The one minute turn that can save your life

Question:

As part of the Private Pilot training there is a minimum of 3 hours of
hood/instrument training required.

One of the things which seems to be always taught (it was the way I was
taught and the way I am instructing) is the one minute standard rate turn
which is to be used by a Private Pilot if he/she gets theirselves into some
IMC, inadvertently.

No matter who I ask, I get the same technique (which is the way I was
trained during my PPL training); standard rate turn, one minute (3 degrees
per second times 60 equals 180 degrees). Aside from the scenario where
there is a vacuum system failure (where you lose the DG, for example), what
is so wrong with teaching them to look at the bottom of the heading
indicator and standard rate turn to that value? The answers I get when I
ask this question, vary from, 'I was just taught to use time', 'the pilot is
likely to forget the 180 degree heading they were supposed to roll out on',
etc...

I teach, by timing, just as I was taught, but still haven't got a compelling
answer as to why not have them look at the 'bottom' of the DG and turn to
that heading (standard rate)? For those I've spoken to that have said,
"they are more likely to forget the heading than mess up the time", I can
see that they could just as easily lose track of the time as they could the
clock.

Anyone have any 'whys' on this one?

--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil E. Chapman
CFI-A, CP-ASEL-IA

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
...
Question:

As part of the Private Pilot training there is a minimum of 3 hours of
hood/instrument training required.

One of the things which seems to be always taught (it was the way I was
taught and the way I am instructing) is the one minute standard rate turn
which is to be used by a Private Pilot if he/she gets theirselves into
some IMC, inadvertently.

No matter who I ask, I get the same technique (which is the way I was
trained during my PPL training); standard rate turn, one minute (3 degrees
per second times 60 equals 180 degrees). Aside from the scenario where
there is a vacuum system failure (where you lose the DG, for example),
what is so wrong with teaching them to look at the bottom of the heading
indicator and standard rate turn to that value? The answers I get when I
ask this question, vary from, 'I was just taught to use time', 'the pilot
is likely to forget the 180 degree heading they were supposed to roll out
on', etc...

I teach, by timing, just as I was taught, but still haven't got a
compelling answer as to why not have them look at the 'bottom' of the DG
and turn to that heading (standard rate)? For those I've spoken to that
have said, "they are more likely to forget the heading than mess up the
time", I can see that they could just as easily lose track of the time as
they could the clock.


This may be a hold over to the old days when a common VFR panel was a turn
and bank and a mag compass. In this case using the compass while turning is
not good because of the known error caused by being banked.

Danny Deger

On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 12:43:54 -0600, "Danny Deger"
wrote:


This may be a hold over to the old days when a common VFR panel was a turn
and bank and a mag compass. In this case using the compass while turning is
not good because of the known error caused by being banked.

+1
Needle, ball, and airspeed.

Don

Danny Deger wrote:

This may be a hold over to the old days when a common VFR panel was a turn
and bank and a mag compass. In this case using the compass while turning is
not good because of the known error caused by being banked.

DG's are not required for VFR flight.

Even the partial panel IFR training typically use the needle to make
timed turns to heading. Once you settle down you can verify with
the mag compass you're on the heading you want.

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 19:03:23 -0500, Ron Natalie
wrote:
Even the partial panel IFR training typically use the needle to make
timed turns to heading. Once you settle down you can verify with
the mag compass you're on the heading you want.

When I learned IFR the instructor kept the AH covered until the check
ride. I still prefer the TC to the AH but I notice that the new planes
with the glass panels have a back up AH but no TC.

