Out of curiousity, do any of you conduct partial panel training in actual
instrument conditions? When I did my training, my instructor elected not to
cover instruments in the soup. Do you do this? Why or why not?

Brad Z.

<<Out of curiousity, do any of you conduct partial panel training in
actual instrument conditions?>>

I have, but in pretty benign conditions. In other words, ceilings
high enough that I could recover in visual conditions if we fell out
of the clouds. Even did unusual attitudes.

I'm sure I would grow more adventuresome if I had more opportunities
for this, but when good IMC conditions come about, I think it's more
beneficial to the student to shoot full panel approaches. Plus, I'm
not sure how ATC would appreciate partial panel sloppiness.

"Brad Z" > wrote:
> Out of curiousity, do any of you conduct partial panel training in actual
> instrument conditions? When I did my training, my instructor elected not to
> cover instruments in the soup. Do you do this? Why or why not?

I think it's a bad idea. It's one thing to practice partial-panel
unusual attitude recoveries, it's another thing to trust your life to
being able to do one for real in IMC (especially considering that in
most planes, the person sitting in the right seat can barely see the TC).

Even if you recovered fine, you'd probably still have a clearance bust
to explain away.

What would you do if your TC died on you? Without the DG and AI for
cross-check, by the time you figured out something was wrong, it could
well be too late to recover.

"Brad Z" > wrote in message
news:ZBbsc.103156$iF6.9528597@attbi_s02...

> Out of curiousity, do any of you conduct partial panel training in actual
> instrument conditions? When I did my training, my instructor elected not
to
> cover instruments in the soup. Do you do this? Why or why not?

Never.... The risk of a true unusual attitude in IMC would be too high. In
an actual partial panel situation I would want to get no-gyro vectors to VFR
or to a landing ASAP.

I think there is even a reasonable argument that creating a partial panel
situation in actual IMC might even be considered careless and reckless if
this should come to the attention of the local FSDO.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

I do use this practice in benign IMC conditions. Because the compass is a
very important instrument under these conditions, doing partial panel in
IMC allows you to use the compass in a much more realistic manner. Under
the hood it is almost impossible to use the compass without seeing the
outside. However, a real vaccuum failure in IMC is an emergency, so one
must exercise good judgement in simulating this emergency. I don't do
this if it is bumpy in the clouds. Also, I inform ATC and request a block
altitude and a clearance to do some maneuvering. That way even if I get
off course or lose altitude no one is going to get upset.




Roy Smith > wrote in
:

> "Brad Z" > wrote:
>> Out of curiousity, do any of you conduct partial panel training in
>> actual instrument conditions? When I did my training, my instructor
>> elected not to cover instruments in the soup. Do you do this? Why
>> or why not?
>
> I think it's a bad idea. It's one thing to practice partial-panel
> unusual attitude recoveries, it's another thing to trust your life to
> being able to do one for real in IMC (especially considering that in
> most planes, the person sitting in the right seat can barely see the
> TC).
>
> Even if you recovered fine, you'd probably still have a clearance bust
> to explain away.
>
> What would you do if your TC died on you? Without the DG and AI for
> cross-check, by the time you figured out something was wrong, it could
> well be too late to recover.

"Brad Z" > wrote in message
news:ZBbsc.103156$iF6.9528597@attbi_s02...
> Out of curiousity, do any of you conduct partial panel training in actual
> instrument conditions? When I did my training, my instructor elected not
to
> cover instruments in the soup. Do you do this? Why or why not?

No. It is too easy to turn a simulated emergency into a real one.

With the proliferation of electronic panels out there that are
integrated, and redundant (dual installations) how are you expected to
simulate such a thing? The rate of turn indication is integrated with
the AH/attitude display.

Is this a case of having to use a different airplane to learn the skills
and test in this different plane? Pertinent question as I am helping
build an aircraft that will start off with the Dynon for its first
instrument, then have a Grand Rapids Technologies for a PFD and the
Dynon for an independant backup. Neither has provisions for disabling
portions of the display data.

