Solid state horizons

Stefan wrote:
As far as I know cloud flying is allowed in England, Sweden, Switzerland and
Poland.

Add Danmark and Germany. There may be still others.

Add Austria.

Cheers
-Gerhard
--
Gerhard Wesp o o Tel.: +41 (0) 43 5347636
Bachtobelstrasse 56 | http://www.cosy.sbg.ac.at/~gwesp/
CH-8045 Zuerich \_/ See homepage for email address!

I just ordered the TruTrak turn and bank from
http://www.oxaero.com/
Under $450 with shipping.

I've flown with the PCflightsystems e-gyro and also the panel page on the
Garmin 196, both will keep you right side up assuming you are comfortable
flying partial panel IMC. Since I don't cloud fly, I figured I'd just use
the 196 for the occasional inadvertent foray into IMC and so sold the e-gyro
to a friend. That was before the last fatal accident near Minden. That one
made me reconsider flying with just the Garmin and no gyros at all.

Anyone experienced with the TruTrak? (now that I've ordered it :c)

bumper



"Michael Clarke" wrote in
message ...
I agree with the comments from Chris below, and I am
also intending to upgrade from an eGYRO-PCEFIS to an
eGYRO-3 for the same reasons. If anyone is interested
in making me a sensible offer for the eGYRO-PCEFIS
plus send an e:mail. It includes the original leads
to contect to and power an Ipaq 5XXX and a Garmen Pilot
III (but it only requires the GPS if you want to use
it for navigation as well).

Further information on:

http://www.pcflightsystems.com/image...ODUCTS2003.pdf

Mike Clarke


At 01:30 20 February 2005, wrote:
I have used PPCEFIS and found it responds sufficiently
quickly and as
accurate as it needs to be for gliding purposes in
IMC. It has a
display on a PDA (an iPAQ in my case). The main disadvantage
if you
have other gliding software which also runs on the
PDA (I didn't at the
time), I think it has to be shut down before you can
get the EFIS
running. EFIS does, however, show GPS data as well
as the horizon, if
fed with the GPS lead, so you don't lose GPS navigation
while using it.
It has a HITS (Highway In The Sky) function too, which
I found amusing
to some extent, but not very useful.

The only reliability problem I had was due to my poor
installation -
the iPAQ lead was in a place where I could accidentally
kick it, which
damaged the connection and lost the attitude data.

This year I plan to be using eGYRO which I have not
yet tried. It is a
separate instrument with its own display, horizon/attitude
only, has
nothing to do with GPS, and leaves the PDA (if you
have one) to display
whatever you want on it at the same time.

Both EFIS and eGYRO come with strong warnings not to
use them as the
sole or main instrument for flying in IMC. I have
a conventional turn
and slip too.

The reason I wanted either of these was for low current
draw combined
with always-on capability. I was able to run a Garmin
89 GPS, PPCEFIS
and the iPAQ all from one battery with about 480 ma
total current, so
could use them all the time from a 7AH battery, and
the EFIS was always
ready for use. I have no experience of suddenly going
into cloud with
an electromechanical artificial horizon and having
to wait for it to
get erected - which I have heard requires flying straight
and level for
a while - and did not wish to have to try that!

I would be interested in hearing the experience of
anyone else.

Chris N.

Bumper, what is the significance of eGYRO or whatever in the context of
the Minden accident?

Chris N.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Bumper, what is the significance of eGYRO or whatever in the context of
the Minden accident?

Chris N.


Sorry, I didn't mean to infer there was a direct connection. The glider that
crashed at Minden had no gyros of any sort, and no installed GPS or data
logger. The pilot did have a portable GPS, but it was not mounted. The pilot
told me he turned it on as needed, so I don't know if it was in the aircraft
or in use at the time of the accident (it was not a Garmin 196, BTW).

Some time prior to this accident, I had been using both an e-gyro (the small
portable one with a row of LEDs) in my glider along with the 196. I had
tested both against the AI in my Mooney and was satisfied they performed
equally well, almost as good as the AI. Easy to return to wings level with
either, though neither provided good pitch info. Pitch isn't all that
important to me (the e-gyro does have pitch indication, but it's insensitive
compared to vario, airspeed, or even altimeter). My understanding is that
when e-gyro's roll is optimized by the factory for glider use, pitch
sensitivity suffers. Anyway, I figured I didn't need both so sold the
e-gyro. After the tragic accident, I reevaluated that decision and decided
I'll be flying with redundant "gyro" systems.

all the best,

bumper

Can a non IFR pilot successfully use this instrument to fly level in a
cloud?

Ramy

"bumper" wrote in message
...
I just ordered the TruTrak turn and bank from
http://www.oxaero.com/
Under $450 with shipping.

I've flown with the PCflightsystems e-gyro and also the panel page on the
Garmin 196, both will keep you right side up assuming you are comfortable
flying partial panel IMC. Since I don't cloud fly, I figured I'd just use
the 196 for the occasional inadvertent foray into IMC and so sold the
e-gyro to a friend. That was before the last fatal accident near Minden.
That one made me reconsider flying with just the Garmin and no gyros at
all.

