"Steve House" wrote:
I've been reading with interest the several threads where a number of
people
have strongly pointed out the advantages of a backup electric AI to
supplant
a vacum driven main AI. But I'm reminded of the saying "A man with a good
watch always knows what time it is. A man with two watches is never
sure."

This is a very interesting issue, to me. Reading the records of IMC
loss-of-control accidents is very unsettling to this single pilot IFR flyer
because of the cases where there *was* backup attitude instrumentation
available. Even when there wasn't, the pilots usually had at least the turn
coordinator to help keep the aircraft upright. It is too simple to chalk up
all these accidents simply to lack of proficiency. There is something else
going on - some human factors issue that has not been properly identified. I
suspect it may be related to task saturation. If so, instrument panel
clutter could be a contributing factor.

So I'm toodling along in IMC with no outside horizon reference and I see
my
two AIs don't agree with each other. How do I determine which to trust?
If
I had a third, I could go with a 2 of 3 voting strategy of course, but
with
only two, what do you do to decide which is operating properly and which
one
has faulted? Obviously I can look for consistency with other
instruments -
does my DG or Turn indicator show I'm turning, does the VSI show a climb
or
descent - but what would be the best strategy given the various ways
vacuum
or electric driven instruments can fail?

My strategy is to include a yoke-mounted GPS displaying a synthetic HSI in
my scan. This works wonderfully well in training, but I am not sure how well
I would do in a real situation where my AI suffered a gradual failure.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM