The Instrument you can live without

LWG wrote:
That's why I really like practicing IFR with MS Flight Sim. I set the
instruments to fail randomly. The first few times the AI failed, I did tend
to follow the dead AI as it keeled over. I think it really improves your
scan. It just isn't the same when the CFII slaps a plastic disc over it and
says "You've just lost your AI." A good portion of the lesson was lost
already at that point.

" That is the main flaw with partial panel practice. You know the gyro

has failed. In a real failure, you may well not notice the failure until
it is too late.

I agree. Simulators are a great proficiency tool no doubt. However,
even they don't simulate all that is going on when flying in heavy
weather, at night, with ATC in your ear and a failed alternator. :-)


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:

You have the typical attitude of someone who has read about instrument
flying, but hasn't done any.

I have, but mainly in gliders. Different priorities there and no approaches.

Stefan

On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 11:09:52 -0400, "Mark T. Dame"
wrote:

vincent p. norris wrote:

A couple of years ago,a high-time pilot who, according to reports,
emphasized partial panel work, took off from TEB and soon killed
himself and family in a Bonanza. Apparently a gyro failure.

Have you any words of explanation to offer, or do you know what the
accident report said?

The problem with a gyro failure isn't flying the plane without your gyro
instruments, but recognizing the failure in the first place. I would
guess that most crashes caused by failed gyros were because the pilot
didn't recognize the failure.


Yah, they don't normally fail, they slowly, oh so slowly die and
slowly roll over.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
A failed gyro can be very difficult to detect. I've done it in a
simulator and didn't notice for a several minutes. For people who focus
too much on the AI, it's especially bad because they can end up putting
the plane in an unusual attitude very quickly.


-m

On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 22:48:16 +0200, Stefan
wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote:

That is the main flaw with partial panel practice. You know the gyro
has failed. In a real failure, you may well not notice the failure
until it is too late.

You will know it pretty eimdiately, *if* you are not too lazy to
permanently do the cross checks. Cross check possibility is the reason
why you have all those "useless" instruments like VSI and turn coordinator.

One indication you might get if you fly IFR a lot is getting queasy.
Your body is telling you one thing and your eyes (the AI) are telling
your something else as the AI is dying.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com



Stefan

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

During my IFR instruction my CFII allowed me to see the AI maybe one
out of ten hours. It actually felt weird when he let me see it. I could
take it or leave it for the most part until we get into unusual
attitudes. I'd like to think I could keep my grip long enough to figure
it out partial panel, but I know I can make sense of the situation a
lot faster with an AI.

-cwk.


Hmmm,
I was taught to initially only use the ASI & TC to get to straight & level
from an upset/unusual attitude. Was I taught wrong?

Marty

Matt Whiting wrote:
LWG wrote:

I agree. Simulators are a great proficiency tool no doubt. However,
even they don't simulate all that is going on when flying in heavy
weather, at night, with ATC in your ear and a failed alternator. :-)

If you can find a local flight school with a decent simulator (not a PC
with a joystick, but a real simulated cockpit), it can get pretty
realistic. It also allows your instructor to fail instruments at a
critical phase of flight rather than just randomly. It was real
eye-opener for me. It's one thing for someone to tell you what the
instrument will do when if fails. It's a whole different thing to
actually see it and experience it. Just like flying IMC for the first
time, I would wouldn't want my first experience with a failed instrument
to be real. As I mentioned earlier, the difficult part of handling the
problem is recognizing that there is a problem.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"Software Independent: Won't work with any software."

Marty wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

During my IFR instruction my CFII allowed me to see the AI maybe one
out of ten hours. It actually felt weird when he let me see it. I could
take it or leave it for the most part until we get into unusual
attitudes. I'd like to think I could keep my grip long enough to figure
it out partial panel, but I know I can make sense of the situation a
lot faster with an AI.

-cwk.



Hmmm,
I was taught to initially only use the ASI & TC to get to straight & level
from an upset/unusual attitude. Was I taught wrong?

I'd say yes. I was taught to use all available information. AI first
to get the right attitude and then cross check ASI, TC, VSI, etc., to be
sure that the AI wasn't lying. Keep in mind that although usually quite
reliable, the TC isn't failure proof nor is the ASI! Actually, the club
Arrow that I now fly just had the TC fail and we're awaiting a new one.
I'd say if you were taught to do anything important based on only one
set of data, when other sets are available, then you were taught wrong.


Matt

A couple of years ago,a high-time pilot who, according to reports,
emphasized partial panel work, took off from TEB and soon killed
himself and family in a Bonanza. Apparently a gyro failure.

The only Bonanza accident at TEB that I remember in the last 5 years or so
involved a doctor who was taking proscribed medication and had been for some
time. After the failure, he couldn't seem to follow ATC's instructions -- just
kept repeating that he was in trouble. Wound up putting it into an urban area
and killing a few people on the ground.

If that's the one you're thinking of.....

Yes, that's the one. Is there an accident report on the net?

vince norris

vincent p. norris wrote:

Yes, that's the one. Is there an accident report on the net?

I'm sure there is, but I don't know where. I saw reports in the local Star
Ledger and (of course) here.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

I'd like to hear from a current or recent USAF UPT or lead-in T-38 IP.

What are the redundant display systems in this airplane and what is
taught as anticipated failure modes?

I've long believed that simply having some vacuum and some electric
instruments is not enough. You need dual redundant vacuum with
automatic switchover and redundant electrics.