Dave

Brad Z wrote:

> Out of curiousity, do any of you conduct partial panel training in actual
> instrument conditions? When I did my training, my instructor elected not to
> cover instruments in the soup. Do you do this? Why or why not?
>
> Brad Z.
>
>

Good question. The new Instrument rating PTS released last month address
this very issue.

"Dave S" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> With the proliferation of electronic panels out there that are
> integrated, and redundant (dual installations) how are you expected to
> simulate such a thing? The rate of turn indication is integrated with
> the AH/attitude display.
>
> Is this a case of having to use a different airplane to learn the skills
> and test in this different plane? Pertinent question as I am helping
> build an aircraft that will start off with the Dynon for its first
> instrument, then have a Grand Rapids Technologies for a PFD and the
> Dynon for an independant backup. Neither has provisions for disabling
> portions of the display data.
>
> Dave
>
> Brad Z wrote:
>
> > Out of curiousity, do any of you conduct partial panel training in
actual
> > instrument conditions? When I did my training, my instructor elected
not to
> > cover instruments in the soup. Do you do this? Why or why not?
> >
> > Brad Z.
> >
> >
>

>>
Good question. The new Instrument rating PTS released last month address
this very issue.
<<

What does it say about it?

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

On 24 May 2004 05:11:37 GMT, (Teacherjh) wrote:

>>>
>Good question. The new Instrument rating PTS released last month address
>this very issue.
><<
>
>What does it say about it?
>
>Jose


"Modern technology has introduced into aviation a new method of displaying
flight instruments, such as Electronic Flight Instrument Systems,
Integrated Flight Deck displays, and others. For the purpose of the
practical test standards, any flight instrument display that utilizes LCD
or picture tube like displays will be referred to as “Electronic Flight
Instrument Display.” Aircraft equipped with this technology may or may not
have separate backup flight instruments installed. The abnormal or
emergency procedure for loss of the electronic flight instrument display
appropriate to the aircraft will be evaluated in the Loss of Primary
Instruments TASK. The loss of the primary electronic flight instrument
display must be tailored to failures that would normally be encountered in
the aircraft. If the aircraft is capable, total failure of the electronic
flight instrument display, or a supporting component, with access only to
the standby flight instruments or backup display shall be evaluated".


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Ron Rosenfeld > wrote
> If the aircraft is capable, total failure of the electronic
> flight instrument display, or a supporting component, with access only to
> the standby flight instruments or backup display shall be evaluated.

FWIW - the new PTS is available online at http://av-info.faa.gov/

The new PTS is IMO a great improvement over the old. It spells out a
lot of things that should be obvious. If the aircraft is capable of
autopilot coupled approaches, one must be demonstrated - however, an
approach without autopilot use must still be demonstrated. Does this
put an unfair extra burden on the applicant with a more capable
aircraft? Yes and no. Yes, it's an extra burden. No, it's not
unfair. More advanced equipment requires more advanced training.

This last, though, bothers me. Not because it's inherently wrong, but
because I sense it will be abused by flight schools. When ADF was
required (and it was - before the great rewrite of Part 61, your long
IFR XC had to include an NDB approach) it was impossible to get an
instrument rating without an ADF. This put an unfair burden on owners
- many of them had no real need for an ADF (especially those with IFR
GPS). The rewrite dropped the requirement. Flight schools promptly
started to remove ADF receivers from their trainers. If you don't
have it, you don't have to teach it. In reality, it only takes about
an hour or so for a student to become proficient with ADF approaches -
provided he is already proficient with other non-precision approaches
AND he really understands the difference between heading, bearing,
course and track. You can get by on other approaches without
understanding this difference (though not if you want to consistently
fly them well) but not the NDB approach - without a real and
internalized understanding of these concepts you can't fly a decent
full procedure NDB at all. Learning these concepts and internalizing
them can easily take 10 hours.

