Question for Fellow CFII's regarding Partial Panel Training

Out of curiousity, do any of you conduct partial panel training in actual
instrument conditions? When I did my training, my instructor elected not to
cover instruments in the soup. Do you do this? Why or why not?

Brad Z.

Out of curiousity, do any of you conduct partial panel training in
actual instrument conditions?

I have, but in pretty benign conditions. In other words, ceilings
high enough that I could recover in visual conditions if we fell out
of the clouds. Even did unusual attitudes.

I'm sure I would grow more adventuresome if I had more opportunities
for this, but when good IMC conditions come about, I think it's more
beneficial to the student to shoot full panel approaches. Plus, I'm
not sure how ATC would appreciate partial panel sloppiness.

"Brad Z" wrote:
Out of curiousity, do any of you conduct partial panel training in actual
instrument conditions? When I did my training, my instructor elected not to
cover instruments in the soup. Do you do this? Why or why not?

I think it's a bad idea. It's one thing to practice partial-panel
unusual attitude recoveries, it's another thing to trust your life to
being able to do one for real in IMC (especially considering that in
most planes, the person sitting in the right seat can barely see the TC).

Even if you recovered fine, you'd probably still have a clearance bust
to explain away.

What would you do if your TC died on you? Without the DG and AI for
cross-check, by the time you figured out something was wrong, it could
well be too late to recover.

"Brad Z" wrote in message
news:ZBbsc.103156$iF6.9528597@attbi_s02...

Out of curiousity, do any of you conduct partial panel training in actual
instrument conditions? When I did my training, my instructor elected not
to
cover instruments in the soup. Do you do this? Why or why not?

Never.... The risk of a true unusual attitude in IMC would be too high. In
an actual partial panel situation I would want to get no-gyro vectors to VFR
or to a landing ASAP.

I think there is even a reasonable argument that creating a partial panel
situation in actual IMC might even be considered careless and reckless if
this should come to the attention of the local FSDO.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

I do use this practice in benign IMC conditions. Because the compass is a
very important instrument under these conditions, doing partial panel in
IMC allows you to use the compass in a much more realistic manner. Under
the hood it is almost impossible to use the compass without seeing the
outside. However, a real vaccuum failure in IMC is an emergency, so one
must exercise good judgement in simulating this emergency. I don't do
this if it is bumpy in the clouds. Also, I inform ATC and request a block
altitude and a clearance to do some maneuvering. That way even if I get
off course or lose altitude no one is going to get upset.




Roy Smith wrote in
:

"Brad Z" wrote:
Out of curiousity, do any of you conduct partial panel training in
actual instrument conditions? When I did my training, my instructor
elected not to cover instruments in the soup. Do you do this? Why
or why not?

I think it's a bad idea. It's one thing to practice partial-panel
unusual attitude recoveries, it's another thing to trust your life to
being able to do one for real in IMC (especially considering that in
most planes, the person sitting in the right seat can barely see the
TC).

Even if you recovered fine, you'd probably still have a clearance bust
to explain away.

What would you do if your TC died on you? Without the DG and AI for
cross-check, by the time you figured out something was wrong, it could
well be too late to recover.

"Brad Z" wrote in message
news:ZBbsc.103156$iF6.9528597@attbi_s02...
Out of curiousity, do any of you conduct partial panel training in actual
instrument conditions? When I did my training, my instructor elected not
to
cover instruments in the soup. Do you do this? Why or why not?

No. It is too easy to turn a simulated emergency into a real one.

With the proliferation of electronic panels out there that are
integrated, and redundant (dual installations) how are you expected to
simulate such a thing? The rate of turn indication is integrated with
the AH/attitude display.

Is this a case of having to use a different airplane to learn the skills
and test in this different plane? Pertinent question as I am helping
build an aircraft that will start off with the Dynon for its first
instrument, then have a Grand Rapids Technologies for a PFD and the
Dynon for an independant backup. Neither has provisions for disabling
portions of the display data.

Dave

Brad Z wrote:

Out of curiousity, do any of you conduct partial panel training in actual
instrument conditions? When I did my training, my instructor elected not to
cover instruments in the soup. Do you do this? Why or why not?

Brad Z.

Good question. The new Instrument rating PTS released last month address
this very issue.

"Dave S" wrote in message
nk.net...
With the proliferation of electronic panels out there that are
integrated, and redundant (dual installations) how are you expected to
simulate such a thing? The rate of turn indication is integrated with
the AH/attitude display.

Is this a case of having to use a different airplane to learn the skills
and test in this different plane? Pertinent question as I am helping
build an aircraft that will start off with the Dynon for its first
instrument, then have a Grand Rapids Technologies for a PFD and the
Dynon for an independant backup. Neither has provisions for disabling
portions of the display data.

Dave

Brad Z wrote:

Out of curiousity, do any of you conduct partial panel training in
actual
instrument conditions? When I did my training, my instructor elected
not to
cover instruments in the soup. Do you do this? Why or why not?

Brad Z.

Good question. The new Instrument rating PTS released last month address
this very issue.


What does it say about it?

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

On 24 May 2004 05:11:37 GMT, (Teacherjh) wrote:


Good question. The new Instrument rating PTS released last month address
this very issue.


What does it say about it?

Jose


"Modern technology has introduced into aviation a new method of displaying
flight instruments, such as Electronic Flight Instrument Systems,
Integrated Flight Deck displays, and others. For the purpose of the
practical test standards, any flight instrument display that utilizes LCD
or picture tube like displays will be referred to as “Electronic Flight
Instrument Display.” Aircraft equipped with this technology may or may not
have separate backup flight instruments installed. The abnormal or
emergency procedure for loss of the electronic flight instrument display
appropriate to the aircraft will be evaluated in the Loss of Primary
Instruments TASK. The loss of the primary electronic flight instrument
display must be tailored to failures that would normally be encountered in
the aircraft. If the aircraft is capable, total failure of the electronic
flight instrument display, or a supporting component, with access only to
the standby flight instruments or backup display shall be evaluated".


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)