single pilot ifr trip tonight

Try minimizing control inputs to what is necessary to keep your heading in bumpy
air rather than trying to keep the wings absolutely level. It produces an
uncomfortable ride, but the bumps do tend to average out somewhat over time as
long as you are not making big corrections for each bump. I haven't tried the
GPS only thing in really bumpy air. Then again, what is described as moderate
to severe by pilots flying aircraft with lighter wing loadings barely ruffles
the feathers of a loaded Six. It is a great instrument platform!

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

--
--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

I pull mine as part of the run-up on every single flight, IFR or VFR. It is on my
run-up checklist.

Dave Butler wrote:

Said shuttle valve is also a point of failure. You can check it on the ground
with the engine idling. At idle, the manifold will pull more vacuum than the
pump. I can count on the fingers of *no* hands the number of pilots I have ever
seen perform this check routinely.

At risk of beating a dead horse, get the dual-rotor pump from
http://www.aeroadvantage.com instead.

--
--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

Snowbird wrote:


As far as manifold-driven backup vacuum, my issue is: between us,
DH and I have about 1000 hrs. Our collective tally is:
AI failure (new instrument, less than 1 yr old) --- one
DG failue (overhauled instrument, age 4 yrs) --- one
vacuum pump failue (about 700 hrs best guess) --- one


I concur with your failures. In 1100 hrs, I've had
3 DG failures,
1 AI failure
1 Vacuum pump failure (and that was discovered in the runup).

...and...


IIRC part of the installation (and the later AD) is to establish a
chart of power settings for adequate operation in the plane in which
its installed. Your club plane should have this lurking around in the
paperwork, and it should give you a good understanding of when and
to what degree it's likely to be helpful.

The STC requires a placard with power settings measured in a flight test in your airplane at various RPM settings.



--
--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

Snowbird wrote:
[...] if you're messing with a chart or plates or anything else, let
go of the yoke.

I gotta read this one to my (Grumman specialist) CFI he'll
get a good belly laugh too.

FWIW, our AA5B does fine hands-off if the pitch trim is OK, even in
bouncy stuff, using one's feet to keep it vaguely straight.

Once upon a time, in very smooth air (11500' over one of the flat
states), self and copilot went for about 20 minutes thinking that the
autopilot was on when it wasn't; the plane was tracking perfectly.
That's a rather exceptional case, but the four-seat Grummans really
aren't *that* twitchy.

Guy Elden Jr. wrote:
It's not about a comfort level for me... it's about pilot workload. There is
a tremendous amount of work involved in flying heads down in the clouds, so
any device that can help alleviate that load is welcome by me. It may be
legal to fly in instrument conditions with two VORs and an ADF, but is it
really safe if you're the only pilot in the plane, weather is forming all
around you, and you have to hand fly the plane?

What's "safe"? I fly a fair amount of IMC in an aircraft with an old but
rock-solid COM/COM/NAV/ADF stack (plus a panel LORAN that flakes out in
precip and a NAV-11 which I'd file under "mostly adequate"), and it's
within *my* level of acceptable risk, but that's almost completely an
individual call under part 91.

That said, I do this because I've trained extensively with this sort of
setup, and (much like basic attitude flying) navigating with it
eventually became something that I could deal mostly subconsciously, with
with plenty of mental bandwith left over for thinking about planning and
weather and whatever else. I don't particularly think I'm an uberpilot,
though I do think my initial instrument instructors were *excellent*.

I'm also not against automation (I occasionally sneak into a phone booth
only to emerge as a 767 systems instructor), but there's a *lot* to be
said for training, practice, and situational awareness.

Peter,

As I said befo Here in Germany, single pilot IFR is legal only with
an autopilot with ALT hold on board.

Is this true for private flights?


Yes. Commercial single pilot IFR is simply forbidden. Pilatus, maker of
the PC-12, is vehemently trying to change that.

