Commercial written

[flyersfan31]

I'm studying for the Comm test. I'm pleased to see that the FAA is testing the latest and greatest, most relevant information out there.

To whit, there are 14 questions in the test bank about the ADF. That's the biggest block of questions in that section, fewer for VOR and the redoubtable RMI, a couple on the HSI -- which actually IS a relevant subject, and none about GPS.

Let me get this straight - the FAA is retiring ADFs as fast as they can pull the plugs, yet it is apparently the most important bit of info in the navigation instruments section.

So, why no questions about navigating with radio ranges, hmmm? If we are going to emphasize outdated technology, why stop with ADF?

 

[Tristar]

Cuz few people with GPSs understands ADFs anymore. At least thats what I get from it!

 

[gprellwitz]

Cuz nobody with GPSs understands ADFs anymore. At least thats what I get from it!

And they need to why?
(That said, one of the planes we were looking at for a partnership had an ADF & DME, but a VFR-only GPS. So for practical purposes ,i.e. "legal",, it had no GPS; just as if you only had a handheld.)

 

[HPNPilot1200]

I felt the same way when I was studying for the AGI and IGI writtens. Luckily I only had around 2 ADF questions total on the actual exams, but boy does that stuff make your head spin sometimes! When I was studying with the Gleim test prep books, there were only 2 or 3 questions directly related to the operation of a GPS, but I sort of expected the FAA to be around 10 to 15 years behind anyway.

Surprisingly enough, my dad is required to demonstrate at least one NDB approach on his biannual checkrides at FlightSafety in the Citation simulator. I think he has it down to a science now since the FAA always has him shoot the same approach.

 

[KennyFlys]

A few suggestions I'd make to help study and later take the Commercial knowledge test would be...

Assuming you're using the ideal study book out there, the Gleim, make copies of the performance charts so you can mark all over them. You may even want to make an enlarged copy. In order to make using the charts easier, get a clear ruler with a single red line down the center. The ASA plotter has a black line but a red line will make it easier to read. Since you'll have the test book supplement during the test, the ruler will make it easier to track across the chart without without a pencil which many tend to do.

Take a magnifying glass to help read the charts examples easier. Test supplement books aren't the best printing and certainly not as good of quality as original charts.

If you don't have an electronic E6B, take one along with the mechanical E6B. Use both during the test and make your best answer.

Knowing how to use an electronic E6B for Weight & Balance shifts will make those questions faster and easier. Those are freebies when other questions might throw ya.

Best wishes with the test!

 

[flyersfan31]

Thanks Ken. Yes, of course I'm using Gleim - I can't imagine not doing so.

Your points about the silly graphs are spot on. It's ludicrous that the FAA has answers that are within a wide pencil of each other. I'm comfortable with all of the performance graphs, it's my ability to discern .001mm difference between points on a line that concerns me. The precision they demand is, well, ludicrous.

I told my CFI not to worry about signing me off -- if I miss 4 questions I'll kill myself. That was BEFORE I started working through the graphs.

I sure will know how to estimate time to a VOR, RMI navigation using ADF, and other stuff relevant to aviation in the 21st century though.

 

[tonycondon]

oh the song of the poor ADF haters...

 

[KennyFlys]

oh the song of the poor ADF haters...

I don't hate ADFs. How else ya gonna listen to the baseball games?

Speaking of which, I was listening to JFK tower last Sunday night on my drive up to CHA. Pilots were passing along what ADF freq to listen to the game on. Of course, the controller admits to being a Giants fan and discourages the extra chatter.

 

[Teller1900]

oh the song of the poor ADF haters...

I'd still take a VOR any day, but this last week I've had to use the ADF every day. Just yesterday: 12 turns in an NDB hold (two different flights) and one NDB approach, just to make the night complete. Not to mention, NDBs are the only way to find two of the airports that we fly to unless visibility is really good. I SUPPOSE they have some use.

 

[Teller1900]

I don't hate ADFs. How else ya gonna listen to the baseball games?

Speaking of which, I was listening to JFK tower last Sunday night on my drive up to CHA. Pilots were passing along what ADF freq to listen to the game on. Of course, the controller admits to being a Giants fan and discourages the extra chatter.

