Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I use ?

"Jim Carter" wrote in news:000901c7141a$5c8da380
$8202a8c0@omnibook6100:

It amuses me that so much of what was done 30 years ago, with less
accurate technical toys is today seen as macho and Herculean. Single
nav
radio holds? Full ADF approach? Cross country without a moving map or
GPS? Single-engine, night IFR? There are way too many opinions about
the
lack of safety of these practices by people who have little or no
experience with them.

It's not the equipment that's the weak link in the safety factor MOST of
the time.....

It's the human factor addressing the extra workload and undivided
attention that's the weak link in the safety of single engine, night IFR,
or hard IFR operations.

I have done both hard IFR with and without an IFR certified GPS.
Obviously a successful outcome for both situations, but given my
druthers, GPS direct sure is easier then flying VOR to VOR.

Of course everyone must know their personal and equipment limitations.

And this is where lies the safety of IFR or any type of flying we do.

Equipment failures happen, but more often then not, it's the human error
that bites us in the rear end.

I'm really going to upset the apple cart now when I suggest that
landing
at the nearest airport isn't always the best choice in any situation.
Even with a blown piston or swallowed valve, the engine can often get
you someplace better than the closest airport.

I'd have to respectfully disagree with the above having been through a
partial engine failure.

First, the suddeness of onset catches you off guard.

AVIATING, going through the emergency procedures AND THEN getting the
plane set up for best glide NAVIGATING evaluating whether I can make the
field, getting in touch with ATC COMMUNICATING (I called into 121.50 as I
was not using ATC services),

You do not know what is the problem causing the severe vibration, nor do
you know if the fan will stop in front of you. For me, the engine ate an
exhaust valve, and my oil loss was minimal. After all my trouble
shooting, I had no clue what was happening to my plane.

When things go to crap like it did for me, my first look / see was for a
farm field. Once I evaluated I had enough altitude and power to make it
to my destination (which by the way was the nearest airport) I stuck to
my decision to press on to the airport (16 LONG miles).

This decision was made based on a 200 fpm loss of altitude with what
little power I had, and ALWAYS keeping an off aiport site front and
center of my attention should I lose everything. I was at 3,500 when
things went south with the cylinder.

By the time I had descend down to 3000, I had figured I had 15 minutes
flying time and my GPS had 12 minutes ETE with the field elevation of a
whopping 40 feet.

It always makes more
sense to plan and execute a solution rather than just jumping to
conclusions based on what the least skilled have decided we should do.

Absolutely agree with the above, but when something goes as dramatically
wrong as losing one piston operating under the cowling, nearest is best.

The severe vibration brought on by losing a cylinder can easily snowball
into something else to catastrophically fail, and pressing on past a
perfectly useable landing site is a reckless decision in my opinion.

An autopilot may be on someone's personal list of minimum equipment for
IFR, but that doesn't mean it should be a mandate for all of us.

Agree, since I do not have autopilot and have flown 2 1/2 hours in IMC
with the last hour at night.

Like you said above, it's highly dependent on personal limitations AND
equipment. I have my own plane, so I know what is behind the
maintenance. Even with that knowledge doesn't mean the next flight will
be the demise of my vacuum pump, but with the training I have had, it
shouldn't be that big a deal. Been through one of those during a night
flight and it was a non event. Of course, that was easy compared to IMC,
but it happens.

Allen

Haha, same here Allen, I chose that plane to train in for just that
reason. It had a loran in it and a gps (both VFR) which promptly failed
as soon as the avionics master was turned on. Funny how those things
happen on a checkride. We got rid of the Loran when it died and
replaced it with a DME which was a requirement for the one precision
approach into our airport. The VFR GPS keeps plugging away nicely and
is great for situational awareness. It's also handy to keep your next
fix tuned in so that while you are tuning the real nav devices you have
a decent idea of which way you ought to be flying when the needle centers.

Robert

A Lieberma wrote:
Nathan Young wrote in
:


I think this is pretty much up to the examiner.

On my checkride, I was allowed the full use of the radio panel the
entire flight. In my case, Garmin 295, KX155 + GS, KX170 + LOC, ADF,
LORAN, DME.


Pleasantly surprised you were allowed to use the Garmin 295 since it's not
certified for IFR flight. To me, it's a great supplement for situational
awareness, which I'd suspect your examiner felt the same way for he / she
to allow you to use it?