I've said it befo If you're complaining about the FAA and the rules in
the US, you haven't looked at Europe yet.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Snowbird wrote:

IIRC part of the installation (and the later AD) is to establish a
chart of power settings for adequate operation in the plane in which
its installed. Your club plane should have this lurking around in the
paperwork, and it should give you a good understanding of when and
to what degree it's likely to be helpful.

If it's the Precise Flight STC, it had better be placarded on the panel, else
your aircraft is not in compliance with its type certificate.

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

Nathan Young wrote:

Most GPS engines are running faster than the display rate. GPS
engines from 5-10 years ago operated on 1 or 2 sec position updates.
Newer engines are more granular, with 5Hz operation being common.
That means the display data shown is typically derived from the
velocity/heading calculated from the time 1 and 1.2 seconds in the
past.

What units have a 5Hz update? The only one I am aware of is the CNX80. I don't
know of any others better than 1 Hz... oh, maybe you meant 5 Hz intenally, with
a 1 Hz update of the display?

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

Dave Butler wrote:
Nathan Young wrote:

Most GPS engines are running faster than the display rate. GPS
engines from 5-10 years ago operated on 1 or 2 sec position updates.
Newer engines are more granular, with 5Hz operation being common. That
means the display data shown is typically derived from the
velocity/heading calculated from the time 1 and 1.2 seconds in the
past.


What units have a 5Hz update? The only one I am aware of is the CNX80. I
don't know of any others better than 1 Hz... oh, maybe you meant 5 Hz
intenally, with a 1 Hz update of the display?

Oh, never mind. That's what you *said*. Sorry for the noise. Dave

(andrew m. boardman) writes:

What's "safe"? I fly a fair amount of IMC in an aircraft with an
old but rock-solid COM/COM/NAV/ADF stack (plus a panel LORAN that
flakes out in precip and a NAV-11 which I'd file under "mostly
adequate"), and it's within *my* level of acceptable risk, but
that's almost completely an individual call under part 91.

Right. Personally, I think that safety flying in IMC comes mostly
from the ability to prioritize, defer, and negotiate, not from any
extra equipment in the plane.

For example, there is no reason that a complex new routing should
increase your risk of being in an accident with or without an AP or
IFR GPS -- if there is a higher risk, it's because the pilot stops
prioritizing and fixates on the rerouting task. If you have a
tendency to fixate when under stress, some day you are going to get in
over your head no matter how many toys you have on the panel.

If ATC calls when you cannot deal with them, and it's not an
instruction calling for immediate action (i.e. "bravo juliet oscar,
turn right 30 degrees NOW, traffic"), say "standby": during IFR
training my instructor insisted that I always do that when turning,
i.e. in a hold. If ATC gives you a routing that you cannot deal with
all at once, say "request initial vector" and then take your time
working out the routing before resuming own-navigation. If turbulence
is knocking the fillings out of your teeth and bringing you angry
messages from ATC about your assigned altitude, request a block
altitude assignment. These are all things you can do with about 5% of
your attention, leaving the other 95% free to fly the plane (or
monitor the autopilot, if you're using one).

Personally, I fly with a NAVCOM/NAVCOM/DME/ADF stack. I have not yet
had to do most of what I listed in the previous paragraph, but I do
often have to request an initial vector -- not because the rerouting
is too complicated (so far), but because ATC has a tendency to reroute
me direct to navaids that I don't have a hope of receiving yet (and
I'm not willing to cheat with my handheld GPS). That, I think, is the
most credible argument for eventually requiring an IFR GPS in every
IFR plane -- not that pilots will crash and die without one, but that
an IFR GPS can reduce the workload for ATC and congestion on the
frequency for other pilots.

Ironically, the published IFR low-level routes are designed to use
navaids that are close enough together that I should be able to do
own-navigation end-to-end without bothering ATC much -- if the
controllers didn't keep rerouting me two or three stages ahead, they
wouldn't end up having to vector me. I'm sure that most pilots
appreciate the reroutings, though, since they have IFR GPS's and the
reroutings might save them five or ten minutes.


All the best,


David