Anyone experienced with the TruTrak? (now that I've ordered it :c)

bumper



"Michael Clarke" wrote in
message ...
I agree with the comments from Chris below, and I am
also intending to upgrade from an eGYRO-PCEFIS to an
eGYRO-3 for the same reasons. If anyone is interested
in making me a sensible offer for the eGYRO-PCEFIS
plus send an e:mail. It includes the original leads
to contect to and power an Ipaq 5XXX and a Garmen Pilot
III (but it only requires the GPS if you want to use
it for navigation as well).

Further information on:

http://www.pcflightsystems.com/image...ODUCTS2003.pdf

Mike Clarke


At 01:30 20 February 2005, wrote:
I have used PPCEFIS and found it responds sufficiently
quickly and as
accurate as it needs to be for gliding purposes in
IMC. It has a
display on a PDA (an iPAQ in my case). The main disadvantage
if you
have other gliding software which also runs on the
PDA (I didn't at the
time), I think it has to be shut down before you can
get the EFIS
running. EFIS does, however, show GPS data as well
as the horizon, if
fed with the GPS lead, so you don't lose GPS navigation
while using it.
It has a HITS (Highway In The Sky) function too, which
I found amusing
to some extent, but not very useful.

The only reliability problem I had was due to my poor
installation -
the iPAQ lead was in a place where I could accidentally
kick it, which
damaged the connection and lost the attitude data.

This year I plan to be using eGYRO which I have not
yet tried. It is a
separate instrument with its own display, horizon/attitude
only, has
nothing to do with GPS, and leaves the PDA (if you
have one) to display
whatever you want on it at the same time.

Both EFIS and eGYRO come with strong warnings not to
use them as the
sole or main instrument for flying in IMC. I have
a conventional turn
and slip too.

The reason I wanted either of these was for low current
draw combined
with always-on capability. I was able to run a Garmin
89 GPS, PPCEFIS
and the iPAQ all from one battery with about 480 ma
total current, so
could use them all the time from a 7AH battery, and
the EFIS was always
ready for use. I have no experience of suddenly going
into cloud with
an electromechanical artificial horizon and having
to wait for it to
get erected - which I have heard requires flying straight
and level for
a while - and did not wish to have to try that!

I would be interested in hearing the experience of
anyone else.

Chris N.

Theoretically yes but would you want to try without training?

Can a non IFR pilot successfully use this instrument to fly level in a
cloud?

Ramy

"Ramy Yanetz" wrote in message
...
Can a non IFR pilot successfully use this instrument to fly level in a
cloud?

Ramy



Ramy,

Maybe. But no way I'd recommend trying it.

Though not current, I have an instrument rated so am aware how easy it is to
get vertigo even with a full IFR panel. It would be very difficult indeed to
fly turbulent IMC with only a needle and ball. A glider makes a nice
instrument platform in smooth air, being relatively stable in roll, pitch is
easy enough to control with airspeed. Throw in some ice or turbulence and
things get more difficult.

That said, no matter how experienced, if a pilot gets in IMC with no horizon
reference at all, benign spirals or spins out the bottom notwithstanding, I
think a pleasant outcome could not be counted on. If a pilot wants to fly in
conditions were inadvertent IMC may occur, I'd suggest first renting a
Cezzna and getting some under hood time. Be sure to include unusual attitude
recovery with partial panel (g).

all the best,

bumper

I've received and given IFR training using only a turn and bank,
inclinometer, and airspeed indicator (needle, ball, and airspeed).
It seems to take quite a bit of training, and then practice
and currency, to do turns successfully even in smooth air.

I've also done it in bumpy air. With a turn-coordinator (which
also has a small amount of roll information) it is near impossible.
With the turn and bank indicator, it is very, very challenging.
I personally would not willingly fly extended zero visibility
in turbulence using just needle, ball and airspeed in a glider
without good terminal velocity limiting controls/characteristics.

I have watched very experienced, but non-current, pilots
end up in high speed spirals while training this. I myself have
popped out of the bottom of turbulent cloud in a spiral in
(carefully selected) draggy gliders and airplanes.

In article ,
Charles Yeates wrote:

Theoretically yes but would you want to try without training?

Can a non IFR pilot successfully use this instrument to fly level in a
cloud?

Ramy




--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:42221b7e$1@darkstar...
I've received and given IFR training using only a turn and bank,
inclinometer, and airspeed indicator (needle, ball, and airspeed).
It seems to take quite a bit of training, and then practice
and currency, to do turns successfully even in smooth air.

I've also done it in bumpy air. With a turn-coordinator (which
also has a small amount of roll information) it is near impossible.
With the turn and bank indicator, it is very, very challenging.
I personally would not willingly fly extended zero visibility
in turbulence using just needle, ball and airspeed in a glider
without good terminal velocity limiting controls/characteristics.

I have watched very experienced, but non-current, pilots
end up in high speed spirals while training this. I myself have
popped out of the bottom of turbulent cloud in a spiral in
(carefully selected) draggy gliders and airplanes.


