Backup gyros - which do you trust?

Julian Scarfe wrote:

I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. Classic teaching of
partial/limited panel involves covering an instrument and then continuing to
fly without it. In the case of the Bandeirante accident, that wasn't the
issue. There was still a perfectly serviceable AI in the panel, and a pilot
sitting in front of it. The issue was identifying the failed instrument in a
complex cockpit environment.

I'm not sure I'm barking up the wrong tree.

Possibly practicing flying partial panel makes little sense. OTOH,
practicing partial panel *does* teach which combinations of instruments
can be used to provide the same information as the missing AI.

Surely this is relevant to obtaining and maintaining a good
crosscheck -- and wouldn't good crosscheck be the key to identifying
the failed instrument in a "complex cockpit environment"?

BTW, my reading of the accident report is that they weren't
certain but what both AIs had failed -- something that was certainly
within statistical likelihood given the low MTBUR

Cheers,
Sydney

I have a Garmin 196. It has a simulated instrument
panel page on it that is pretty accurate. It would be
the tie breaker in the event of confusion over what
the gyro instruments were saying.


"Sydney Hoeltzli" wrote in message
...
Julian Scarfe wrote:

I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. Classic teaching of
partial/limited panel involves covering an instrument and then
continuing to
fly without it. In the case of the Bandeirante accident, that wasn't
the
issue. There was still a perfectly serviceable AI in the panel, and a
pilot
sitting in front of it. The issue was identifying the failed instrument
in a
complex cockpit environment.

I'm not sure I'm barking up the wrong tree.

Possibly practicing flying partial panel makes little sense. OTOH,
practicing partial panel *does* teach which combinations of instruments
can be used to provide the same information as the missing AI.

Surely this is relevant to obtaining and maintaining a good
crosscheck -- and wouldn't good crosscheck be the key to identifying
the failed instrument in a "complex cockpit environment"?

BTW, my reading of the accident report is that they weren't
certain but what both AIs had failed -- something that was certainly
within statistical likelihood given the low MTBUR

Cheers,
Sydney

I played with that page on the 196 yesterday in moderately gusty
conditions... You have to be smooth on the controls, make your correction
and then wait for the unit to update... Flown that way it is useable and I
suspect that I could fly an approach with it in real conditions (an ILS to
minimums would be hairy).. The work load is significantly higher than with
the gyros..

But, if you do not wait for the screen to update you get into a world of
hurt... Since it was nice and bumpy I put the hood on and then flew it like
I was panicky - rapid, big,. inputs - It only took about 30 seconds to get
out of sync, with the ship laid over on it's side, whereupon I had the fun
of recovering from an unusual attitude... Other than the speed having
gotten further into the yellow arc than I like it was good exercise... About
this time the controller came on and asked me to say intentions - uh, oh,
busted!

Denny

"Roger Tracy" wrote in message
...
I have a Garmin 196. It has a simulated instrument
panel page on it that is pretty accurate. It would be
the tie breaker in the event of confusion over what
the gyro instruments were saying.