If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
The interesting question is whether an examiner would insist on setting
up a situation, however improbable, that would require the student to do partial panel flying without the GPS. What do you mean "improbable"? The student gets his rating in a Cirrus, rents a 172 on vacation, it has no GPS, and it loses vacuum. Jose -- Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Michael,
I think you need to brush up on your Garmin GPS's. In the Cirrus, I believe, the Garmins drive the Avidyne display. One of the navigation pages on the Garmin displays a CDI that scales properly to approach sensitivity. That is much more accurate than following the magenta line for a backup approach. Ron "Michael" wrote in message Well, that's a defeatist attitude. I would like to think that I would come up with some method they could handle. Just turning until the little picture of the airplane is pointing in the same direction as the purple line might just be a reasonable plan with today's cockpits. In a glass cockpit Cirrus (at least the one I flew) it is the only plan. A PFD failure leaves you with ASI, electric AI, Altimeter - and two Garmin 430's without CDI's (the only CDI is built into the HSI presentation on the PFD). The only approach you can shoot after PFD failure is a GPS, and you can shoot it ONLY by turning until the little picture of the airplane is pointing in the same direction as the purple line. I suppose you could use a compass, but I'm not sure what the benefit would be. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
I think you need to brush up on your Garmin GPS's. In the Cirrus, I
believe, the Garmins drive the Avidyne display. Which is the PFD. The guidance in the latest revision of the PTS calls for a non-precision approach to be performed without the PFD if the aircraft is capable, and this one is. One of the navigation pages on the Garmin displays a CDI that scales properly to approach sensitivity. Sure - but it still only works for the GPS, not the VOR/LOC. You're still limited to GPS approaches only. That is much more accurate than following the magenta line for a backup approach. This is not correct for three reasons. First, the accuracy of the data is not affected by the presentation. It is a function of satellite geometry and the underlying algorithms. You're talking about precision, or resolution. Second, you can zoom the map to a view of only a few hundred feet, and if you so choose, you can configure the 430 to auto zoom as you get closer. Your effective precision in this case is about 25 feet, which is better than you can do with the CDI. This is better than the 430 can consistently do. In other words, you have accessible to you a display with a level of precision not justified by the underlying accuracy. And finally, using the CDI only gives you information about your position relative to the FAC. This is inherently wrongheaded. VOR/LOC work that way because that's all the information you have, but the GPS also has track information. The map display presents the same position information as the CDI, with the same accuracy and any practically usable precision, and it also presents the track information graphically, such that the pilot can almost immediately see whether he is converging with the FAC, diverging from it, or paralelling it - without having to estimate this by monitoring the movement of the CDI over time. This will allow the pilot to more consistently track the course. Thus, while I will grant you that there is indeeed a plan other than watching the little airplane and its position and direction relative to the courseline, it's a clearly inferior plan since it will yield inferior results while requiring all the same equipment. Michael |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
What do you mean "improbable"? The student gets his rating in a Cirrus,
rents a 172 on vacation, it has no GPS, and it loses vacuum. Jose That's no excuse for an examiner to create his own personal PTS. I don't know that's creating "his own personal PTS". The examiner is supposed to show that the applicant is safe for the flying he or she is licensed to do. Well, yes, the resulting pilot should also have the sense to not fly aircraft he is ill equipped to handle should failure-prone components fail, but this can be overextended the other way to not require licensing at all. What is your opinion of "just learn the answers" to the written test, and that being sufficent for the oral? IN all cases judgment is involved. Jose -- Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
The applicant does not get to tell the examiner how he would like to
deviate from the standards. Likewise, the examiner has no basis for rejecting an applicant because he does not meet the subjective personal standards of the examiner. Using the BFR guide as an example (it's what I have in my hand) there is a "ground" requirement. One can deliver, by rote, the exact answers to questions on the ground reqirement, and do so with no understanding whatsoever of what you are saying. Should an applicant be failed for "failing to show understanding..." if he does in fact give the right answers? Would probing further be "coming up with your own BFR"? There is a -- Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
(continued...)
There is an air portion too, and although a BFR is not the same as getting a new rating, the principle is the same. One must =safely= demonstrate flying more or less within those standards for a successful BFR. (I say "more or less" because the BFR book I have specifies that the standards are not mandatory). I would posit that the examiner =is= (subject to review by another examiner if there is a dispute) not only empowered, but required to make sure that the applicant has the requisite (muscular) understanding, and isn't "flying by rote". Jose -- Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
If you grounded everybody who flies by rote, he skies would grow
strangely silent. I meant "that can fly =only= by rote". Butr thanks for the chuckle. (What is "muscular understanding", by the way?) "muscular understanding" is my (coined) analog opposed to rote mecahnics. It is important to fly (and understand flying) in such a way that when circumstances turn less than ideal, they don't turn disastrous. Granted we train for this so that the proper responses come by rote in a way, but it is important to have these responses in reserve. Jose -- Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael" wrote in message
oups.com... Some students just don't get math. For them, the mental math required to figure out how many seconds the turn needs to be is too much to do while flying under the hood. For others, the jumping around, lead, and lag of the compass is too difficult to deal with - they prefer to time the turn, the check the compass only in level flight. For some reason, despite two 'A' levels in maths, I have brain failure with my three times table when trying to figure out timed turns. So long as I take a few seconds to double-check your multiplication, though, and I sanity check it (e.g. if you're turning 120 degrees it should take less than a minute, not more) it's not a problem. I personally belong to the latter camp. I am a strong believer in only looking at the compass when I know it will be accurate, and using time for turns when the heading gyro is not available. Seconded. The two aircraft I spent most of my learning hours in had compasses that were pretty grim (mainly around North and South, of course) unless you were flying absolutely straight, which made even checking the DI a bit of a chore. There wasn't really an alternative to a timed turn if you wanted to end up pointing even vaguely the right way. D. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"David Cartwright" wrote in message ... "Michael" wrote in message oups.com... Some students just don't get math. For them, the mental math required to figure out how many seconds the turn needs to be is too much to do while flying under the hood. For others, the jumping around, lead, and lag of the compass is too difficult to deal with - they prefer to time the turn, the check the compass only in level flight. For some reason, despite two 'A' levels in maths, I have brain failure with my three times table when trying to figure out timed turns. So long as I take a few seconds to double-check your multiplication, though, and I sanity check it (e.g. if you're turning 120 degrees it should take less than a minute, not more) it's not a problem. I think its easier just to do it on the dg (or even an obs if your dg has failed and is covered up)-- as Gardner said, count 10 seconds per "numbered" heading, even if it means putting your finger physically on the numbers as you count from your current heading to your desired heading... Cheers, John Clonts Temple, Texas N7NZ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Experience with SIRS compass? | Ross Oliver | Owning | 2 | March 18th 05 06:21 PM |
Vertical Card Compass Mystery | Rosspilot | Owning | 3 | November 3rd 04 06:01 PM |
Do you use your magnetic compass? | Roger Long | Piloting | 42 | May 25th 04 12:08 PM |
Strange compass behavior | me | Owning | 10 | February 14th 04 04:24 AM |
Compass turning error | Marty Ross | Piloting | 3 | August 21st 03 02:53 PM |