Backup gyros - which do you trust?

There are several things you can add to help with the identification, In my
plane I have a low vacuum warning light (part of the precise flight backup)
mounted between the AI and DG. The AI is one of the sigmatec ones with a vacuum
flag, so that if vacuum is lost in the instrument but not in the system I still
know about it right away. These warnings cover identification of the more
common cause of loss of the AI. The other failure mode would be failure of the
gyro, in which case I don't believe you get the insidious gradual spin-down like
you do with loss of vacuum. I also fly with the GPS on the HSI page to offer
yet another source of redundancy.

Personally, I think the instrument scan typically taught relies too heavily on
the AI given its relatively low reliability. Unfortunately, the alternative is
a scan that works a bit more like a partial panel scan using the AI as
supporting, not primary. Such a scan is much harder to master and requires
considerable finesse to keep from chasing the needles. It is not one I would
expect to be able to teach someone just learning to fly by instruments.


--
--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

You have three sources of bank information in a typical panel: the attitude
indicator, the turn coordinator, and the heading indicator. If two agree and
the third does not, it is faulty. Add a fourth source and it makes
elimination that much easier.

Bob Gardner

"Steve House" wrote in message
...
I've been reading with interest the several threads where a number of
people
have strongly pointed out the advantages of a backup electric AI to
supplant
a vacum driven main AI. But I'm reminded of the saying "A man with a good
watch always knows what time it is. A man with two watches is never
sure."
So I'm toodling along in IMC with no outside horizon reference and I see
my
two AIs don't agree with each other. How do I determine which to trust?
If
I had a third, I could go with a 2 of 3 voting strategy of course, but
with
only two, what do you do to decide which is operating properly and which
one
has faulted? Obviously I can look for consistency with other
instruments -
does my DG or Turn indicator show I'm turning, does the VSI show a climb
or
descent - but what would be the best strategy given the various ways
vacuum
or electric driven instruments can fail?

Bob Gardner wrote:
You have three sources of bank information in a typical panel: the attitude
indicator, the turn coordinator, and the heading indicator.

Um, isn't this leaving out something fundamental (and pretty
reliable, if difficult to interpret)?

Sydney (Be Expert With Map and Compass)

The presence of two attitude indicators is especially valuable when they
disagree. That disagreement will direct your attention to the needle/ball
and basic flight instruments to help determine which one is correct. With a
single AI you could more easily follow a gyro error without noticing a
difference in the other basic instruments until it was too late.

--

Darrell R. Schmidt

B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/


"Steve House" wrote in message
...
I've been reading with interest the several threads where a number of
people
have strongly pointed out the advantages of a backup electric AI to
supplant
a vacum driven main AI. But I'm reminded of the saying "A man with a good
watch always knows what time it is. A man with two watches is never
sure."
So I'm toodling along in IMC with no outside horizon reference and I see
my
two AIs don't agree with each other. How do I determine which to trust?
If
I had a third, I could go with a 2 of 3 voting strategy of course, but
with
only two, what do you do to decide which is operating properly and which
one
has faulted? Obviously I can look for consistency with other
instruments -
does my DG or Turn indicator show I'm turning, does the VSI show a climb
or
descent - but what would be the best strategy given the various ways
vacuum
or electric driven instruments can fail?

Newer vacuum AIs have warning flags, dual vacuum pumps, and vacuum warning
lights on the annunciator panel. If I had an electric AI and a vacuum AI and
they disagreed markedly, I would be suspicious of the one having warning
lights and flags all over it.

Otherwise, comparing them to the other instruments, as you suggested, is the
best approach. AOPA Safety Foundation just ran some tests on how long it
takes a pilot to recognize that his vacuum system has failed, and how long
it takes pilots to recover from those failures. Many times it took over 90
seconds, which is way too long. Some never did recognize the failure.
However, none of them were convinced that the vacuum instruments were
working and that it was the other instruments that had failed. IIRC somewhat
less than half discovered the problem quickly and took quick action. Only
about 1/4 of them covered the failed instrument.

C J Campbell wrote:
Newer vacuum AIs have warning flags, dual vacuum pumps, and vacuum warning
lights on the annunciator panel. If I had an electric AI and a vacuum AI and
they disagreed markedly, I would be suspicious of the one having warning
lights and flags all over it.

CJ,

How do newer vacuum AIs come with dual vacuum pumps?

We have a "warning flag" on our newer AI. I note that it is really
a low vacuum flag. It doesn't say a thing about how reliably the
instrument itself is operating.

Sydney

"Sydney Hoeltzli" wrote in message
...
| C J Campbell wrote:
| Newer vacuum AIs have warning flags, dual vacuum pumps, and vacuum
warning
| lights on the annunciator panel. If I had an electric AI and a vacuum AI
and
| they disagreed markedly, I would be suspicious of the one having warning
| lights and flags all over it.
|
| CJ,
|
| How do newer vacuum AIs come with dual vacuum pumps?
|

They come with a new airplane attached to them. Not unlike the $350,000
Cessna ball cap I bought.

Sydney Hoeltzli writes:

We have a "warning flag" on our newer AI. I note that it is really
a low vacuum flag. It doesn't say a thing about how reliably the
instrument itself is operating.

Yup, I had one freeze but the vacuum was fine so it didn't complain.

--kyler

C J Campbell wrote:
Newer vacuum AIs have warning flags, dual vacuum pumps, and vacuum warning
lights on the annunciator panel. If I had an electric AI and a vacuum AI and
they disagreed markedly, I would be suspicious of the one having warning
lights and flags all over it.

I just bought a new AI this spring. For an extra $50 or so you can get
the one with the flag. Since I already have the EI volts/amps
instrument that has warning lights for both high and low voltage, but no
warning light for the vacuum pump, I spent a little extra for the flag.
Now I don't need a suction warning lamp.

Ray Andraka wrote:
Personally, I think the instrument scan typically taught relies too
heavily on the AI given its relatively low reliability.
Unfortunately, the alternative is a scan that works a bit more like a
partial panel scan using the AI as supporting, not primary. Such a
scan is much harder to master and requires considerable finesse to
keep from chasing the needles. It is not one I would expect to be
able to teach someone just learning to fly by instruments.

You are probably right. When I did my initial IFR training, my
instructor was very big on partial panel work. As a result, I learned
to not rely on the AI, and I find partial panel approaches (in training,
anyway) almost a non-event.

The downside, is that I suspect I don't use the information the AI gives
me as much as I should. I tend to fly pitch by airspeed, not by the AI.
This probably makes me not as smooth and precise as I might otherwise
be. But I do have a lot of confidence that I can fly an approach on the
TC and ASI alone.