using self-made instrument procedures, they will accept this as normal too. But it is not:

Within a radius of 100km around my home base I can recall at least six fatal accidents in the last 10 years or so, involving a bizjet, several turboprop and piston twins and a turboprop single, all consequences of "unofficial" instrument procedures. I personally knew some of the victims. Therefore, I am not going to show my students, that inventing one's own procedures is a perfectly normal thing to do. As I am not going to show them that you can fly an overweight aeroplane, bust minima, fly aerobatic manoeuvers with non-aerobatic aeroplaenes and all the other little tricks of the trade that go well 99 times but bite the poor guy who draws the lucky number 100.

Regards, max

And to Pablo: Thanks for your encouraging mail!

[Big Pistons Forever]

Whats next

There are lots of ways to kill your self flying a published approved instrument approach, like descending below minimums, loosing control during the transistion to the missed approach etc etc. This is a reflection of a lack of basic pilot decision making abilty, preofessionalism and judgement, just like what would be demonstrated by a pilot flying a made up approach in actual IMC.

If the student cannot comprehend that the purpose of utilizing a commercial radio beacon in good day VFR is to practice an instrument procedure and one is never to actually fly an unapproved approach for real, then I would suggest they are not competant to hold a pilots license.

I think we have beaten this topic to death and I do not intend to further comment on this as frankly I find your posts patronizing and and unconvincing

[Spadhampton]

In remote regions, where there are very little if anything published for landing strips, pilots have made up their own approach plates for obvious safety reasons. I've seen some pretty extensive and impressive hand drawn sets created. I attribute them to the ingenuity and professional survival skills of the working aviator. One particular set covering South Sudan, started I think by a fellow named Hugh Pryor, and, carried on with additions and up dating by other pilots over two decades, I wish I had for museum purposes. They are absolutely incredible in my opinion.