Anybody know what ADF freq the super bowl is going to be on in the New England area? We found the world series, but that took a while to find.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I just find it interesting that the FAA has all these instrument questions on a commercial written test...

 

[nosehair]

Let me get this straight - the FAA is retiring ADFs as fast as they can pull the plugs, yet it is apparently the most important bit of info in the navigation instruments section.

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

Actually, understanding ADF navigation is an excellent way of understanding your position in space. It is also an excellent way of demonstrating that to others.

It is like learning adding, subtracting, and multiplication in your head, so you can figure out mathamatics, even though you are going to use a calculator.

Young people today who cannot do math without a calculator - that's where you want to go with your aviation/situational awareness ability in the air?

Buck up and do the math!

 

[bobmrg]

Pity the poor test writers. So far, the best they can do is something like "what is a waypoint?" They have aways been ten years behind the curve. Having said that, I expect that the next question banks will have questions applicable to all GPS boxes such as changing sensitivity, RAIM, etc.

Bob Gardner

 

[Skip Miller]

I'd still take a VOR any day, but this last week I've had to use the ADF every day. Just yesterday: 12 turns in an NDB hold (two different flights) and one NDB approach, just to make the night complete. Not to mention, NDBs are the only way to find two of the airports that we fly to unless visibility is really good. I SUPPOSE they have some use.

Yes!

Don't forget that NDBs are far more frequent when flying internationally. The requirement for NDB training (i.e., questions on the tests) may be driven by the ICAO.

-Skip

 

[flyersfan31]

I know they use them a lot in Canada. Still, they ARE being retired left and right, and a GPS can be used as a substitute.

I'm not complaining about the math. I don't think the ADF is any more complicated than the pilot makes it - hell, it points RIGHT AT the station!

My point was more that the FAA's tests are not exactly up to date. Have they updated the Instrument written section on Aviation Weather Services? I took it two years ago and it still used those illegible old faxed reports. When's the last time you looked at a faxed surface condition chart in your local FSS?

 

[ScottM]

I use the ADF every single flight. It is the most important piece of equipment that I have in my panel. It performs a function that no other piece of aviation equipment can do. But I have found that the commercial written fails to ask the questions that should be asked about this integral piece of equipment. That question should be how does one locate the best am radio station to listen to on the ADF while flying through a given airspace.

 

[Comet]

I agree. There were a lot of questions about the ADF. My instructor thought that I had accidentally brought my instrument written book instead of my commercial written book when I asked him about some of the ADF questions.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Let me get this straight - the FAA is retiring ADFs as fast as they can pull the plugs, yet it is apparently the most important bit of info in the navigation instruments section.

Well, it's the hardest to understand and use effectively, so I'd think having the most questions on it actually makes sense.

 

[flyersfan31]

Yabbut -- the A/N navigation ranges were pretty tricky too. WERE pretty tricky. If they want to check my geometry ability, just put geometry problems on the test.

 

[tonycondon]

I'm not complaining about the math. I don't think the ADF is any more complicated than the pilot makes it - hell, it points RIGHT AT the station!

Ha! I can tell right away that you have never tried to teach anyone how to fly an NDB approach! Right that it is dirt simple and points right at the station, but try to convince the student how dirt simple it is

(the key is holding heading)

 

[RMCN172RG]

Ha! I can tell right away that you have never tried to teach anyone how to fly an NDB approach! Right that it is dirt simple and points right at the station, but try to convince the student how dirt simple it is

(the key is holding heading)

Hey I understood that. But then I used to play with crystal sets too.

 

[ScottM]

Ha! I can tell right away that you have never tried to teach anyone how to fly an NDB approach! Right that it is dirt simple and points right at the station, but try to convince the student how dirt simple it is

(the key is holding heading)

No problem holding a heading. Do that on an NDB approach and you are assured of blowing the approaching if there is any wind. What you need to be able to do is correct for the wind and hold a ground track.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

No problem holding a heading. Do that on an NDB approach and you are assured of blowing the approaching if there is any wind. What you need to be able to do is correct for the wind and hold a ground track.

...Which involves *finding* the correct heading, and *holding the heading*.

 

[flyersfan31]

Fly the pink line.

