In article ,
(Teacherjh) wrote:
You don't know which to trust, and you are out of bullets. You have to figure
out which one is lying. Besides, you can bank while remaning straight, and
you can be level while turning.

With two AIs, you can go PP and use the TC and DG (and ball).


If I have two AIs and they begin to disagree, what then? How do I
determine which one to believe?

If I incorporate the AI, DG, TC, wet compass, altimeter, and airspeed
into my scan and one instrument begins to disagree with the others, I
know almost instantly which instrument to disregard. Not sure how a
second AI helps substantially more with that, since it seems that I have
quite a few instruments to reference without the second AI. The second
AI would probably help me fly the airplane after I identified a faulty
AI, but wouldn't contribute substantially more to recognition because
I'd still have to use the other instruments in the panel to identify
which of the two AIs is accurate.

And, I flew partial panel in actual IMC just fine with *NO* AI many
times during my instrument training. The AI was covered and I knew that
I "lost" it, but I certainly didn't need a second AI to fly partial
panel, even on approaches.

I don't mean to make things sound trivial, because they're not.
Recognition and recovery is definitely not trivial for something like an
AI (I've had an AI die on me). However, thinking that a second AI is
going to bail your butt out of the recognition game is dangerous, IMO.
It all comes down to practice and practice often, which I suspect that
many of us (myself included) don't do enough of.



JKG