If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
David Megginson wrote in message ...
(Snowbird) writes: The first point is that you feel very confident in your ability to continue to aviate, navigate and communicate, while coping with an emergency or unusual circumstance AND set up a GPS. No, I don't feel that way at all, but if I do end up in an emergency, I plan to do my best to aviate, and to worry about navigating and communicating only when the opportunities present themselves. I am still a new pilot (220 hours), so I'm very open to learning, but I'm not doing a good job coming up with use cases where it's a potential life-or-death issue whether the GPS is already on. Here are the most likely emergencies I can think of in IMC: 1. Vacuum failure -- no immediate, direct benefit from the handheld GPS. I disagree for several reasons. Many GPS models have the ability to partition the main display and show an 'HSI' and groundspeed in addition to the moving map. This information is very valuable as a cross-check to the flight instruments. In IMC - I'll take any clue available that indicates something is wrong with the gryo instruments. I'm confident I can fly partial panel, but detecting the failure mode is the difficult part... I have flown approaches under the hood with reference to only the GPS (this is in a PA28 which is a reasonably stable aircraft). While not easy it is do-able as long as the plane is trimmed before the approach and control inputs are kept minimal. Regarding the distraction of setting up a GPS upon the failure. I think it is significant. I've had a similar situation - an electrical failure at night (fortunately in MVFR conditions). This was in class D airspace. Tower called and let me know they lost the transponder. When I keyed the mic to transmit, the panel went black. This happened directly over the field. By the time I got the flashlights setup, grabbed the handheld radio (backseat), plugged in the headset, turned on, tuned in, and let tower know what was going on - I was 5-6 miles North (about 3 minutes in the Cherokee). The workload during these few minutes was relatively high. Significant enough that I revamped how I approach IFR flying. I do not fly hard IFR at night, and I always keep the handheld charged and ready to go in the side pocket. A bit of a rant, but my point is: After a gyro or electrical failure in actual IMC - the last thing you want to be doing is digging around in the flightbag, plugging in, powering up, and navigating menus on a portable GPS. If you own one - power it up and set it up the beginning of the flight so it's ready to go when you need it. -Nathan |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Michael wrote (with a lot of excellent commentary cut out):
In my opinion, when transitioning to a more demanding airplane for IFR operations, anything less than a full IPC to PTS standards without use of autopilot or moving map is inadequate - not just because those things fail, but because needing those things means the skill level just isn't there yet to be taking that kind of airplane into the soup without help. Just to set the stage for this posting, I would like to say that I agree with your premise up to a point, Michael. I agree that transition training leaves a lot to be desired. I agree that pilots tend to lose the edge the farther they get from their test. I have no argument with any of those points. However. I am a bit troubled by the phrase that I saved. "anything less than a full IPC to PTS standards without use of autopilot or moving map is inadequate..." While it is sort of satisfying to read that and savagely nod "yeah!", I am in a quandry. We are starting to see glass cockpits coming down to the level of private aviation. My airplane is a homebuilt with basically a two screen glass cockpit. I have an CNX 80 and a Blue Mountain EFIS. I will have an autopilot when they ship the controller. Oh, sure, I have a couple of steam gauges, for that total failure, but if you ask me to do a full IPC to PTS standards without the use of my moving map(s) would leave me doing it with T&B, AS and altimeter. My electrics are 3x redundant, and I have two elecronic boxes, so failure would be pretty darn unlikely...and if it happens in the soup it will be an honest-to-God help me mamma emergency...altho I have backups that ought to give me a fighting chance. But I digress. My system is not dissimilar to some that are rolling down the pike...to the point that there will be a generation of pilots (in the not very distant future) who learn with the moving maps, etc. And to my point. There was a time that the guys who trained in open cockpits fought, kicked and battled to keep their heads in the air...'cause a pilot couldn't rely on that nasty old ASI...he needed the wind in his face. And we are seeing guys who refuse to give up the ADF's. And I am sure that there are several other things that...if you couldn't do it that way, you just weren't good enough. Is your argument similar? Just wanted to ask that question. Thanks! JV |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
However. I am a bit troubled by the phrase that I saved. "anything
less than a full IPC to PTS standards without use of autopilot or moving map is inadequate..." I'm also troubled. When I do an IPC with someone who uses the autopilot a lot, I do part of the flight with and part without. I know that he will use the autopilot when flying without me, so it doesn't make sense to refuse to include that as part of the IPC. Same argument applies to advanced avionics. Barry |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
David Megginson wrote in message ...