I didn't have an ADF in my plane, just ILS and DME, so all I could do at
the time was ILS, LOC and VOR approaches.

In my check ride, I was asked to do a VOR, ILS and a back course localizer
approach. My partial panel was a VOR approach in which my DE allowed
(encouraged) the use of my VFR Garmin for assistance in the ground track.

Allen

-----Original Message-----
From: Mxsmanic ]
Posted At: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 7:06 PM
Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
Conversation: Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I
use
?
Subject: Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I
use ?
....
I'm really going to upset the apple cart now when I suggest that
landing
at the nearest airport isn't always the best choice in any
situation.
Even with a blown piston or swallowed valve, the engine can often
get
you someplace better than the closest airport.

Better in what sense? With a failing engine, how could a distant
airport be better than a nearby airport? A lot of pilots die because
they want someplace "better" than the nearest airport, and then their
luck runs out before they find that ideal spot.


Better facilities, paved surface, closer to civilization, lots of
reasons.

It always makes more sense to plan and execute a solution rather
than just jumping to conclusions based on what the least skilled
have decided we should do.

I try to follow the path of least risk. Or more specifically, I try
to manage the risk/benefit ratio. It's hard to see the benefit of
staying in the air with a bad engine. What's wrong with landing and
fixing the problem?


There's nothing wrong with landing and fixing the problem. Your premise
however was that without an autopilot, every IFR flight was an emergency
and if the autopilot failed the flight should land immediately at the
nearest airport. That's just not the case.

An autopilot may be on someone's personal list of minimum equipment
for
IFR, but that doesn't mean it should be a mandate for all of us.

I don't think anyone should be compelled to use an autopilot if he's
flyingon his own. However, I would want an autopilot for IFR flight,
otherwise--at least in my estimation--the aircraft really isn't
suitable for IFR flight.


That's the point: in your estimation. If we've bred a generation of
pilots that can't or won't fly IFR without an autopilot then why not
just fly commercial and have a drink?

-----Original Message-----
From: A Lieberma ]
Posted At: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 7:35 PM
Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
Conversation: Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I
use
?
Subject: Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I
use ?

"Jim Carter" wrote in
news:000901c7141a$5c8da380
$8202a8c0@omnibook6100:

It amuses me that so much of what was done 30 years ago, with less
accurate technical toys is today seen as macho and Herculean. Single
nav
radio holds? Full ADF approach? Cross country without a moving map
or
GPS? Single-engine, night IFR? There are way too many opinions about
the
lack of safety of these practices by people who have little or no
experience with them.

It's not the equipment that's the weak link in the safety factor MOST
of
the time.....

It's the human factor addressing the extra workload and undivided
attention that's the weak link in the safety of single engine, night
IFR,
or hard IFR operations.

I have done both hard IFR with and without an IFR certified GPS.
Obviously a successful outcome for both situations, but given my
druthers, GPS direct sure is easier then flying VOR to VOR.


I can't argue with you because I agree completely. My point to MXS...
was that autopilots are not and should not be required on single engine
piston aircraft for IFR work. There's a world of difference between
mandating their use and advocating their use. His statement that without
an autopilot every IFR flight was an emergency was ridiculous.


I'm really going to upset the apple cart now when I suggest that
landing
at the nearest airport isn't always the best choice in any
situation.
Even with a blown piston or swallowed valve, the engine can often
get
you someplace better than the closest airport.

I'd have to respectfully disagree with the above having been through a
partial engine failure.

First, the suddeness of onset catches you off guard.

AVIATING, going through the emergency procedures AND THEN getting the
plane set up for best glide NAVIGATING evaluating whether I can make
the
field, getting in touch with ATC COMMUNICATING (I called into 121.50
as I
was not using ATC services),

You do not know what is the problem causing the severe vibration, nor
do
you know if the fan will stop in front of you. For me, the engine ate
an
exhaust valve, and my oil loss was minimal. After all my trouble
shooting, I had no clue what was happening to my plane.


Had the exact same situation (ate the exhaust valve on #4 cylinder on a
CAP T41). Oil loss was zero, not enough mechanical noise to be a rod or
crankshaft, and vibration reduced significantly at around 1600 RPM. Dead
giveaway: swallowed a value.

