Ndb Approaches
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ndb Approaches
A question for the grey beards out there.
When should monitoring of the ident on an NDB approach commence??
Is there a Reg that states it should be monitored from top of descent to the aid?....in a jet aircraft that could be up to thirty minutes with the Ident sounding in your head set distracting you from other things??? should it be audible from the aid outbound???...should it be audible from the FAP inbound?? does it need to be continuously on from top of descent to the minima??....just wondering what the consensus is???..just had one of my pilots fail an instrument renewal because he didnt monitor the ident from TOPD...Checked the ident when he first tuned the aid, turned the ident on inbound in the holding pattern prior to the initial fix outbound.
Flew an approach within tolerance, completed the circle to land satisfactorily but failed because he didnt monitor the Ident from TOPD.
I cannot for the life of me find any reg that requires this, but its going to cost my company a couple of grand to recheck this guy...Guess if it had have been me I would have failed to!!..wondering what the rest of you think??
When should monitoring of the ident on an NDB approach commence??
Is there a Reg that states it should be monitored from top of descent to the aid?....in a jet aircraft that could be up to thirty minutes with the Ident sounding in your head set distracting you from other things??? should it be audible from the aid outbound???...should it be audible from the FAP inbound?? does it need to be continuously on from top of descent to the minima??....just wondering what the consensus is???..just had one of my pilots fail an instrument renewal because he didnt monitor the ident from TOPD...Checked the ident when he first tuned the aid, turned the ident on inbound in the holding pattern prior to the initial fix outbound.
Flew an approach within tolerance, completed the circle to land satisfactorily but failed because he didnt monitor the Ident from TOPD.
I cannot for the life of me find any reg that requires this, but its going to cost my company a couple of grand to recheck this guy...Guess if it had have been me I would have failed to!!..wondering what the rest of you think??
The general rule of thumb was when using it as a primary aid below the MSA.
If you do not have DME/GPS RNAV then when descending below the route LSALT after confirmation of station passage.
The way I was taught in flying school was within 25nm when using it as a primary aid.
NDBs, terrible things
If you do not have DME/GPS RNAV then when descending below the route LSALT after confirmation of station passage.
The way I was taught in flying school was within 25nm when using it as a primary aid.
NDBs, terrible things
When you live....
Common sense surely says from the moment you descend below MSA? Or practically, as you describe - over the aid or in the holding pattern.
Interesting concept though. If you are tracking to the aid using the aid - especially if there are differential MSAs based on bearings - I suppose there is a technical argument that you should always be monitoring the NDB.
UTR
Interesting concept though. If you are tracking to the aid using the aid - especially if there are differential MSAs based on bearings - I suppose there is a technical argument that you should always be monitoring the NDB.
UTR
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: DSS-46 (Canberra Region)
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would have thought something practical, like from leaving the MSA, or from the IAF (usually overhead the aid, first outbound leg).
I can't quote anything from Jepp regarding exactly when it must be done, but generally you need to monitor from when you enter the hold onwards.
Sorry I can't be more specific.
I can't quote anything from Jepp regarding exactly when it must be done, but generally you need to monitor from when you enter the hold onwards.
Sorry I can't be more specific.
Thorn Bird,
I'd say there is more to the story of why he failed. These days can be passed without the NDB.
If he failed fof that reason only, then I'd take it up with CASA.
I'd say there is more to the story of why he failed. These days can be passed without the NDB.
If he failed fof that reason only, then I'd take it up with CASA.
Moderator
'twas my practice to monitor when using the NDB for tracking and absolutely so below MSA/LSA as appropriate. Otherwise one has no idea of its operational status.
I never found it distracting to have the audio turned down in the headphones to a level where I could hear it but it wasn't distracting. Of course, one needs CONSCIOUSLY to listen regularly/periodically, regardless of gain, to avoid the dits and dahs being pushed into the background hash. A few early I/F training exercises in the link where the instructor fails the aid - and the student continues on oblivious with the confidence of the needle sitting there like it was glued to the dial - usually is sufficient to get the message across.
Just a matter of practice, discipline and routine I would have thought .. like a lot of things in flying.
I never found it distracting to have the audio turned down in the headphones to a level where I could hear it but it wasn't distracting. Of course, one needs CONSCIOUSLY to listen regularly/periodically, regardless of gain, to avoid the dits and dahs being pushed into the background hash. A few early I/F training exercises in the link where the instructor fails the aid - and the student continues on oblivious with the confidence of the needle sitting there like it was glued to the dial - usually is sufficient to get the message across.
Just a matter of practice, discipline and routine I would have thought .. like a lot of things in flying.
NDB's............awful things as has been said.
I am of the opinion that for en-route usage once the beacon has been identified then there is no longer any requirement to monitor it aurally until descending thru LSALT & that would normally only be during an NDB Appr. Obviously as you would not be wanting to go blw LSALT whilst en-route in IMC unless it forms a part of a DME Arr for Eg where the NDB is used as the primary lat nav aid.
So using the NDB or any nav aid for that matter en-route is for tracking ref abv LSALT & decent blw LSALT can only be done during an App or if one is visual within 30 mls by day or within the circ area of yr A/C Cat by night, say 3mls for Cat B. Once an NDB App is commenced that meaning it's use is the sole ref for tracking & yr blw LSALT then constant aural monitoring is required until the aid is no longer needed, IE visual or at the completion of the missed App & abv LSALT. Simply put once overhead the aid & station passage has been identified it's listen out
Wmk2..........thank God for FMG's !!