(Michael) writes: That's basically the argument, and I've heard it before in various incarnations. In its most virulent form, it suggests that single pilot IFR without an autopilot is inherently unsafe, because the pilot simply doesn't have enough spare capacity to deal with ATC, keep a weather picture, monitor the systems, and all the other stuff he needs to be doing. I'm still new enough to IFR flying that I might just not have had enough opportunity to be scared properly by IMC, but it could be that different people just find different kinds of things nerve-racking. For me, VFR, it's busy uncontrolled airports, with people cutting each other off all over the place; for other people, it's busy controlled airspace, worrying about negotiating with ATC. There's definately some truth to what both of you say here. For example, we're now based at an airport which gives some local pilots the heebie-jeebies. It's uncontrolled, has crossing runways, and is inhabited by a large population of the most glorious antique planes and homebuilts you'll see outside a flyin (ie many of the planes are NORDO and radio work isn't a priority for many of the pilots). When someone pulls onto the runway or lands crossing my flight path while I'm on final, I think "Home, Home Again, I Like to Be Here When I Can" (plenty of room, no dent no deal). Another pilot might think "Scotty Beam Me Up!" or "OhMYGAWD!". And it's a safe bet that if you put some of our local pilots into busy controlled airspace, *they'd* be thinking "Scotty Beam Me Up!." But frankly, while I wouldn't go so far as to say flying w/out an autopilot is inherently unsafe, I will say that I have no desire to fly our particular make of plane in IMC without an autopilot or a second person who can hold the yoke for a bit and it has nothing whatsoever to do with transition training or proficiency. I switched from a C172 to our plane fairly early in my IFR training, and late in the game from a peaceful, gentle "what's two hundred feet between friends?" procedural expert CFI to a CFI who is an exquisitly skilled stick, expert in make aand model, takes no prisoners and considers 20 feet a serious lapse in scan. There's no question my rating took me way longer than it could have, and no question I can fly my plane IMC without an autopilot for long stretches, negotiate w/ ATC, get wx, pull out a chart, program a GPS etc. But without an autopilot or someone to hold the yoke, I'm STILL going to be in a world of hurt if I get a major rerouting which requires me to copy a new clearance or study a chart significantly while thinking the pictur through. It's just not stable enough. Everyone I know in this make who doesn't have an autopilot, wants one. Badly. And that includes my CFI, who can certainly fly without one like he's on rails. Too many people choose the wrong way. They simply assume that the more demanding aircraft requires an autopilot (rather than more skill) to fly IFR. There is definately some truth to this. I know after hours and literally years (well, that's another story) of remedial CFI beating I can fly my plane in a way I didn't think it could be flown. (Hopefully it doesn't have to take years to get there. I had a couple of pregnancies and a baby involved.) It may take more time, for some people, than they have to give to flying or training -- which opens another can of worms. There's something to be said for pilots who fly recreationally and can't put a lot of time into flying sticking to simple, stable planes. Cessnas and Pipers are popular for good reason. But I don't think it's the whole story, either. It's just plain tough to correctly absorb something like the big picture of a complete rerouting if you can't spend significant time perusing a chart. I don't care how gloriously skilled and proficient you are, it's darn tough to do in 1 second intervals. I don't think this point really ought to be argued. If you take two pilots of equal, exquisite skill, both fully capable of plane control at a near automatic level, which is going to have a better grasp of the "big picture" when something significant changes enroute? The guy who had to handfly the whole time, or the guy who was able to turn the plane over to "George" for a few while he processed the changes? I'll bet money on the latter, every time. And that's the point of this "value the autopilot" mantra. FWIW, Sydney |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
"Snowbird" wrote:
If you take two pilots of equal, exquisite skill, both fully capable of plane control at a near automatic level, which is going to have a better grasp of the "big picture" when something significant changes enroute? The guy who had to handfly the whole time, or the guy who was able to turn the plane over to "George" for a few while he processed the changes? I'll bet money on the latter, every time. And that's the point of this "value the autopilot" mantra. Yep. Michael has a real knack for making me feel like a wuss every time he posts one of his autopilot rants, but I still use mine practically the whole time I'm flying IFR. There is sometimes a slim margin in single-pilot IFR flying between having the situation under control and falling behind. Using the autopilot can widen that margin, IMO. Can I fly in the terminal area without it? Of course. Do I think that's smart? No. -- Dan C172RG at BFM |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
David Megginson wrote in message ...