I'm not a CFII but am ASEL-IA. I found super-basic attitude flying
pretty easy after only during those 3 hours with my CFI. So from my
perspective, I don't know why either. Whatever is easiest to fix the
VFR into IMC scenario. The only thing I'd think of is the VFR pilot
might sweat the small stuff by being off 5 degrees on the heading. The
one thing that many CFII don't teach is that the pilot should be able to
do a standard rate turn using the AI only. It won't be a perfect
standard rate turn but we're not looking for perfection, just something
to save their hides. Most students are flying 152 / 172 to Warrior type
airplanes which means ~15 degree bank at cruis speed. Use the AI to
keep a level pitch attitude and maintain altitude. Basically all the
student would have to do is look at the AI and the DG rather than having
to fly effectively partial panel. From everything that I've read, heard
, taught and practice, IFR flying is 80% plus looking at the AI with
quick glances for confirmation to the other instruments. Why do it
differently for VFR students?

Gerald

"G. Sylvester" wrote in message


From
everything that I've read, heard , taught and practice, IFR flying is
80% plus looking at the AI with quick glances for confirmation to the
other instruments. Why do it differently for VFR students?

Maybe I'm an anomaly, but I don't use the AI nearly that much in my IMC
flying. Still, your point about 12-15 degrees bank for standard rate is a
good rule of thumb.

I think teaching the standard rate turn helps prevent overbanking and
spatial disorientation in a pilot who may not be accustomed to gray-filled
windshields. Using the DG in addition to this helps the student/pilot get
pointed in the right direction, but using relatively gentle turns at
standard rate to get to that heading may prevent entry to a graveyard
spiral.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________

John T wrote:
"G. Sylvester" wrote in message

From
everything that I've read, heard , taught and practice, IFR flying is
80% plus looking at the AI with quick glances for confirmation to the
other instruments. Why do it differently for VFR students?
Maybe I'm an anomaly, but I don't use the AI nearly that much in my IMC
flying.

Again, I'm no authority but there is a reason why the AI is twice as
large as the other instruments in very high performance (King Air on up)
airplanes. Basically you've been flying partial panel. On MS Flight
sim, do approaches with 20G50 at a right angle, heavy rain, 100 foot
ceilings, 1/4 mile vis staring at the AI. Literally staring at the AI.
They are almost easy. You notice 1/4 line thickness deviations
quicker than the VSI, CDI or anything. It's literally instantaneous.
Then do it with everything but the AI and DG covered. Set the power,
fly the AI, DG and CDI. Cake.

Gerald

As a fairly new VFR pilot, I just thought I'd offer my perspective on
the 180 turn in IMC.

I am used to looking at the Attitude Indicator in VFR flight, and I
found it pretty easy to control the aircraft under the hood and in
actual IMC when flying with an instructor, including doing turns.

I am used to looking at the DG too.

I feel confident that, despite the additional stress and
disorientation of an actual IMC encounter, I could use these two
instruments to turn the plane 180, in control. I would know what
heading I was flying before, and I would set the 'bug' (found on most
DGs I have seen) to the new heading, just to make sure.

On the other hand, let's look at two instruments I hardly use at all.
I am not used to doing standard rate turns using the turn indicator,
nor to timing my turns using the clock. I would be concerned, if using
this method in an actual IMC encounter, that it would be harder to
focus on the AI as much. And focusing on the AI is what enables you to
keep control of the aircraft.

So I know what I will do if I get myself into that situation.

Tom

Of course, given the FAA's current thinking, the whole thing may be moot...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------

From AC 91-75

b. Replacing the rate-of-turn indicator will mean losing an easy reference
for standard rate turns. However, in today's air traffic control system,
there is little need for precisely measured standard rate turns or timed
turns based on standard rate. Maintaining a given bank angle on the attitude
indicator for a given speed will result in a standard rate turn. Pilots
using this AC to substitute an attitude indicator for their rate-of-turn
indicator are encouraged to know the bank angle needed for a standard rate
turn.

NOTE: The FAA preamble language for the 1970 amendment to section 91.33,
re-codified to section 91.205, states: "[T]he FAA believes, and all other
commenters apparently agree . the rate-of-turn indicator is no longer as
useful as an instrument which gives both horizontal and vertical attitude
information."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------

So you may soon be seeing students who have never flown a turn
coordinator...