When things go to crap like it did for me, my first look / see was for
a
farm field. Once I evaluated I had enough altitude and power to make
it
to my destination (which by the way was the nearest airport) I stuck
to
my decision to press on to the airport (16 LONG miles).

This decision was made based on a 200 fpm loss of altitude with what
little power I had, and ALWAYS keeping an off aiport site front and
center of my attention should I lose everything. I was at 3,500 when
things went south with the cylinder.

By the time I had descend down to 3000, I had figured I had 15 minutes
flying time and my GPS had 12 minutes ETE with the field elevation of
a
whopping 40 feet.


I was luckier: IFR on top at 8000', 38 miles East of Meridian Naval Air
Station, and about 1200' ceiling below the deck. Memphis gave me the
option of a small grass strip less than 2 miles North of my route, or
the NAS. I opted for the Navy base (they have the best O'clubs). Broke
out at about 1500' right over the threshold so had to do a 360. Field
made so shut it on down.

It always makes more
sense to plan and execute a solution rather than just jumping to
conclusions based on what the least skilled have decided we should
do.

Absolutely agree with the above, but when something goes as
dramatically
wrong as losing one piston operating under the cowling, nearest is
best.

The severe vibration brought on by losing a cylinder can easily
snowball
into something else to catastrophically fail, and pressing on past a
perfectly useable landing site is a reckless decision in my opinion.


Ah, there's part of the point I was making: "perfectly useable landing
site". I don't consider the nearest airport to always be a perfectly
useable landing site based on current conditions. Again, MXS...
advocated essentially declaring an emergency and landing at the nearest
airport if the autopilot failed in IFR. I still disagree with that
suggestion and was using the engine failure to make (stretch?) a point.

An autopilot may be on someone's personal list of minimum equipment
for
IFR, but that doesn't mean it should be a mandate for all of us.

Agree, since I do not have autopilot and have flown 2 1/2 hours in IMC
with the last hour at night.

Like you said above, it's highly dependent on personal limitations AND
equipment. I have my own plane, so I know what is behind the
maintenance. Even with that knowledge doesn't mean the next flight
will
be the demise of my vacuum pump, but with the training I have had, it
shouldn't be that big a deal. Been through one of those during a
night
flight and it was a non event. Of course, that was easy compared to
IMC,
but it happens.

Allen

I think we're vehemently agreeing with each other Allen.

"Jim Carter" wrote in news:004701c71437$21ca6ea0
$0100007f@omnibook6100:

I can't argue with you because I agree completely. My point to MXS...
was that autopilots are not and should not be required on single engine
piston aircraft for IFR work. There's a world of difference between
mandating their use and advocating their use. His statement that without
an autopilot every IFR flight was an emergency was ridiculous.

Unfortunately you are dealing with a troll who won't take your replies for
what they are worth.... Not sure if you have seen rec.aviation.piloting or
students, but he has been disrespecting pilots treating MSFS as if it was
the real deal.

I think we're vehemently agreeing with each other Allen.

I see that now :-) however the troll you are dealing with won't see it in
the real world way.

Allen

A Lieberma wrote:
Nathan Young wrote in
:

I think this is pretty much up to the examiner.

On my checkride, I was allowed the full use of the radio panel the
entire flight. In my case, Garmin 295, KX155 + GS, KX170 + LOC, ADF,
LORAN, DME.

Pleasantly surprised you were allowed to use the Garmin 295 since it's not
certified for IFR flight. To me, it's a great supplement for situational
awareness, which I'd suspect your examiner felt the same way for he / she
to allow you to use it?

Many examiners in my area will allow portable GPS as a supplement, even
during partial panel. One DE has been known to unplug it during a
simulated electrical failure, if the applicant didn't install fresh
batteries? Oh well! If the batteries are good, it's fair game. In
fact, many allow them during all but the cross country phase of a PP
checkride.

At a safety seminar, one DE explained it to me as "all available
information."

Jim Carter wrote:
Autopilots do not take a degree in astrophysics to operate. That being
said, I also made the point that an hour or so of instruction "in the
aircraft" should be sufficient.

Time flies in the air. I don't think I would claim proficiency
in my autopilot (and it's interface to the NAV radios) until I'd
flown a couple of climbs, descents approaches and holds with the thing.
Time flies in the air. I think it was more than an hour. It is
however a tiny fraction of the IFR training time. And this was
despite the fact that I had the thing for a year before trying to
do IFR procedures with it and I still got stumped the first time
I tried to do an approach with it after my checkride (this I think
was the GPS not the autopilot but the result was the same... push
the big red button and hand fly it).