(Snowbird) writes: The first point is that you feel very confident in your ability to continue to aviate, navigate and communicate, while coping with an emergency or unusual circumstance AND set up a GPS. No, I don't feel that way at all, but if I do end up in an emergency, I plan to do my best to aviate, and to worry about navigating and communicating only when the opportunities present themselves. OK, David, *listen to yourself* That's a very correct philosophy. Now draw the obvious correllary. You have something in your flight bag which could be useful to you in the emergency, and you're going to be busy aviating, and trying to navigate and communicate when the opportunities present themselves. With that totally correct set of priorities, that means you're also going to be setting up your GPS "when the opportunities present themselves", vs. *having it set up and ready to use*. Which makes more sense? I am still a new pilot (220 hours), so I'm very open to learning, but I'm not doing a good job coming up with use cases where it's a potential life-or-death issue whether the GPS is already on. Well, I suppose this would be another fundamental difference between us. If I have a potentially useful piece of equipment, I don't need to persuade myself that "life or death" situations are involved, to want to be able to use it directly and immediately without adding workload to an already divided attention which (rightly) has several higher priorities. Frankly my goal is to keep my flights boring, make unusual circumstances as routine as possible, avoiding making them into emergencies or life or death situations. 1. Vacuum failure -- no immediate, direct benefit from the handheld GPS. I totally disagree. 2. Electrical failure -- if I know of VMC anywhere within range (or above or below), I'll head in that general direction using the compass or altimeter; Well here's another I don't get (how does the altimeter help you head towards VMC? and if it's just your electrical system, why aren't you using your DG?) but the immediate, direct benefit of a set-up, ready to go GPS seems pretty obvious. You aren't simply heading in a general direction, you can be heading towards a specific goal with specific bearing and distance information to use in your planning. Now not 10 minutes from now. 3. Smoke on board, goes away when electrical shut down -- see #2. 4. Smoke on board, does not go away when electrical shut down -- the handheld GPS is useless Well, you know, we've been there (fortunately in what turned out to be Case #3), and I can vouch for several things: 1. it was psychologically much easier to reach for the master and switch it off knowing that we could navigate seamlessly don't overlook the psychological aspect -- there are several accidents on record with a negative outcome, where the pilot chose to keep the master on so he could navigate, and the outcome might have been different had he the means to navigate accurately master-off 2. we immediately started planning for Case #4, and the specific situational awareness provided by the GPS was of great assistance in deciding which direction we would point and coming up with a plan, quickly while under pressure. 5. Engine failure -- see #4. Yes -- and my response to it. That said, my handheld GPS often is on already Alright, than what are we arguing about? I thought you were taking the position that it was just as useful to you in your flightbag. I disagree -- but frankly, you seem determined to say it's no particular advantage to 'set up' vs. 'in bag' in the face of what seems to me obvious evidence to the contrary, and it's not a debate I'll continue. If in practice, you don't in fact leave the GPS in your flight bag but fly with it set up and turned on, why are you arguing for a practice you don't yourself follow? Aye Yi Yi! Sydney |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
"David Megginson" wrote:
I'd be nervous that in an emergency my eyes would be drawn too much to the false security of the GPS pseudo-HSI display instead of where they should be, on the TC and ASI. May I suggest that you try it under the hood? I've found that it makes flying my airplane no-gyro very easy. That may not be true of higher performance airplanes, I haven't tried it in one. This information is very valuable as a cross-check to the flight instruments. Agreed, but I don't think I'm a good enough pilot to use it safely in a partial-panel situation, where I'm already under a great deal of stress. Try it. I think you'll find it reduces the stress. -- Dan C172RG at BFM |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
I wonder if Chris Thomas is a real pilot? Anybody know? | Badwater Bill | Home Built | 116 | September 3rd 04 05:43 PM |
Pilot Error? Is it Mr. Damron? | Badwater Bill | Home Built | 3 | June 23rd 04 04:05 PM |
Single-Seat Accident Records (Was BD-5B) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 41 | November 20th 03 05:39 AM |
Effect of Light Sport on General Aviation | Gilan | Home Built | 17 | September 24th 03 06:11 AM |