The NDB approach.

[CpnCrunch]

It's like picking pepper out of fly shit. I don't think anyone in their right mind would say disregard wind on an NDB approach but a fact I have proven likely several hundred times the best thing you can do at beacon inbound is go to the approach track heading and hold it. 95% of the time no correction will be needed as long as you had a good station passage. Don't kid yourself back in the day shooting NDB approached to ILS minimums was not unheard of in the flat lands of Canada.

So what are you saying exactly? You say you should add a wind correction, then you say the best thing to do is go to the approach track heading (i.e. ignore the wind). Which is it to be? The crosswind will change from 0 to 25 knots crossing the beacon if you have a 50kt headwind on the nose and a 30 degree turn at the FAF.

[CpnCrunch]

I bet not many people are taught to actually land the airplane any more simulating zero zero L.C.

I bet almost none Chuck something I have yet to do.

It's somewhat easier to do today, with synthetic and enhanced vision systems.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

HPC, it is very simple.

All you need is a safety pilot in case you are going to miss the runway.

Just put a map in the windshield so you can not see the runway and have the airplane configured for a glassy water landing.

You do need an ILS localizer to keep on the center line.

Nothing really difficult about it and may one day save your bacon.

Two times during my career I had to use that method and I landed on the runway both times.

[Colonel]

the Colonel who said he teaches students to ignore crosswind ... I think it's a bad idea

How often do you fly your rented 150 in
cloud in the prairies?  I'm guessing never.

You're repeating FTU rhetoric.  Try flying
a thousand NDB approaches, and get back
to us.  Your opinion will have changed.

I bet not many people are taught to actually land the airplane any more simulating zero zero L.C.

I taught 0/0 takeoffs and landings.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Of course you have taught zero zero landings Colonel because you understand the reason for teaching it.

[CpnCrunch]

How often do you fly your rented 150 in
cloud in the prairies?  I'm guessing never.

It's not IFR certified, so that would be correct. Is any 150 IFR? I wouldn't have thought so, as it doesn't have alternate static.

You're repeating FTU rhetoric.  Try flying
a thousand NDB approaches, and get back
to us.  Your opinion will have changed.

The examples were from 2 approaches I flew earlier this year (albeit I think the wind was about 30kts rather than 50). Still, you would be about 10 degrees out there if you didn't apply wind correction, which would be a fail.


So are you saying that it's ok to fail the IFR flight test, as it's just "FTU rhetoric"?

[Colonel]

It's not IFR certified

Again, your lack of real-world knowledge
is showing.  There is no such thing as
an "IFR certified" aircraft.

are you saying that it's ok to fail the IFR flight test

Thanks for the sneering personal attack. 
All of my IFR students passed the flight
test, first time.

How did your IFR students do on their
flight test?  Oh yeah, you're a PPL.

[Colonel]

Of course you have taught zero zero landings Colonel

Of course.

[CpnCrunch]

Again, your lack of real-world knowledge
is showing.  There is no such thing as
an "IFR certified" aircraft.

It doesn't have the equipment required by the CARS for IFR flight.

Thanks for the sneering personal attack. 
All of my IFR students passed the flight
test, first time.

That wasn't a personal attack. You said you teach your students to fly the inbound track after the FAF, I simply gave an example of where that would fail the flight test. If I'm incorrect, let me know, but I haven't seen any rebuttal, only personal attacks. (Saying "Oh yeah, you're a PPL" is an example of a personal attack BTW).


PS, I'm not sure why you think you know me. The only person here who actually knows my experience is SSU, and that was a few years ago (and he wouldn't have been discussing it with you anyway). SSU might have an opinion on IFR training as well. I certainly have never heard any instructor recommend ignoring the wind correction after the FAF, but I could be wrong.

[Colonel]

I certainly have never heard any instructor recommend ignoring the wind correction after the FAF

Well, you have now.  25 years of continuous
flight instruction, thousands of hours of dual
given.  Class 1 and class 1 aerobatic instructor,
Canadian and FAA ATP's.  I might have a clue.

You?


And how many new ADF's have you installed? 

Or even flight tested after repair?  If you had
read even one ADF manual, you would have
learned that 5 degrees of system error is
considered completely acceptable for a
brand new ADF.  Now, think about a used
ADF (say, 30 years old) and it's error. 


More, or less?

Then, look at NDB signal errors:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-directional_beacon#Common_adverse_effects

While pilots study these effects during initial training, trying to compensate for them in flight is very difficult;

Instead, pilots generally simply choose a heading that seems to average out any fluctuations.

The icao minimum accuracy for NDB's is ±5°

So, the ADF can easily have 5 degrees of error
and be considered serviceable.  And an NDB
can have 5 degrees of error and be considered
serviceable.

So with no wind past the FAF, flying the heading,
you can easily have 10 degrees of error showing,
and be perfectly on track.

Sometimes, less is more.

These are the sorts of things you learn in the real
world, after spending decades flying, and after
flying thousands of NDB approaches.

You should try it, before you lecture pilots with
hundreds of times your experience.