I am of the opinion that for en-route usage once the beacon has been identified then there is no longer any requirement to monitor it aurally until descending thru LSALT & that would normally only be during an NDB Appr. Obviously as you would not be wanting to go blw LSALT whilst en-route in IMC unless it forms a part of a DME Arr for Eg where the NDB is used as the primary lat nav aid.
So using the NDB or any nav aid for that matter en-route is for tracking ref abv LSALT & decent blw LSALT can only be done during an App or if one is visual within 30 mls by day or within the circ area of yr A/C Cat by night, say 3mls for Cat B. Once an NDB App is commenced that meaning it's use is the sole ref for tracking & yr blw LSALT then constant aural monitoring is required until the aid is no longer needed, IE visual or at the completion of the missed App & abv LSALT. Simply put once overhead the aid & station passage has been identified it's listen out
Wmk2..........thank God for FMG's !!
As Wally says.
The issue these days is that the ADF is the one instrument used for an approach which doesn't have a failure warning available, except for the aural ident. VOR, ILS, etc all give a flag warning, but unless the pilot is monitoring the NDB there is no way of knowing that the aid is working, all the way to minima. I would surmise that there may have been more to the failed test than not monitoring the ident: maybe not understanding why may have been just as important.
I used to know the reference: once upon a time .....
The issue these days is that the ADF is the one instrument used for an approach which doesn't have a failure warning available, except for the aural ident. VOR, ILS, etc all give a flag warning, but unless the pilot is monitoring the NDB there is no way of knowing that the aid is working, all the way to minima. I would surmise that there may have been more to the failed test than not monitoring the ident: maybe not understanding why may have been just as important.
I used to know the reference: once upon a time .....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Greeny, mate been around to long , I check my pilots!!
This guy, grade 1 Instructor multi engine IFR, checked to line
as a training pilot, admittedly not under Reg 217, but then again who the hell could afford to do that, he knows his stuff, and from my experience with him dosnt lie, he's prepared to take his licks if he screws up, and lets face it any one of us can screw up at one time or another.
The ATO concerned is one of the last available in the Sydney basin, the pilot concerned has already had to wait several weeks unable to work because a test couldnt be done due to lack of ATO's, the company still paid him,and now has to pay an additional couple of grand to recheck him...no problem with that if it was fair, which was why I asked the question, given his recount of the test. I would have failed it, incidently the ATO concerned I trained years ago...Just a thought, but did this come from the ATO or pressure from???? you guessed it ???
This guy, grade 1 Instructor multi engine IFR, checked to line
as a training pilot, admittedly not under Reg 217, but then again who the hell could afford to do that, he knows his stuff, and from my experience with him dosnt lie, he's prepared to take his licks if he screws up, and lets face it any one of us can screw up at one time or another.
The ATO concerned is one of the last available in the Sydney basin, the pilot concerned has already had to wait several weeks unable to work because a test couldnt be done due to lack of ATO's, the company still paid him,and now has to pay an additional couple of grand to recheck him...no problem with that if it was fair, which was why I asked the question, given his recount of the test. I would have failed it, incidently the ATO concerned I trained years ago...Just a thought, but did this come from the ATO or pressure from???? you guessed it ???
just had one of my pilots fail an instrument renewal because he didnt monitor the ident from TOPD...
Dr
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey fella's appreciate the input, pretty much the way I considered
the connundrum, always err on the side of safety, but sometimes
it goes from the sublime to the ridiculous!!
the connundrum, always err on the side of safety, but sometimes
it goes from the sublime to the ridiculous!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forky,
normal renewal is an ILS, which covers VOR, which this pilot completed satisfactorily, with an NDB from the old days, but covers the Non precision, circle to land requirement.
normal renewal is an ILS, which covers VOR, which this pilot completed satisfactorily, with an NDB from the old days, but covers the Non precision, circle to land requirement.
normal renewal is an ILS, which covers VOR, which this pilot completed satisfactorily, with an NDB from the old days, but covers the Non precision, circle to land requirement.
Dr
Originally Posted by thorn bird
GPS rnav is an Add on mate, How do you listen to the ident on a GPS approach??
If you want NDB on your licence, you have to fly the approach iaw the criteria, one of which is to monitor the audio throughout the approach as there is no other indication of a failure.
GPS rnav is an Add on mate
My question was, "Did the person who was failed on their IR renewal fly a successful GPS RNAV"?
If so, the IR renewal should have been successful, with a fail on the NDB.
Dr
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hiding between the Animal Bar and the Suave Bar
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAR 159 requires the pilot to know if a navaid fails at any time which would preclude compliance with the Regs.
So if you're using the ADF for for tracking in any phase of flight (en route, approach, DGA, MSA) you need to be able to hear the ident, because lack of the ident is the only way to know if the NDB has failed.
I don't believe that TOPD on its own matters, unless it happened to coincide with one of the above.
So if you're using the ADF for for tracking in any phase of flight (en route, approach, DGA, MSA) you need to be able to hear the ident, because lack of the ident is the only way to know if the NDB has failed.
I don't believe that TOPD on its own matters, unless it happened to coincide with one of the above.
I was taught to monitor the NDB audio from the top of descent, including in the holding pattern, as you have no other way of knowing if it has failed.
I tune and identify the NDB miles out, get the audio going when 2 or 3 miles from the aid, and keep listening until visual.
(When not being examined I also use GPS as an added safeguard when flying an NDB approach. At my home field, arriving from some directions a GPS RNAV approach would take me miles away and I can get in quicker with an NDB approach).
I tune and identify the NDB miles out, get the audio going when 2 or 3 miles from the aid, and keep listening until visual.
(When not being examined I also use GPS as an added safeguard when flying an NDB approach. At my home field, arriving from some directions a GPS RNAV approach would take me miles away and I can get in quicker with an NDB approach).