 

[Lawreston]

Here's a toss-up for y'all. I've not done any studying directly related to the Commercial rating. However, while having absolutely no reason to leave my driveway during the last three days(except to walk to the bottom of the hill to get my mail and newspaper)[see photos], on nothing but purely a WHIM I thought it would be interesting to take a Commercial practice test. So I clicked up the Sporty's site and took the test. 65%. Alright(hardly), so I'm a failure. But consider the following:

The majority of my 35 incorrect answers centered on Common IFR Procedures; Aircraft Engine Crankshaft Failure; Flight Rules - General(an IFR question); Using the Navigation Instruments; Stable and Unstable Air(dumb ass - I forgot to convert C° to F°); Federal Airways System and Controlled Airspace(was an ILS question); Commercial IFR Producers; Airplane Performance(required calculations). And in view that most of those categories are areas with which I've not had direct association I figured I did OK.

It appears that clear deductive reasoning, using the present state of knowledge, is a key to success. Do y'all think that in view of the above there's hope for me? I printed out the eight double-side pages of the results for continued reference.

HR

 

[MauleSkinner]

hmmm...sounds like the makings of a good double-dog dare...

Take a sample test with no preparation and post your results

 

[tonycondon]

the problem is that the pilot can't hold the heading while reading the ADF. so they dont even know what the actual bearing is to the station because they werent holding heading while interpreting the needle. So they base the rest of their heading decisions on faulty info and it goes downhill from there.

No problem holding a heading. Do that on an NDB approach and you are assured of blowing the approaching if there is any wind. What you need to be able to do is correct for the wind and hold a ground track.

 

[Maxmosbey]

Well, I'm not working on either an instrument rating or a commercial rating, but I need to chime in on the ADF. Next to pilotage, ADF is my favorite way to go. I'm one of those "follow the needle guys", and even though my ground track might have a bit of an arc in it, I always end up where I want to go. But then, I'm not usually too concerned with how much time it takes to get there.

 

[KennyFlys]

Fly the pink line.

Cheat, cheat, cheat!!!



By the way, it's Magenta!

 

[flyersfan31]

Cheat, cheat, cheat!!!



By the way, it's Magenta!

What are you, some sort of fashion guy????

 

[programmer4hire]

Memorize the answers...

 

[programmer4hire]

Regarding ADF. They are still out there, and are a comfort if you are in an old 152 trying to find your way home from a cross country. I wouldn't shoot an approach to anything less than 5,000 AGL with one though.

I personally memorized the relevant answers and took my instrument practical in an airplane that was not equipped with an ADF so I could forego the hassle of an ADF approach. I have know of 10,000+ hour pilots that have blow ADF approaches.

 

[KennyFlys]

Memorize the answers...

Well, that can work. But, does it achieve the ultimate goal?

 

[Teller1900]

I wouldn't shoot an approach to anything less than 5,000 AGL with one though.

Why not? As long as you're getting a good ident and a reliable signal, the minimums were designed with safety in mind...an ADF approach is no more dangerous than a VOR/LDA/SDF/etc if you've checked your equipment and follow the rules.

 

[tonycondon]

ah, Matt has seen the light

 

[poadeleted20]

Why not? As long as you're getting a good ident and a reliable signal, the minimums were designed with safety in mind...an ADF approach is no more dangerous than a VOR/LDA/SDF/etc if you've checked your equipment and follow the rules.

Due to a combination of holes in their training and/or lack of practice with it, many folks don't feel comfortable flying approaches with an ADF, and from a safety perspective, I will not question their decision to limit themselves to the methods with which they do feel comfortable.

 

[flyersfan31]

Due to a combination of holes in their training and/or lack of practice with it, many folks don't feel comfortable flying approaches with an ADF, and from a safety perspective, I will not question their decision to limit themselves to the methods with which they do feel comfortable.

It certainly is increasingly more difficult to practice NDB approaches, at least in this neck of the woods. I don't have an ADF in the 182, so it's a moot point for me now. Maybe I need to fly right seat with Matt Teller for a few NDB approaches...

 

[Teller1900]

Due to a combination of holes in their training and/or lack of practice with it, many folks don't feel comfortable flying approaches with an ADF, and from a safety perspective, I will not question their decision to limit themselves to the methods with which they do feel comfortable.