I suspect something similar is going to happen with this requirement.
It's already possible to have an IFR airplane with no steam gauges at
all, and that's really not a bad thing. However, to make this safe
for real IFR you need a lot of redundancy. Owners who opt for this
generally assure that level of redundancy. I have the nasty feeling
that we're going to see panels designed for flight schools, and that
these panels are going to be designed in such a way that it will not
be possible to test partial panel skills, without any great concern
for redundancy. That way, it will not be necessary to teach the
student to infer attitude rather than reading it directly off the
attitude indicator.

I'm not sure what the solution is. I know the solution is NOT to
require obsolete steam gauges when modern electronics can do the job
better, just as the solution is NOT to require an ADF in the plane for
an instrument checkride.

In the end, the best solution may turn out to be a pad of post-it
notes for the CFII and examiner.

Michael

"Brad Z" > wrote in message news:<ZBbsc.103156$iF6.9528597@attbi_s02>...
> Out of curiousity, do any of you conduct partial panel training in actual
> instrument conditions? When I did my training, my instructor elected not to
> cover instruments in the soup. Do you do this? Why or why not?
>
> Brad Z.

i did the bulk of my partial panel work in an FTD (an AST-300) and
think that was a good thing. I got to do partial panel with no visial
references, and transition to it without just covering instruments.
Learning to identify that an instrument failed by cross check is a lot
more valuable imho than just accepting that its covered, so its
failed. The first time my AI was failed while on an instrument
approach (non-precision, about 300 ft above the ceiling) was a very
humbling experience, but something you just cant replicate in the
plane safely.

After that we transitioned to the airplane (a pa-44-180) in VMC under
the hood.

-casey PP-ASMEL-IA

(Casey Webster) wrote:
> i did the bulk of my partial panel work in an FTD (an AST-300) and
> think that was a good thing. I got to do partial panel with no visial
> references, and transition to it without just covering instruments.

That's one of the very few things sims are better at than real
airplanes. At least the low-quality sims most FBO's have.

Michael wrote:

> If the aircraft is capable of
> autopilot coupled approaches, one must be demonstrated

I looked for this in the document, and could not find it. Could you point
me at the location of this task? I've a friend with a ride coming up, and
I'd like to point this out in case he's missed it.

[...]
> In the end, the best solution may turn out to be a pad of post-it
> notes for the CFII and examiner.

I'm trying to imagine one of those nice displays, like on the Cirrus, with
enough post-its to cover the artificial horizon (a better label for this, I
think, than AI {8^). Are you sure you don't work for 3M or Office Depot?

<Laugh>

- Andrew

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...

> That's one of the very few things sims are better at than real
> airplanes. At least the low-quality sims most FBO's have.

Even Microsoft Flight Simulator on a PC is excellent for practicing approach
procedures, holding pattern entries, and DME arcs, all under varying wind
conditions. And it costs less than an hour in an airplane. One of the team
managers for MFS is a CFII and he gave an impressive presentation at Oshkosh
last year on using MFS as part of instrument training.

I think most FBOs have a difficult time finding sufficient CFIs interested
in teaching in a "simulator" (FTD or PCATD or Advanced ATD) and that
explains to a large extent why they are not more prevalent.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> Michael wrote:
>
> > If the aircraft is capable of
> > autopilot coupled approaches, one must be demonstrated
>
> I looked for this in the document, and could not find it. Could you point
> me at the location of this task? I've a friend with a ride coming up, and
> I'd like to point this out in case he's missed it.
>

The new PTS does not take effect until October, so your friend will take his
ride using the old PTS.

Anyway, the requirement is not specifically a task, but is mentioned on page
8 along with the GPS approach requirement.

C J Campbell wrote:

> The new PTS does not take effect until October, so your friend will take
> his ride using the old PTS.

Yes, I'd realized this from other posts.

> Anyway, the requirement is not specifically a task, but is mentioned on
> page 8 along with the GPS approach requirement.

Ah, there it is!

Thanks...

Andrew