single pilot ifr trip tonight

(Lynne Miller) writes:

I think it is very safe to fly the airplane with two VORs and ADF,
if you are a proficient instrument pilot. This was done for thirty
plus years prior to GPS coming into the cockpit without much
problem. Remember, GPS is still a rather new invention when it
comes to aviation usage.

The reason I'm puzzled by the original poster's statement (and his
instructor's) is that the GPS, VOR, and ADF are all secondary
problems.

The primary task during flight in IMC is keeping the plane upright,
and a GPS does not help with that any more than a VOR or ADF does (in
fact, in the unlikely event that I lost *all* gyros but still somehow
had electricity, I'd probably choose the ADF over the GPS for trying
to keep the wings level, due to the ADF's faster response time).

Unless you're flying very low around high terrain, even a
completely-busted VOR, ADF, or GPS shouldn't kill you, so I don't see
how a functioning one puts you at risk. Of course, you will need some
way to land eventually, but in that case ILS is more accurate than GPS
anyway.


All the best,


David

I've found that I can fly the airplane IMC with just the HSI page on my
Garmin III Pilot as long as I keep the control inputs gentle. Doing this,
my instructor covers all the flight instruments. Update rate is a little
on the slow side, but as long as you keep your turns gentle it is very
doable. This is in a Piper Cherokee Six, which is a pretty stable
platform to begin with. I'm not so sure that it would be doable with
something more slippery like a Bonanza or a Tiger, but it works well in
the truck. It does take a light touch and some practice, but it can
definitely be done.

David Megginson wrote:

(Lynne Miller) writes:

I think it is very safe to fly the airplane with two VORs and ADF,
if you are a proficient instrument pilot. This was done for thirty
plus years prior to GPS coming into the cockpit without much
problem. Remember, GPS is still a rather new invention when it
comes to aviation usage.

The reason I'm puzzled by the original poster's statement (and his
instructor's) is that the GPS, VOR, and ADF are all secondary
problems.

The primary task during flight in IMC is keeping the plane upright,
and a GPS does not help with that any more than a VOR or ADF does (in
fact, in the unlikely event that I lost *all* gyros but still somehow
had electricity, I'd probably choose the ADF over the GPS for trying
to keep the wings level, due to the ADF's faster response time).

Unless you're flying very low around high terrain, even a
completely-busted VOR, ADF, or GPS shouldn't kill you, so I don't see
how a functioning one puts you at risk. Of course, you will need some
way to land eventually, but in that case ILS is more accurate than GPS
anyway.

All the best,

David

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

Ray Andraka writes:

I've found that I can fly the airplane IMC with just the HSI page on my
Garmin III Pilot as long as I keep the control inputs gentle. Doing this,
my instructor covers all the flight instruments. Update rate is a little
on the slow side, but as long as you keep your turns gentle it is very
doable.

My concern is that in moderate turbulence it's much harder to keep
control inputs gentle. On my last trip in IMC, for example, I hit a
couple of jolts that tipped me past 20 deg bank in a fraction of a
second. I'd like to know how well the GPS HSI page works in that
situation (I acknowledge that the TC is also tricky when the air's
that rough, since it has a slight lag built-in).

Has anyone tried using the HSI page on a handheld GPS in moderate
turbulence? I'd be very interested in hearing the results (especially
if it was on a cloudy day or at night, when there were no light or
shadow clues).


All the best,


David

On the way back from OSH this summer, we punched through some nascent
cumulous formations (in a C172). While partial panel is something that
we all practice (right?), and, even without a GPS as a backup, is not
that difficult to handle under some (most) circumstances, the few short
forays into the clouds lead me to investigate an electric AI. Although
we were only in the bumpy stuff for a few minutes at a time, I quickly
realized that I would be hard pressed to keep the plane right-side-up if
the vacuum system went south. I love my handheld GPS for general
situational awareness, but I'd much prefer an AI. (Nice spot for it,
too, right under the VSI. We'll need to remove the round G meter that
the original owner I guess thought would be worth while in a 172?)