I still don't trust the thing. In VFR conditions I'll let it
motor me around the purple line, but in IFR I'm still hovering
over the big red button and scanning just as carefully as I would
if I was hand flying it.

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Roy,

. I would expect to
see you running the pre-flight A/P checks per the checklist.


Ah, here's a question I have: Would you do/expect the full check
including engaging the A/P on the ground and watching the servos do
their thing when you turn the DG or the OBS? Or would the A/P internal
test routine (I'm thinking of the S-TEC 50 here) suffice?


I do the full Autopilot checkilst when I expect to use the autopilot
or when there's a chance I'll be in IMC.

The stec-55x test (as originally shipped to me) is involved. It
involves...watching it follow the bug, watching it follow the NAV
(with REV pressed too), watching it try to trim to hold alt when
you push and pull on the wheel, making sure it disconnects in
a variety modes (switch, big red button, using the electric trim,
using CWS) etc... about the only thing not tested during preflight
is the APR mode.

The thing has failed on me. For a while any attempt to engage
HDG/NAV mode caused it to go into a hard left turn.

Jim Carter wrote:


It amuses me that so much of what was done 30 years ago, with less
accurate technical toys is today seen as macho and Herculean. Single nav
radio holds? Full ADF approach? Cross country without a moving map or
GPS? Single-engine, night IFR? There are way too many opinions about the
lack of safety of these practices by people who have little or no
experience with them.

I started flying IFR in 1958. I started instructing IFR the next year.

I went with a major airline in early 1964 and continued a lot of light
aircraft flying for the next 12 years.

Prior to 1965, or so, I never flew a light aircraft with an autopilot.
The first really good light aircraft autopilot I used extensively was a
Bendix (or Motorola) M4C in an Aerostar 600.

I mention my air carrier experience because it was an autopilot world at
crusie in my earlier years. The autopilots were not good enough for
climb out or descent (it was easier to hand fly in those phases of
flight). The later generation autoflight systems were excellent for all
phases of flight.

So, my point? When it was a VOR/DME/ILS world it was quite manageable
for a competent pilot to fly a stable light aircraft without an
autopilot. In fact, like the early airline jets the early light
aircraft autopilots were basically wing levelers with some heading
control (sometimes).

But, now we are evolving into a space-based navigation system with the
complexities of nav databases and, in the case of panel mount light
aircraft in particular, difficult (from a total human-factors systems
management standpoint) to input and manage nav data.

During the past 10 years, or so, light aircraft autopilots have improved
greatly. The use of such a current generation autopilot makes the
management of the complex space-based navigation system, especially as
it is implemented in light aircraft, much more manageable and, thus,
much more safe.

In VMC, without the autopilot, the single pilot on an IFR flight plan
using RNAV cannot maintain an adequate traffic watch. In IMC trying to
juggle all the balls is asking for loss of situational awareness.

An autopilot may be on someone's personal list of minimum equipment for
IFR, but that doesn't mean it should be a mandate for all of us.

It should be mandated for single-pilot normal IFR operations in today's
environment. That doesn't mean the pilot should let his hand-flying and
partial panal skills deteriorate. Speaking of partial panel, that did
not apply in jet transport operations and it does not apply to a G-1000
equipped light aircraft.

So, we are in transition in a very fundamental sense.

: It should be mandated for single-pilot normal IFR operations in today's
: environment. That doesn't mean the pilot should let his hand-flying and
: partial panal skills deteriorate. Speaking of partial panel, that did
: not apply in jet transport operations and it does not apply to a G-1000
: equipped light aircraft.

: So, we are in transition in a very fundamental sense.

"Bzzzt!!!" As anyone who flies Part 91 realizes WRT the FAR's, what's safe is
not necessary legal, and what's legal is not necessarily safe. Regulations do not a
safe pilot make.

Is it a good idea to have an autopilot for single-pilot, night IMC in a
single?

Yes.

Should it be *required* for non-commercial operations?

Not just no, but hell no.


... same reason it's legal to depart below takeoff minimums if part 91. It's
not necessarily a good idea, but shouldn't be regulatorily mandated.


-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************