You make an excellent point Ron, and one I had not thought of. Comfort level is certainly a good reason not to do an ADF approach if other options are available on a bad wx night. However, all else held equal, I don't think the ADF is less safe than any other approach method, and it's potential lack of reliability (in terms of signal strength and precision) are made up for by higher mins.

I don't think it should be entirely discounted as an unnecessary type of approach to learn. When I was flying out west I never did them at all (there weren't any NDBs within 100 miles of my home drome, and the planes didn't have ADF anyways). When I got the job out east, the fact that I had never done one almost burned me. Thanks goes to Tony for bringing me up to speed on these things. Now, I've had to shoot an NDB approach 3 times in the last week and a half and 7 times in the last two months. A couple few nights ago we shot the NDB at Rockland to a missed, held over the NDB for 45 mins, shot it again and just BARELY got in. If not for the ADF, we would have had to go back to Boston. Of course I'd take a VOR approach over an NDB, and an ILS over all else, but sometimes an NDB is a good option, too.

Yes Tony, I suppose I've seen the light. I still hate ADF approaches (and I REALLY hate NDB holds), but I can see the value in learning them now...kind of.

 

[poadeleted20]

However, all else held equal, I don't think the ADF is less safe than any other approach method, and it's potential lack of reliability (in terms of signal strength and precision) are made up for by higher mins.

The obstruction clearance on final provided on an NDB approach is only 50 feet more than for a VOR approach (300 vice 250). Given the electronic principles involved, and my own experience flying a ton of NDB approaches back 30 years ago, I don't think that extra 50 feet makes up for the reduction in lateral navigation accuracy. There is no question in my mind that an NDB approach even flown by the best ADF master around is a higher risk approach than a VOR approach flown by the same pilot. Unacceptably higher risk? No, not if the pilot is good at ADF course tracking, but the "Ron Brown" accident simply would not have happened if that USAF crew had VOR available instead of only ADF.

I don't think it should be entirely discounted as an unnecessary type of approach to learn. When I was flying out west I never did them at all (there weren't any NDBs within 100 miles of my home drome, and the planes didn't have ADF anyways). When I got the job out east, the fact that I had never done one almost burned me. Thanks goes to Tony for bringing me up to speed on these things. Now, I've had to shoot an NDB approach 3 times in the last week and a half and 7 times in the last two months. A couple few nights ago we shot the NDB at Rockland to a missed, held over the NDB for 45 mins, shot it again and just BARELY got in. If not for the ADF, we would have had to go back to Boston. Of course I'd take a VOR approach over an NDB, and an ILS over all else, but sometimes an NDB is a good option, too.

To be brutally honest, I think your company does its paying passengers a disservice by not equipping its aircraft with GPS for airports like Rockland where NDB is currently the only option if the ILS 13 isn't available. Flying personal Part 91 is one thing, but being a Part 121 common carrier is quite another, and common carriers have a legal obligation to provide "the highest degree of care and diligence" in their operation. I just don't see ADF as meeting that standard when GPS is available.

 

[Teller1900]

To be brutally honest, I think your company does its paying passengers a disservice by not equipping its aircraft with GPS for airports like Rockland where NDB is currently the only option if the ILS 13 isn't available. Flying personal Part 91 is one thing, but being a Part 121 common carrier is quite another, and common carriers have a legal obligation to provide "the highest degree of care and diligence" in their operation. I just don't see ADF as meeting that standard when GPS is available.

I absolutely won't argue with you on that one. They had looked into getting us GPS a while back. In fact, one of our planes (newest and only one the company actually owns) has a KLN something or other, but it's "deactivated" and the database hasn't been updated since '96. Basically all we can use it for (we don't ever use it, no one has ever taken the collar off the circuit breaker, I've certainly never turned it on!) is to get our ground speed when we're not flying at a DME station. Apparently they didn't chose to retrofit any of the others planes with GPS because they're all on lease from Raytheon and if we installed GPS in them, the units would become a permanent part of the a/c and couldn't be removed or refunded when we return the planes to Raytheon. So they decided to spare the expense. Our Saab 340s are the same way, though they at least have auto-pilot.

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the "Ron Brown" accident?