David Megginson wrote:
Ray Andraka writes:


I've found that I can fly the airplane IMC with just the HSI page on my
Garmin III Pilot as long as I keep the control inputs gentle. Doing this,
my instructor covers all the flight instruments. Update rate is a little
on the slow side, but as long as you keep your turns gentle it is very
doable.


My concern is that in moderate turbulence it's much harder to keep
control inputs gentle. On my last trip in IMC, for example, I hit a
couple of jolts that tipped me past 20 deg bank in a fraction of a
second. I'd like to know how well the GPS HSI page works in that
situation (I acknowledge that the TC is also tricky when the air's
that rough, since it has a slight lag built-in).

Has anyone tried using the HSI page on a handheld GPS in moderate
turbulence? I'd be very interested in hearing the results (especially
if it was on a cloudy day or at night, when there were no light or
shadow clues).


All the best,


David


--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.

In article ,
Dan Truesdell wrote:
We'll need to remove the round G meter that
the original owner I guess thought would be worth while in a 172?)

Sounds like a good rule of thumb: Never buy a non-acrobatic airplane
that a previous owner thought could use a G meter.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

Ben,

Never buy a non-acrobatic airplane
that a previous owner thought could use a G meter.


I like it!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Dan Truesdell wrote:
the few short
forays into the clouds lead me to investigate an electric AI. Although
we were only in the bumpy stuff for a few minutes at a time,

Now that the FAA has finally relented and allowed you to throw away your
turn coordinator and get a second AI I went and talked to my local
avionics shop about the RC Allen electric AI that I see advertised for
about $1800. They said don't bother as 90% of them come back because
they are so horribly built. They told me to get the reliability of a
vacuum AI it's gonna take about $4000.

Thanks for the heads-up on those. I was figuring on about $2K, but $4K
would mean asking the other 4 owners to kick in $1000 for an item that
they won't use. For a 172, it's probably just as good then to get a
manifold-driven backup vacuum. Too bad the electronic AI's are not
certified for IFR (the $1500 ones, not the $6000 ones.)

Newps wrote:


Dan Truesdell wrote:

the few short forays into the clouds lead me to investigate an
electric AI. Although we were only in the bumpy stuff for a few
minutes at a time,


Now that the FAA has finally relented and allowed you to throw away your
turn coordinator and get a second AI I went and talked to my local
avionics shop about the RC Allen electric AI that I see advertised for
about $1800. They said don't bother as 90% of them come back because
they are so horribly built. They told me to get the reliability of a
vacuum AI it's gonna take about $4000.



--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.

Dan Truesdell wrote:
Thanks for the heads-up on those. I was figuring on about $2K, but $4K
would mean asking the other 4 owners to kick in $1000 for an item that
they won't use. For a 172, it's probably just as good then to get a
manifold-driven backup vacuum.

Consider the dual-rotor vacuum pump from http://www.aeroadvantage.com instead.

I've owned one of the manifold-driven backup vacuum systems, and it's marginally
OK, but I wouldn't buy one again. The shuttle valve gets stuck. It requires
pilot action to preflight test it, and to switch it on when you need it. The
vacuum it provides is limited. There is no provision for practicing with it (you
have to physically disconnect the vacuum pump), so you don't get proficient with
flying with the reduced vacuum and altered operational requirements. Under
most operational regimes, you will have to limit engine power in order to keep
the vacuum sucking.

By contrast, the dual-rotor pump failover is automatic, you get full vacuum
without interruption, just a panel annunciator to check during preflight and to
tell you one of the rotors has failed.

The cost is only slightly more than the manifold-dirven system.

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

Dan Truesdell wrote:

Thanks for the heads-up on those. I was figuring on about $2K, but $4K
would mean asking the other 4 owners to kick in $1000 for an item that
they won't use. For a 172, it's probably just as good then to get a
manifold-driven backup vacuum. Too bad the electronic AI's are not
certified for IFR (the $1500 ones, not the $6000 ones.)

One of our club airplanes has something like this. But someone told me that
it works least well under full throttle...which means down low executing a
missed approach.

Was I told correctly? How serious is "least well"?

- Andrew