Compass turns revisited

The examiner has some degree of latitude in deciding just what a
"basic instrument flight maneuver" is...but no one is going to get a
pink
slip with "Timed turns to headings" on it.

However, the full procedure partial panel non-precision approach is
still in place, and in order to do that you will need to do compass
turns or timed turns to headings. The change allows you to do what
works best for you. Over time, I've discovered that what works best
depends on the student and the equipment.

Some students just don't get math. For them, the mental math required
to figure out how many seconds the turn needs to be is too much to do
while flying under the hood. For others, the jumping around, lead, and
lag of the compass is too difficult to deal with - they prefer to time
the turn, the check the compass only in level flight.

I personally belong to the latter camp. I am a strong believer in only
looking at the compass when I know it will be accurate, and using time
for turns when the heading gyro is not available. I've taught some
students that method, and they've done well with it. Others hated it,
and wound up just looking at the compass anyway. If they slow the rate
of turn to half-standard-rate when getting close to the heading, it
works reasonably well. Fortunately I've never had a student who
couldn't deal with either method. I'm not sure what I would do then.

Michael

Michael wrote:
Fortunately I've never had a student who couldn't deal with either
method. I'm not sure what I would do then.

I think the answer needs to be "not sign them off for the checkride".
The ability to turn to and maintain a heading without a working DG is
an essential skill. Somehow you need to be able to do it.

Just turning until the little picture of the airplane is pointing in
the same direction as the purple line might just be a reasonable plan
with today's cockpits. Unfortunately, I'm not sure you would convince
an examiner of that.

Back when all our airplanes had ADF's in them, just setting the ADF to
a distant AM radio station made a decent DG replacement.

A new replacement for the ADF is the GPS, of course. Many, like the
GNS430, provide course information that's a very useful replacement for
a bad gyro. I used it on my checkride and the examiner made me turn to
a different page. But if all the electrons die, you have to know how
to use a magnetic compass.

On 4 Apr 2005 13:05:12 -0700, "paul kgyy" wrote:

I used it on my checkride and the examiner made me turn to
a different page

The examiner was not authorized to do this.

Pilots need to hold examiners to the same standards that the examiners
hold the pilots, i.e., the standards as described by the PTS.

Pilots don't get to say "I think I'll do it this way, and screw what
the standards say".

Neither does the examiner.

wrote:
On 4 Apr 2005 13:05:12 -0700, "paul kgyy" wrote:

The examiner was not authorized to do this.

Would you give a CFR reference for me on this?

Thanks,

T.

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 19:17:38 -0700, Toño
wrote:

wrote:
On 4 Apr 2005 13:05:12 -0700, "paul kgyy" wrote:

The examiner was not authorized to do this.

Would you give a CFR reference for me on this?

Thanks,

T.


"Not authorized" means there is no authorization.

The PTS sets forth, as stated below, what "shall" and "must" be done,
and what "may" be done at the discretion of the examiner.

Nowhere does the PTS say that the examiner "may" dictate what pages of
a GPS may be viewed during an operation, any more than he "may", for
example, set an OBS or HSI to his preferred setting, rather than what
the appplicant wishes.

If you have information to the contrary, I would find it interesting.




General Information
The Flight Standards Service of the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) has developed this practical test as the standard that shall be
used by FAA inspectors and designated pilot examiners when
conducting instrument rating—airplane, helicopter, and powered lift
practical tests, and instrument proficiency checks for all aircraft.

Thispractical test standard (PTS) shall also be used for the
instrument portion of the commercial pilot—airship practical test.
Instructors are expected to use this PTS when preparing applicants for
practical tests.


Applicants should be familiar with this PTS and refer to these
standards during their training

This PTS sets forth the practical test requirements for the addition
of an instrument rating to a pilot certificate in airplanes,
helicopters, and powered-lift aircraft.
Information considered directive in nature is described in this PTS
book in terms, such as “shall” and “must,” indicating the actions are
mandatory. Guidance information is described in terms, such as
“should” and “may,” indicating the actions are desirable or
permissive, but not mandator

"Not authorized" means there is no authorization.

The PTS sets forth, as stated below, what "shall" and "must" be done,
and what "may" be done at the discretion of the examiner.

Nowhere does the PTS say that the examiner "may" dictate what pages of
a GPS may be viewed during an operation, any more than he "may", for
example, set an OBS or HSI to his preferred setting, rather than what
the appplicant wishes.

An examiner is testing an applicant for an instrument rating. Part of
the evaluation includes ensuring that the applicant is aware of his
situation, for example, non-reception of a signal that the applicant may
be =assuming= is being received. To do so, the examiner, during an
approach, surrepticiously changes the frequency dialed in on the radio
(be it nav or comm, it doesn't matter). The applicant doesn't notice.
Though he completes the approach within tolerances, he may have missed a
radio call or the fact that the zero-dot deviation is due to a dead
radio rather than to his lucky flying.

The examiner fails the applicant. The applicant appeals, claiming that
the PTS does not say that the examiner "may" dictate what frequency the
radios are tuned to.

Your ruling?

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 19:17:38 -0700, Toño
wrote:

wrote:
On 4 Apr 2005 13:05:12 -0700, "paul kgyy" wrote:

The examiner was not authorized to do this.

Would you give a CFR reference for me on this?

Thanks,

T.


This was meant to be included in my previous post.

Note the use of the language about the adherence to the PTS being
'mandatory".


Practical Test Standard Concept
Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 61 specifies
the areas in which knowledge and skill must be demonstrated by the
applicant before the issuance of an instrument rating. The CFRs
provide the flexibility to permit the FAA to publish practical test
standards containing the AREAS OF OPERATION and specific TASKs
in which pilot competency shall be demonstrated. The FAA will revise
this PTS whenever it is determined that changes are needed in the
interest of safety. Adherence to the provisions of the regulations
and the practical test standards is mandatory for evaluation of
instrument pilot applicants

Its my understanding that a recent email to DPEs discussed exactly this
scenario and told DPEs that they could not allow pilots to use the GPS
during partial panel. Someone out there may be able to verify this.

I completed (successfully!) my instrument checkride last evening and was not
allowed to use the GPS during this maneuver. I tried to load the approach
and was told "no." Turned to the position page and the DPE turned it to the
NAVCOM page (not much help). Had to rely on the compas and the timer.

Bob

wrote in message
news
On 4 Apr 2005 13:05:12 -0700, "paul kgyy" wrote:

I used it on my checkride and the examiner made me turn to
a different page

The examiner was not authorized to do this.

Pilots need to hold examiners to the same standards that the examiners
hold the pilots, i.e., the standards as described by the PTS.

Pilots don't get to say "I think I'll do it this way, and screw what
the standards say".

Neither does the examiner.

I think the answer needs to be "not sign them off for the checkride".


Well, that's a defeatist attitude. I would like to think that I would
come up with some method they could handle.

Just turning until the little picture of the airplane is pointing in
the same direction as the purple line might just be a reasonable plan

with today's cockpits.

In a glass cockpit Cirrus (at least the one I flew) it is the only
plan. A PFD failure leaves you with ASI, electric AI, Altimeter - and
two Garmin 430's without CDI's (the only CDI is built into the HSI
presentation on the PFD). The only approach you can shoot after PFD
failure is a GPS, and you can shoot it ONLY by turning until the little
picture of the airplane is pointing in the same direction as the purple
line. I suppose you could use a compass, but I'm not sure what the
benefit would be.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure you would convince an examiner of that.

In the Cirrus I flew, there was no way to simulate PFD failure (vacuum?
who dat?) which would not allow that approach to work. There would be
no convincing involved, and with the deletion of compass turns from the
PTS, the examiner no longer has the option of failing both GPS units (I
guess we lost the PFD and both GPS units or the constellation?) and
making the applicant do compass turns.

Of course the recommended emergency procedure in the event of PFD
failure is to engage the autopilot and not hand-fly at all, and you can
argue that losing the autopilot AND the PFD on the same flight is
unlikely. On the other hand, that makes the autopilot a no-go item for
IMC, and I doubt any examiner would accept this.

The interesting question is whether an examiner would insist on setting
up a situation, however improbable, that would require the student to
do partial panel flying without the GPS. I suppose he might, but it
would surprise me if he did. Is it reasonable to expect an instrument
rating applicant to be able to handle multiple point failures - and
then allow him to carry passengers in low IMC in a single engine
airplane?

Much as I hate to say it, the truth is that partial panel as we know it
is not so much a valuable skill in itself (except in the sense that
learning to do ANYTHING that is demanding in an airplane is valuable as
it makes you a better pilot) and more a reasoned response to flying
with unreasonable technology. When both your sole attitude gyro and
your sole heading gyro are plumbed to a single dry pump, you better be
proficient at flying with both of them failed, since dry pumps are
junk. It might interest you to know that the ATP checkride includes no
partial panel work at all, since that sort of crap is not tolerated in
transport category aircraft.

Michael