Mark, I respect your experience but I've done a lot of needle/ball/airspeed
partial panel work and it seems to me once you get the hang of it, it works
fine - provided it's a real turn and bank and not one of those damned "turn
coordinators".

When I was flying my airplane around the country every month, I did a lot of
single pilot IFR. To make sure I was up to the task, I scheduled an
instrument check ride every 6 months even though I easily had the regulatory
minimum 6 "wet" hours and 6 approaches. You can always learn something new.

I used several CFII's to get a mix of opinions. Even so, they all got bored
flying with me so we started doing the whole check ride partial panel -
holds, approaches, departures, everything. I could shoot an ILS to a 200
ceiling and 1/2 mile visibility anytime.

After a while, I noticed that I was using needle/ball/airspeed for primary
attitude data and the attitude ball as a secondary source. That was a good
thing since I suffered two attitude indicator failures and one vacuum pump
failure under IMC. The NB&A (plus clock and wet compass) were always there
and dead accurate.

Bill Daniels

In article ,
Bill Daniels wrote:

Mark, I respect your experience but I've done a lot of needle/ball/airspeed
partial panel work and it seems to me once you get the hang of it, it works
fine - provided it's a real turn and bank and not one of those damned "turn
coordinators".

Yes, TCs are not good...


When I was flying my airplane around the country every month, I did a lot of
single pilot IFR. To make sure I was up to the task, I scheduled an
instrument check ride every 6 months even though I easily had the regulatory
minimum 6 "wet" hours and 6 approaches. You can always learn something new.

Yep, good idea, especially if you do a lot of night flying.


I used several CFII's to get a mix of opinions. Even so, they all got bored
flying with me so we started doing the whole check ride partial panel -
holds, approaches, departures, everything. I could shoot an ILS to a 200
ceiling and 1/2 mile visibility anytime.

Into a microburst? :P In smooth air and even mild or perhaps
medium turbulence yes. On the coast here, ILS minimums almost always mean
stable air. From what my airline buddies tell me, what really
gets their attention is when the vis is 1/2 mile or less from
heavy rain or snow. Yikes! One 757/767 captain even told me about
an ILS into 0/0 and a microburst. ACCKKKK!


After a while, I noticed that I was using needle/ball/airspeed for primary
attitude data and the attitude ball as a secondary source. That was a good
thing since I suffered two attitude indicator failures and one vacuum pump
failure under IMC. The NB&A (plus clock and wet compass) were always there
and dead accurate.

Yep. I had a night IMC vaccuum failure, but fortunately it was
in mostly smooth air. And I had quite recent partial panel
training.

Bill Daniels

I think I agree with you that partial panel (NB&A) can be done safely
with training in some conditions. Smooth air, or mild and even
perhaps moderate turbulence (with practice) one can fly up into
a cloud and "top" a thermal. And there are places where the "G"
airspace allows pilots to legally practice this. In a medium performance
glider, if one only goes a few hundred feet up into the clouds,
popping out the bottom in a spiral is unlikely to exceed Vne.

On the other hand, I would be quite concerned if I was closed
out while on top of a wave. There was a 2-32 that crashed
with 2 pax under circumstances sounding like this.
Oct 10, 1997 out of Warner Springs. I'd sure love to hear what the
"ocean/atmosphere scientist glider pilot" saw in person that day.
Anybody know who that is?

I don't think the
pilot had a T&B, but I'm honestly not sure it would have made any
difference. IFR in rotor partial panel is a whole different animal.
I was in moderate to severe turbulence at night south of tahoe
IFR once, and it took every ounce of energy to keep the thing upright
(while losing 3000 feet at full power) with the full panel.
Partial panel I think I would have been Mr. Splatt.

Anectdotally I heard that the ATP (maybe Gordon Boettger?)
who did a long downwind wave flight
spent 20 minutes in IMC during the flight, with only NB&A (!!!!)
I sure hope this was all in the smooth wave. The idea of
screwing it up and fighting rotor to stay below Vne is just
bloodcurdling.

I distinctly recall two things I haven't been able to make my body do
while flying. I can't convince my body to fly under wires, and I can't
get it to spin through a cloud deck. I talked to an experienced
acro pilot who spun through a 500 ft thick cloud layer once
intentionally, and he said it was the hardest acro he ever did.
Personally, my hands and feet just won't obey my commands
to try this myself.

I thought maybe if I was caught above a wave that just putting it
in a spin would get me safely through (assuming that velocity
limiting dive brakes or simply flying away from the undercast was
an option). But I know my body just won't do it. How about
bailing out, falling through rotor, and opening low? Well,
Kempton Izuno wrote that being dragged at 25 knots in the wind on
touchdown would probably be lethal.

So what do you do? Maybe eject the canopy and hope that plus the
dive brakes keeps you below Vne?

I don't know. And so far I haven't done 1000km wave flying in the Sierras
in an unpowered glider, so this is all armchair at this point.
I do know that the idea of flying NB&A IMC through turbulent undercast
rotor in a high-performance glider would, at my level of skill,
seem practically suicidal. The pilots who do this have both more skill
and bigger cahones than I do...
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd