Please excuse the hijacking of this religious/political forum to raise a
question about flying.

My partners and I are faced with a decision. What would you do?

We plan to update our outdated panel with a GNS480. The CDIs currently installed
are not compatible with the GNS480, so one of them will be replaced.

We could replace the existing CDI with a compatible one for $2000.

We could install a non-slaved NSD360 HSI instead for $3500.

If we install the HSI, the no-longer-used CDI hole can be used for the electric
AI that's been waaaay over on the other side of the panel.

I think I know what we will do (go for the HSI), but I'm collecting opinions.

Is the NSD360 likely to become a maintenance headache?

In the electronic age, does it make sense to install an electromechanical aid to
situational awareness?

Thanks,

Dave

This was heatedly discussed in the Cessna owners' group a
few months back. People seem to be completely polarised
about it. FWIW, I love my HSI and would hate to have to
fly without it. It was one of my key decision factors in
choosing a plane to buy. It just makes things SO much
easier as compared to a DI and a separate CDI. I've
flown a couple of times behind a Sandel electronic HSI
and that was even better, although I wouldn't pay
$10K to upgrade.

John

Dave Butler wrote:
> Please excuse the hijacking of this religious/political forum to raise a
> question about flying.
>
> My partners and I are faced with a decision. What would you do?
>
> We plan to update our outdated panel with a GNS480. The CDIs currently
> installed are not compatible with the GNS480, so one of them will be
> replaced.
>
> We could replace the existing CDI with a compatible one for $2000.
>
> We could install a non-slaved NSD360 HSI instead for $3500.
>
> If we install the HSI, the no-longer-used CDI hole can be used for the
> electric AI that's been waaaay over on the other side of the panel.
>
> I think I know what we will do (go for the HSI), but I'm collecting
> opinions.
>
> Is the NSD360 likely to become a maintenance headache?
>
> In the electronic age, does it make sense to install an
> electromechanical aid to situational awareness?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dave
>

"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
...
> Please excuse the hijacking of this religious/political forum to raise a
> question about flying.
>
> My partners and I are faced with a decision. What would you do?
>
> We plan to update our outdated panel with a GNS480. The CDIs currently
> installed are not compatible with the GNS480, so one of them will be
> replaced.
>
> We could replace the existing CDI with a compatible one for $2000.
>
> We could install a non-slaved NSD360 HSI instead for $3500.
>
> If we install the HSI, the no-longer-used CDI hole can be used for the
> electric AI that's been waaaay over on the other side of the panel.
>
> I think I know what we will do (go for the HSI), but I'm collecting
> opinions.
>
> Is the NSD360 likely to become a maintenance headache?
>
> In the electronic age, does it make sense to install an electromechanical
> aid to situational awareness?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dave

Great question! Although I can't imagine flying without an HSI (all my
flying since my private checkride has been behind an HSI), it seems that
there will be a breakthrough soon. With some experemental PFDs selling for
under $2000 with AHARS, it seems that someone must be cooking up a
self-contained EHSI with internal gyro. I don't actually know of anyone
working on this but it seems unlikely that it is not being persued

Mike
MU-2

jharper aaatttt cisco dddooottt com opined

>This was heatedly discussed in the Cessna owners' group a
>few months back. People seem to be completely polarised
>about it. FWIW, I love my HSI and would hate to have to
>fly without it. It was one of my key decision factors in
>choosing a plane to buy. It just makes things SO much
>easier as compared to a DI and a separate CDI. I've
>flown a couple of times behind a Sandel electronic HSI
>and that was even better, although I wouldn't pay
>$10K to upgrade.

I love my HSI! But it might be better to wait and save for a glass panel.

Should the best be the enemy of the the good?

>Dave Butler wrote:
>> Please excuse the hijacking of this religious/political forum to raise a
>> question about flying.
>>
>> My partners and I are faced with a decision. What would you do?
>>
>> We plan to update our outdated panel with a GNS480. The CDIs currently
>> installed are not compatible with the GNS480, so one of them will be
>> replaced.
>>
>> We could replace the existing CDI with a compatible one for $2000.
>>
>> We could install a non-slaved NSD360 HSI instead for $3500.
>>
>> If we install the HSI, the no-longer-used CDI hole can be used for the
>> electric AI that's been waaaay over on the other side of the panel.
>>
>> I think I know what we will do (go for the HSI), but I'm collecting
>> opinions.
>>
>> Is the NSD360 likely to become a maintenance headache?
>>
>> In the electronic age, does it make sense to install an
>> electromechanical aid to situational awareness?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Dave
>>



-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

Dave Butler > wrote
> If we install the HSI, the no-longer-used CDI hole can be used for the electric
> AI that's been waaaay over on the other side of the panel.

Actually, if your primary AI is vacuum and the secondary is electric,
you can simply remove the T&B and install the second AI in its place.
AC91-75 permits the replacement of the T&B with a second AI, as long
as the power source for the 2nd AI is different from the power source
for the 1st AI. So really, being able to free up the hole should not
factor into your decision.

Some people love HSI's, some hate them, some are indifferent. I've
flown several planes with HSI's and I'm indifferent. It's OK. A DG
with CDI is also OK. About the only time an HSI really has an
advantage is when you're flying reverse course on a localizer. Other
than in training, I do not believe I have ever had to do that.

Michael

Dave,
My NSD 360A ran fine for about 9 years then just died. I sent it back to
the factory. Told me nothing wrong. Lousy service. I have an old soon to
be rebuilt NSD360A for sale. Interested? I upgraded to a Sandel.
Michelle

Dave Butler wrote:

> Please excuse the hijacking of this religious/political forum to raise
> a question about flying.
>
> My partners and I are faced with a decision. What would you do?
>
> We plan to update our outdated panel with a GNS480. The CDIs currently
> installed are not compatible with the GNS480, so one of them will be
> replaced.
>
> We could replace the existing CDI with a compatible one for $2000.
>
> We could install a non-slaved NSD360 HSI instead for $3500.
>
> If we install the HSI, the no-longer-used CDI hole can be used for the
> electric AI that's been waaaay over on the other side of the panel.
>
> I think I know what we will do (go for the HSI), but I'm collecting
> opinions.
>
> Is the NSD360 likely to become a maintenance headache?
>
> In the electronic age, does it make sense to install an
> electromechanical aid to situational awareness?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dave
>

--

Michelle P ATP-ASEL, CP-AMEL, and AMT-A&P

"Elisabeth" a Maule M-7-235B (no two are alike)

Volunteer Pilot, Angel Flight Mid-Atlantic

Volunteer Builder, Habitat for Humanity

FWIW, the GNS480 displays an electronic HSI on its NAV page. I also plan to upgrade my panel with the GNS480, but after spending $11K on the GPS I can't justify spending more on a HSI that doesn't add that much extra. The NSD360 was the cheapest HSI I could find but after some research it seemed like a problem instrument. This quote is from the Avionics West article at http://avionicswest.com/articles/know_your_autopilot.htm

"The most popular Cessna HSI today is the Edo-Aire NSD-360 series. Cessna installed these units in thousands of single and multi-engine aircraft. This compass system is slaved in most cases, but be advised there are many non-slaved NSD-360's in the field. Even with a slaved NSD-360, you must set the compass card once the aircraft is running. After that if everything is working as it should, you shouldn't have to set the compass card again. This HSI, slaved or not, MUST have BOTH vacuum and electrical inputs in order to operate. In other words, if you lose vacuum or the electrical system, this HSI compass card will quit! Expect to pay between $300-500/year to keep your NSD repaired. Sure, you may not need a repair for several years but when your unit does, it really hits the ole pocket book "

This next quote is from an AVWEB article at http://www.avweb.com/news/reviews/182525-1.html

"Not long thereafter, my vacuum-driven NSD-360 HSI started acting up. On several occasions, the slaved heading gyro suddenly wound up 20 or 30 degrees in error, causing the autopilot to take me on an unplanned off-route excursion each time. Although I subsequently diagnosed the problem as being a clogged central vacuum filter, it reminded me that the NSD-360 was a pretty vulnerable instrument, and one that had required (and would continue to require) overhauls every few years at a cost of around $2,800 a pop. Somehow, that made the $8,000 price of the Sandel seem a lot more reasonable. "

So that finished me on the NDS360 and all the other HSI's were way too expensive. I'm going to keep my DG and get a new MD200 CDI to go with the GNS480.

-Brenor

"Dave Butler" > wrote in message ...
> Please excuse the hijacking of this religious/political forum to raise a
> question about flying.
>
> My partners and I are faced with a decision. What would you do?
>
> We plan to update our outdated panel with a GNS480. The CDIs currently installed
> are not compatible with the GNS480, so one of them will be replaced.
>
> We could replace the existing CDI with a compatible one for $2000.
>
> We could install a non-slaved NSD360 HSI instead for $3500.
>
> If we install the HSI, the no-longer-used CDI hole can be used for the electric
> AI that's been waaaay over on the other side of the panel.
>
> I think I know what we will do (go for the HSI), but I'm collecting opinions.
>
> Is the NSD360 likely to become a maintenance headache?
>
> In the electronic age, does it make sense to install an electromechanical aid to
> situational awareness?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dave
>

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> Dave Butler > wrote
>> If we install the HSI, the no-longer-used CDI hole can be used for the
>> electric
>> AI that's been waaaay over on the other side of the panel.
>
> Actually, if your primary AI is vacuum and the secondary is electric,
> you can simply remove the T&B and install the second AI in its place.
> AC91-75 permits the replacement of the T&B with a second AI, as long
> as the power source for the 2nd AI is different from the power source
> for the 1st AI. So really, being able to free up the hole should not
> factor into your decision.
>
> Some people love HSI's, some hate them, some are indifferent. I've
> flown several planes with HSI's and I'm indifferent. It's OK. A DG
> with CDI is also OK. About the only time an HSI really has an
> advantage is when you're flying reverse course on a localizer. Other
> than in training, I do not believe I have ever had to do that.

Can you explain why that is the one advantage (BC)/revers on localizer, and
why that is so?
Do you mean to say that people confuse which color sector they are in on a
localizer due to "reverse needle"? If so then it is a training issue, not a
technology issue.

>
> Michael

In article >,
Richard Hertz <no one@no one.com> wrote:
>Can you explain why that is the one advantage (BC)/revers on localizer, and
>why that is so?

An HSI is like a CDI you can spin around. When shooting a back course
it is effectively upside down, cancelling out the reverse sensing.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

I would rather have an IFR GPS and an autopilot, than VOR/GS and DME
and an HSI.
But, heck, if you have the money, go ahead and get an HSI. You might
consider waiting until you have mastered the IFR GPS. Also, one REALLY
NICE thing about an HSI is most are slaved. No more worrying about
your DG accuracy when ATC gives you vectors. Nonslaved not quite as
satisfying. Slaved ones are $$$.

The autopilot is really nice on long trips, IFR or VFR and, if a
totally electric autopilot, a real safety device in IMC. They are
expensive and need maintenance though.

Dave Butler > wrote in message >...
> Please excuse the hijacking of this religious/political forum to raise a
> question about flying.
>
> My partners and I are faced with a decision. What would you do?
>
> We plan to update our outdated panel with a GNS480. The CDIs currently installed
> are not compatible with the GNS480, so one of them will be replaced.
>
> We could replace the existing CDI with a compatible one for $2000.
>
> We could install a non-slaved NSD360 HSI instead for $3500.
>
> If we install the HSI, the no-longer-used CDI hole can be used for the electric
> AI that's been waaaay over on the other side of the panel.
>
> I think I know what we will do (go for the HSI), but I'm collecting opinions.
>
> Is the NSD360 likely to become a maintenance headache?
>
> In the electronic age, does it make sense to install an electromechanical aid to
> situational awareness?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dave

Dave,

> We could install a non-slaved NSD360 HSI instead for $3500.

Never realized that there is something like a _nonslaved_ HSI, but one never
stop learning ;-) Does that mean you have to handle it like a DG an
twist-the-knob regulary? I'm used to slaved HSI for a while now a found the
slaving one of the biggest improvements when moving up from a DG. Have you
considdered a slaved one? What's the additional cost (may be a lot, taking
into account the flux-gate, sync, installation, etc...)?

Best Regards

Kai

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 13:36:08 -0500, Dave Butler >
wrote:

>I think I know what we will do (go for the HSI), but I'm collecting opinions.
>
>Is the NSD360 likely to become a maintenance headache?

I've had a non-slaved NSD360 since 1986. It has been down for maintenance
once.

>
>In the electronic age, does it make sense to install an electromechanical aid to
> situational awareness?

That depends on how big your wallet is :-))

I find it very useful for flying back courses; and it is more useful for SA
than is a plain CDI.

However, since installing my CNX80, I have found myself referring to the
ground track vs desired track information (on the GPS) more frequently than
to the CDI in order to fine tune my heading.


--ron

Michelle P wrote:
> Dave,
> My NSD 360A ran fine for about 9 years then just died. I sent it back to
> the factory. Told me nothing wrong. Lousy service. I have an old soon to
> be rebuilt NSD360A for sale. Interested? I upgraded to a Sandel.

Thanks, Michelle. We are a little shy of buying stuff from other than our local
avionics shop since we like having warranty service. I'll present your offer to
my partners, though.

Dave

> Michelle
>
> Dave Butler wrote:
>
>> Please excuse the hijacking of this religious/political forum to raise
>> a question about flying.
>>
>> My partners and I are faced with a decision. What would you do?
>>
>> We plan to update our outdated panel with a GNS480. The CDIs currently
>> installed are not compatible with the GNS480, so one of them will be
>> replaced.
>>
>> We could replace the existing CDI with a compatible one for $2000.
>>
>> We could install a non-slaved NSD360 HSI instead for $3500.
>>
>> If we install the HSI, the no-longer-used CDI hole can be used for the
>> electric AI that's been waaaay over on the other side of the panel.
>>
>> I think I know what we will do (go for the HSI), but I'm collecting
>> opinions.
>>
>> Is the NSD360 likely to become a maintenance headache?
>>
>> In the electronic age, does it make sense to install an
>> electromechanical aid to situational awareness?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Dave
>>
>


--
Dave Butler, software engineer 919-392-4367

Brenor Brophy wrote:
> FWIW, the GNS480 displays an electronic HSI on its NAV page. I also plan
> to upgrade my panel with the GNS480, but after spending $11K on the GPS
> I can't justify spending more on a HSI that doesn't add that much extra.
> The NSD360 was the cheapest HSI I could find but after some research it
> seemed like a problem instrument. This quote is from the Avionics West
> article at http://avionicswest.com/articles/know_your_autopilot.htm
>
> "The most popular Cessna HSI today is the Edo-Aire NSD-360 series.
> Cessna installed these units in thousands of single and multi-engine
> aircraft. This compass system is slaved in most cases, but be advised
> there are many non-slaved NSD-360’s in the field. Even with a slaved
> NSD-360, you must set the compass card once the aircraft is running.
> After that if everything is working as it should, you shouldn’t have to
> set the compass card again. This HSI, slaved or not, MUST have BOTH
> vacuum and electrical inputs in order to operate. In other words, if you
> lose vacuum or the electrical system, this HSI compass card will quit!
> Expect to pay between $300-500/year to keep your NSD repaired. Sure, you
> may not need a repair for several years but when your unit does, it
> really hits the ole pocket book "
>
> This next quote is from an AVWEB article at
> http://www.avweb.com/news/reviews/182525-1.html
>
> "Not long thereafter, my vacuum-driven NSD-360 HSI started acting up. On
> several occasions, the slaved heading gyro suddenly wound up 20 or 30
> degrees in error, causing the autopilot to take me on an unplanned
> off-route excursion each time. Although I subsequently diagnosed the
> problem as being a clogged central vacuum filter, it reminded me that
> the NSD-360 was a pretty vulnerable instrument, and one that had
> required (and would continue to require) overhauls every few years at a
> cost of around $2,800 a pop. Somehow, that made the $8,000 price of the
> Sandel seem a lot more reasonable. "
>
> So that finished me on the NDS360 and all the other HSI's were way too
> expensive. I'm going to keep my DG and get a new MD200 CDI to go with
> the GNS480.
>

Thanks for the great references, Brenor... and thanks to everyone who replied,
though I won't attempt to apply individually to each.

Dave

Michael wrote:
> Dave Butler > wrote

> Actually, if your primary AI is vacuum and the secondary is electric,
> you can simply remove the T&B and install the second AI in its place.
> AC91-75 permits the replacement of the T&B with a second AI, as long
> as the power source for the 2nd AI is different from the power source
> for the 1st AI. So really, being able to free up the hole should not
> factor into your decision.

Yeah, thanks for reminding me about that.

>
> Some people love HSI's, some hate them, some are indifferent. I've
> flown several planes with HSI's and I'm indifferent. It's OK. A DG
> with CDI is also OK. About the only time an HSI really has an
> advantage is when you're flying reverse course on a localizer. Other
> than in training, I do not believe I have ever had to do that.

Happens fairly often here. Fayetteville, NC (FAY) has a localizer back-course
approach that seems often to be the approach of choice. I often use it for
practice approaches and occasionally "in anger".

Dave

My order of preference would be
IFR GPS
Autopilot
HSI

And an HSI without slaving lacks one of its better features.
Consider that an autopilot, if ALL ELECTRIC, will give you much safety
in IMC. You loose your vacuum, you still have autopilot. Autopilot is
nice for VFR also, as is a panel mount GPS.

All these gadgets need maintenance.

Dave Butler > wrote in message >...
> Please excuse the hijacking of this religious/political forum to raise a
> question about flying.
>
> My partners and I are faced with a decision. What would you do?
>
> We plan to update our outdated panel with a GNS480. The CDIs currently installed
> are not compatible with the GNS480, so one of them will be replaced.
>
> We could replace the existing CDI with a compatible one for $2000.
>
> We could install a non-slaved NSD360 HSI instead for $3500.
>
> If we install the HSI, the no-longer-used CDI hole can be used for the electric
> AI that's been waaaay over on the other side of the panel.
>
> I think I know what we will do (go for the HSI), but I'm collecting opinions.
>
> Is the NSD360 likely to become a maintenance headache?
>
> In the electronic age, does it make sense to install an electromechanical aid to
> situational awareness?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dave

Brenor Brophy wrote:

<liberal snippage>

> This quote is from the Avionics West
> article at http://avionicswest.com/articles/know_your_autopilot.htm
> This HSI, slaved or not, MUST have BOTH
> vacuum and electrical inputs in order to operate. In other words, if you
> lose vacuum or the electrical system, this HSI compass card will quit!

Can anyone confirm the statement above from Avionics West? I consider them a
reliable source of information, but this seems counterintuitive to me. In case
of electrical failure, why is the heading information not still available? Is
the compass card not mechanically connected to the gyro?

Obviously, I can see that the navigation information would not be available in
case of electric failure, but the quote specifically says the compass card will
quit.

Thanks,

Dave

"Ben Jackson" > wrote in message
news:mkXkd.397609$D%.109302@attbi_s51...
> In article >,
> Richard Hertz <no one@no one.com> wrote:
>>Can you explain why that is the one advantage (BC)/revers on localizer,
>>and
>>why that is so?
>
> An HSI is like a CDI you can spin around. When shooting a back course
> it is effectively upside down, cancelling out the reverse sensing.

Yes, thanks.
But there is no such thing as "reverse-sensing" on the localizer. If
perhaps the current common teaching of localizers and CDI was corrected then
we that selling point of HSI is dropped.

The CDI needle points to the color sector you are in. On some (older) nav
heads the blue and yellow sectors were indicated. So, no need to look for
reverse sensing/etc, just look at the approach chart, look at the needle and
you will know where you are relative to the course. Nothing could be
simpler.

>
> --
> Ben Jackson
> >
> http://www.ben.com/

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:35:54 -0500, Dave Butler >
wrote:

>Is the compass card not mechanically connected to the gyro?

Bingo!

That's why precession is minimal with this unit. I believe it is called
"electro-optical" coupling, but don't ask me to explain it :-)


--ron

Dave Butler > wrote in
:

> Brenor Brophy wrote:
>
> <liberal snippage>
>
>> This quote is from the Avionics West
>> article at http://avionicswest.com/articles/know_your_autopilot.htm
>> This HSI, slaved or not, MUST have BOTH
>> vacuum and electrical inputs in order to operate. In other words, if
>> you lose vacuum or the electrical system, this HSI compass card will
>> quit!
>
> Can anyone confirm the statement above from Avionics West? I consider
> them a reliable source of information, but this seems counterintuitive
> to me. In case of electrical failure, why is the heading information
> not still available? Is the compass card not mechanically connected to
> the gyro?
>
> Obviously, I can see that the navigation information would not be
> available in case of electric failure, but the quote specifically says
> the compass card will quit.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dave

True. I have a non-slaved NSD 360. If I start the engine and have
vacuum, the AI works properly, but the HSI will show a "heading" warning
flag, and will not function as a DG (ie, I can taxi around, making turns,
but the compass card on the HSI will not show the turns) until I apply
power to the avionics bus. It doesn't make any sense to me; I cannot
understand why a vacuum powered gyro will not function as a DG without
electrical power, but that's the way it is.

It's true. Several years ago when we (the group that owned the Bonanza 36 I
was a member of) decided to replace our maintenance-hog Narco HSI, we chose
the King KNS-55 HSI because it worked on the electrical system only (no
vacuum). That meant that a vacuum failure left the HSI, turn coordinator,
and S-Tec autopilot working which would be pretty much a non-event.
Electrical failure would leave the backup DG (the DG that was replaced by
the original HSI was still in the panel) operating.

"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
...
> > This quote is from the Avionics West
> > article at http://avionicswest.com/articles/know_your_autopilot.htm
> > This HSI, slaved or not, MUST have BOTH
> > vacuum and electrical inputs in order to operate. In other words, if you
> > lose vacuum or the electrical system, this HSI compass card will quit!
>
> Can anyone confirm the statement above from Avionics West? I consider them
a
> reliable source of information, but this seems counterintuitive to me. In
case
> of electrical failure, why is the heading information not still available?
Is
> the compass card not mechanically connected to the gyro?
>
> Obviously, I can see that the navigation information would not be
available in
> case of electric failure, but the quote specifically says the compass card
will
> quit.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dave
>

"Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote
> Can you explain why that is the one advantage (BC)/revers on localizer, and
> why that is so?
> Do you mean to say that people confuse which color sector they are in on a
> localizer due to "reverse needle"?

Yes, that is exactly what I mean to say.

> If so then it is a training issue, not a
> technology issue.

Oh man, here we go. You've just touched off a religious debate.

In real life, I run a department that designs instrumentation for
process environments. What that means is that engineers design it,
but generally non-engineers (plant operators, meter readers,
technicians) install and use it. These days, most instrumentation has
software in it, so it should not come as a surprise that I rose into
that position from software engineering.

In the process, I learned a lot about user interfaces. There are two
kinds of user interface bug. There is the kind where the user
interface acts contrary to design, in a useless or unpredictable
manner in a given situation (coding error) and there is the kind where
it acts as designed (intentionally or unintentionally), in a manner
that is predictable and useful but, in certain situations,
counter-intuitive to the operator (design error). The first kind is
unusuable in those given situations. The second kind is usable,
provided you read the manual and are aware of how the system will
behave. There are those who believe that this means it's not an error
- that you should simply RTFM. In other words, that it is a training
issue. They are wrong.

The "reverse" indication of a conventional CDI is a design error. You
can work around it. I have. I had to shoot a LOC BC approach with
engine failure at leveloff (simulating a failure of the engine to come
up on the powerup for leveloff) followed by a single engine missed
approach. I passed - meaning I executed the approach and miss to ATP
standards, and I have the certificate to prove it. Nonetheless, a
couple of times I found myself, with the needle half a dot off,
applying the incorrect contol inputs before I "caught" myself. So
clearly the training worked - I corrected before I deviated beyond ATP
standards - but that doesn't mean that the design is correct. It's
not. On an approach, you're used to correcting towards the needle.
Under normal conditions, you should have the situational awareness to
know what you are doing, rather than just correcting by habit.
However, in emergency conditions where the workload becomes high,
there is a tendency to revert to habit. In other words, the operation
becomes counter-intuitive.

Sometimes this is unavoidable, but where this is done for no good
reason, it's simply bad design. It's really quite simple to modify a
conventional CDI for "reverse" sensing - all it takes is the addition
of a simple DPDT switch, and the needle will act correctly on the BC.
Thus I have to say it's done for no good reason. Only in aviation is
somehting like this not done - because this is how we've always done
it (and because the FAA would make such a modification
cost-prohibitive).

The UK (and I believe other nations) will not certify LOC-BC
approaches because the potential for error is believed to be too high.
I don't agree with this - I consider the potential for error to be
adequately low with proper training - but the addition of a cheap,
simple, and reliable part to the CDI (or replacement with an HSI)
eliminates the potential for error - and is thus clearly an advantage.

Michael

The decision re: the HSI vs. DG is a personal decision. Some people think
that a battery GPS with an electronic HSI is a good compromise to
supplement -- but of course not replace -- a panel-mounted DG. This is
because an HSI on a handheld GPS is in many ways easier to fly than a
"real" HSI because the handheld GPS shows track rather than heading. That
means wind corrections are much easier to establish with a handheld GPS HSI
than with a panel-mount HSI. It is arguable that a panel-mount DG plus
handheld GPS HSI creates a lower workload situation (with more redundancy
and lower cost) compared to a panel-mount HSI.

If you do stick with the DG, there is another change to your panel that I
would suggest. I would suggest moving your turn coordinator to the far
right of your panel and putting the electric AI in your primary field of
view (presumably where your turn coordinator is now). Flying partial panel
with an electric AI on the right side and other instrument on the left can
easily induce vertigo.

In fact, as long as your electric AI has a ball (inclinometer), you do not
even legally need to keep your turn coordinator at all.


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

www.flyimc.com

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
k.net...>


> under $2000 with AHARS, it seems that someone must be cooking up a
> self-contained EHSI with internal gyro. I don't actually know of anyone
> working on this but it seems unlikely that it is not being persued

It already exists, i.e. Garmin 195 or anything later.

(Yes, I know, it is not based on a gyro, has a somewhat slower response
time, and is not legal for primary navigational or attitude information.
Nonetheless, it works quite well to supplement a panel DG.)


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

www.flyimc.com

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...>

> somehting like this not done - because this is how we've always done
> it (and because the FAA would make such a modification
> cost-prohibitive).

I have such a switch on my airplane -- it is part of my Cessna 400B
autopilot control head. Just flip the switch and the CDI needle reverses
its orientation.

I agree completely that this makes a back course approach easier to fly even
though "training" should be able to solve the problem otherwise.

Let me give another example to support your point. One of the most
challenging situations I occasionally try in my simulator is a demonstration
of reversed ailerons not caught by a pilot on preflight. In theory, once
the pilot realizes what happened, there is no emergency at all -- the
airplane is perfectly controllable. In reality, almost all pilots find this
to be an extremely difficult scenario, and in fact it seems as if the
higher-time the pilot the harder it is to reverse one's thinking and provide
reverse aileron input. The same is likely true when flying a localizer
back-course approach; we are all so used to "normal" sensing on a CDI needle
that our responses become so ingrained/automatic as to make it much harder
to reverse this action on rare back-course approach.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

Once one accepts the fact that all sensing is "normal", and flies
headings as indicated by the VOR head, instead of the more difficult
methd of flying left and right needles, back course localizer flying
is no more difficult than "ordinary" course tracking.

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 21:07:48 -0500, "Richard Kaplan"
> wrote:

>
>"Michael" > wrote in message
om...>
>
>> somehting like this not done - because this is how we've always done
>> it (and because the FAA would make such a modification
>> cost-prohibitive).
>
>I have such a switch on my airplane -- it is part of my Cessna 400B
>autopilot control head. Just flip the switch and the CDI needle reverses
>its orientation.
>
>I agree completely that this makes a back course approach easier to fly even
>though "training" should be able to solve the problem otherwise.
>
>Let me give another example to support your point. One of the most
>challenging situations I occasionally try in my simulator is a demonstration
>of reversed ailerons not caught by a pilot on preflight. In theory, once
>the pilot realizes what happened, there is no emergency at all -- the
>airplane is perfectly controllable. In reality, almost all pilots find this
>to be an extremely difficult scenario, and in fact it seems as if the
>higher-time the pilot the harder it is to reverse one's thinking and provide
>reverse aileron input. The same is likely true when flying a localizer
>back-course approach; we are all so used to "normal" sensing on a CDI needle
>that our responses become so ingrained/automatic as to make it much harder
>to reverse this action on rare back-course approach.
>
>--------------------
>Richard Kaplan

>www.flyimc.com
>

d

> Once one accepts the fact that all sensing is "normal", and flies
> headings as indicated by the VOR head, instead of the more difficult
> methd of flying left and right needles, back course localizer flying
> is no more difficult than "ordinary" course tracking.

Any way you look at it -- left/right, to/from, yellow/blue -- a backcourse
approach is not a common situation and human nature is such that this means
there is more likelihood for error.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

Agreed.

So why then teach the solution that requires doing it the hard way?


On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 01:51:32 -0500, "Richard Kaplan"
> wrote:

>
>> Once one accepts the fact that all sensing is "normal", and flies
>> headings as indicated by the VOR head, instead of the more difficult
>> methd of flying left and right needles, back course localizer flying
>> is no more difficult than "ordinary" course tracking.
>
>Any way you look at it -- left/right, to/from, yellow/blue -- a backcourse
>approach is not a common situation and human nature is such that this means
>there is more likelihood for error.
>
>
>--------------------
>Richard Kaplan

>www.flyimc.com
>
>

> wrote in message
...>


> So why then teach the solution that requires doing it the hard way?

The easiest way to interpret a CDI needle 99% of the time is to think of it
in terms of "left" vs "right".

A more generalized solution which thinks in terms of sectors does indeed
make a back course easier for 1% of instrument flying but also makes the
other 99% of instrument flying less intuitive.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

Only if that is the way it is taught.

It is just as easy ti interpret a CDI needle in terms of headings and
course intercept angles if you are taught properly to do so.

And it is far less prone to error.

And it is consistent, which makes all the navigation, including the
"other 99%", easier and more accurate.





On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 11:16:49 -0500, "Richard Kaplan"
> wrote:

>
> wrote in message
...>
>
>
>> So why then teach the solution that requires doing it the hard way?
>
>The easiest way to interpret a CDI needle 99% of the time is to think of it
>in terms of "left" vs "right".
>
>A more generalized solution which thinks in terms of sectors does indeed
>make a back course easier for 1% of instrument flying but also makes the
>other 99% of instrument flying less intuitive.
>
>
>--------------------
>Richard Kaplan

>www.flyimc.com
>

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote
>> Can you explain why that is the one advantage (BC)/revers on localizer,
>> and
>> why that is so?
>> Do you mean to say that people confuse which color sector they are in on
>> a
>> localizer due to "reverse needle"?
>
> Yes, that is exactly what I mean to say.
>
>> If so then it is a training issue, not a
>> technology issue.
>
> Oh man, here we go. You've just touched off a religious debate.
>
> In real life, I run a department that designs instrumentation for
> process environments. What that means is that engineers design it,
> but generally non-engineers (plant operators, meter readers,
> technicians) install and use it. These days, most instrumentation has
> software in it, so it should not come as a surprise that I rose into
> that position from software engineering.
>
> In the process, I learned a lot about user interfaces. There are two
> kinds of user interface bug. There is the kind where the user
> interface acts contrary to design, in a useless or unpredictable
> manner in a given situation (coding error) and there is the kind where
> it acts as designed (intentionally or unintentionally), in a manner
> that is predictable and useful but, in certain situations,
> counter-intuitive to the operator (design error). The first kind is
> unusuable in those given situations. The second kind is usable,
> provided you read the manual and are aware of how the system will
> behave. There are those who believe that this means it's not an error
> - that you should simply RTFM. In other words, that it is a training
> issue. They are wrong.

I do not disagree.

>
> The "reverse" indication of a conventional CDI is a design error. You
> can work around it. I have. I had to shoot a LOC BC approach with
> engine failure at leveloff (simulating a failure of the engine to come
> up on the powerup for leveloff) followed by a single engine missed
> approach. I passed - meaning I executed the approach and miss to ATP
> standards, and I have the certificate to prove it. Nonetheless, a
> couple of times I found myself, with the needle half a dot off,
> applying the incorrect contol inputs before I "caught" myself. So
> clearly the training worked - I corrected before I deviated beyond ATP
> standards - but that doesn't mean that the design is correct. It's
> not. On an approach, you're used to correcting towards the needle.
> Under normal conditions, you should have the situational awareness to
> know what you are doing, rather than just correcting by habit.
> However, in emergency conditions where the workload becomes high,
> there is a tendency to revert to habit. In other words, the operation
> becomes counter-intuitive.

Here disagree - the current use appears to imply a "design flaw" but that
is only because of imporper use and instruction of the instrument. It does
not "point" to the course, rather it shows what sector of the localizer
course you are on. (shaded or unshaded.)

It is a back course - meaning you are coming from the other way. You know
this. Clearly the instruction should be corrected - it is a lot cheaper
than everyone buying HSIs. I have no difficulty with localizer front or
back course, though I am certain I would mix things up if I had been taught
the improper (but more common) use of the needle pointing to the course
(except for BC which is different)


>
> Sometimes this is unavoidable, but where this is done for no good
> reason, it's simply bad design. It's really quite simple to modify a
> conventional CDI for "reverse" sensing - all it takes is the addition
> of a simple DPDT switch, and the needle will act correctly on the BC.
> Thus I have to say it's done for no good reason. Only in aviation is
> somehting like this not done - because this is how we've always done
> it (and because the FAA would make such a modification
> cost-prohibitive).
>
> The UK (and I believe other nations) will not certify LOC-BC
> approaches because the potential for error is believed to be too high.
> I don't agree with this - I consider the potential for error to be
> adequately low with proper training - but the addition of a cheap,
> simple, and reliable part to the CDI (or replacement with an HSI)
> eliminates the potential for error - and is thus clearly an advantage.

And what is thins part?

I contest that ensuring the blue and yellow colors on the instrument and
proper training would avert the confusion.

>
> Michael

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
news:1100448898.Cxp1I/EOmK8jzRh1wjL0fA@teranews...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...>
>
>
>> So why then teach the solution that requires doing it the hard way?
>
> The easiest way to interpret a CDI needle 99% of the time is to think of
> it in terms of "left" vs "right".

And that is bad.

>
> A more generalized solution which thinks in terms of sectors does indeed
> make a back course easier for 1% of instrument flying but also makes the
> other 99% of instrument flying less intuitive.
>

No, not less intuitive - you just believe so as a product of your training.

>
> --------------------
> Richard Kaplan
>
> www.flyimc.com
>
>

> wrote in message
...>


> It is just as easy ti interpret a CDI needle in terms of headings and
> course intercept angles if you are taught properly to do so.

Please explain to me how to do this.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
t...>


> No, not less intuitive - you just believe so as a product of your
> training.

OK, so how would you teach use of a CDI to a brand new pilot?


--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

The OBS ring is set to a course heading.

The 2 hemispheres on the ring correspond to the two sides of the
course line. A northerly course has an east and west side. A
northwesterly course has a southwest and a northeast side.

Any of the 179 headings which are on the hemisphere on the needle side
will intercept the course, at 179 different angles. (Actually, 89
angles in one direction, and 89 angles in the other direction, and one
90-degree intercept) Any of the headings on the other hemisphere
will fly away from the course.

By flying a course, for example, 30 degrees off the top of the OBS, on
the needle-side hemisphere, will intercept the course at an angle of
30 degrees. To intercept at a 30 degree angle outbound, fly a course
30 degrees off the bootom of the OBS, on the needle side.

Likewise for any other angle.







On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 19:37:44 -0500, "Richard Kaplan"
> wrote:

> wrote in message
...>
>
>
>> It is just as easy ti interpret a CDI needle in terms of headings and
>> course intercept angles if you are taught properly to do so.
>
>Please explain to me how to do this.
>
>--------------------
>Richard Kaplan

>www.flyimc.com
>

Start by explaining that the ONLY information provided by a VOR head
is the position of the aircraft with respect to two lines.


There is NO directional information provided, and without some other
instrument to provide directional information, it is useless as a
navigation tool.



On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 19:38:59 -0500, "Richard Kaplan"
> wrote:

>
>"Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
t...>
>
>
>> No, not less intuitive - you just believe so as a product of your
>> training.
>
>OK, so how would you teach use of a CDI to a brand new pilot?
>
>
>--------------------
>Richard Kaplan

>www.flyimc.com
>

> wrote in message
...

> By flying a course, for example, 30 degrees off the top of the OBS, on
> the needle-side hemisphere, will intercept the course at an angle of
> 30 degrees. To intercept at a 30 degree angle outbound, fly a course
> 30 degrees off the bootom of the OBS, on the needle side.


That is fine as an explanation of which direction the CDI needle will move
in any given situation.

It does not make any easier the practical question of which way to point the
airplane when the CDI needle is deflected at any particular time.

And it particularly does not make any easier the practical question of which
way ot point the airplane when flying a localizer, where there are not 179
different courses that can be flown.

Your example focuses on VOR navigation, where there is never a need to
navigate with reverse sensing -- just turn the OBS knob 180 degrees.
Reverse sensing is only an issue on localizer approaches.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

A localizer course is no different in this respect. If you are not on
the course, there are 179 headings which could intercept the course.
2 headings are parallel headings, and 179 headings take you away from
the course.

This has nothing to do with radios. It is simple geometry. It
applies to any line in space.

As far as radios are concerned, if you have the OBS ring set to the
single localizer course, and you are west of course, it will indicate
west of course, whether front course or back.

There is no such thing as "reverse sensing". The nav radio senses a
localizer course on the back course EXACTLY the way is is sensed on
the front course.

The only thinkg that gets reversed is the pilot's thinking, which is
why the concept is found so confusing by students. It is not because
of inherent complexity, but because it is taught in an unnecessarily
complicated fashion by flight instructors.



On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 20:47:32 -0500, "Richard Kaplan"
> wrote:

> wrote in message
...
>
>> By flying a course, for example, 30 degrees off the top of the OBS, on
>> the needle-side hemisphere, will intercept the course at an angle of
>> 30 degrees. To intercept at a 30 degree angle outbound, fly a course
>> 30 degrees off the bootom of the OBS, on the needle side.
>
>
>That is fine as an explanation of which direction the CDI needle will move
>in any given situation.
>
>It does not make any easier the practical question of which way to point the
>airplane when the CDI needle is deflected at any particular time.
>
>And it particularly does not make any easier the practical question of which
>way ot point the airplane when flying a localizer, where there are not 179
>different courses that can be flown.
>
>Your example focuses on VOR navigation, where there is never a need to
>navigate with reverse sensing -- just turn the OBS knob 180 degrees.
>Reverse sensing is only an issue on localizer approaches.
>
>--------------------
>Richard Kaplan

>www.flyimc.com
>
>

> wrote in message
...

> As far as radios are concerned, if you have the OBS ring set to the
> single localizer course, and you are west of course, it will indicate
> west

I say again.... when things are bouncing around in the airplane and you need
a quick answer, which way do you turn when the needle is deflected?

For 99% of pilots, it is MUCH easier to turn in the direction of the needle
than to consider which geometric side of the course will result in what sort
of deflection. It is MUCH easier and safer if interpretation of the needle
is simplified in this format.

"Forward" vs. "Reverse" sensing are indeed simply paradigms based upon the
pilot's perspective of the world. For most pilots, the "Forward" sensing
paradigm is much easier to interpret than your alternative (though
acceptable) geometric paradigm. I agree that the "Reverse" sensing paradigm
is a bit harder than your geometric paradigm, but that accounts for a small
minority of time for most pilots compared with time under the "Forward"
paradigm.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

> wrote in message
...
>
> Start by explaining that the ONLY information provided by a VOR head
> is the position of the aircraft with respect to two lines.
>
>
> There is NO directional information provided, and without some other
> instrument to provide directional information, it is useless as a
> navigation tool.

Thank you. It is amazing that it has gotten to this.

>
>
>
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 19:38:59 -0500, "Richard Kaplan"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
t...>
>>
>>
>>> No, not less intuitive - you just believe so as a product of your
>>> training.
>>
>>OK, so how would you teach use of a CDI to a brand new pilot?
>>
>>
>>--------------------
>>Richard Kaplan

>>www.flyimc.com
>>
>

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 21:09:21 -0500, "Richard Kaplan"
> wrote:

> wrote in message
...
>
>> As far as radios are concerned, if you have the OBS ring set to the
>> single localizer course, and you are west of course, it will indicate
>> west
>
>I say again.... when things are bouncing around in the airplane and you need
>a quick answer, which way do you turn when the needle is deflected?


Easy as 1-2--3

You (1) look at the OBS, (2) select a heading on the needle side
that provides the intercept angle you desire, and (3) fly that
heading. You willl intercept the course on that angle.



>
>For 99% of pilots, it is MUCH easier to turn in the direction of the needle
>than to consider which geometric side of the course will result in what sort
>of deflection. It is MUCH easier and safer if interpretation of the needle
>is simplified in this format.


Only because of the law of primacy. It is not MUCH easier, in fact it
is more complex because of the mental processing required, and it is
certainly not safer. I have seen too many pilots reverse course and
fly away from their desired approach course because they kept turning
right or left when the needle didn't start to center.



>
>"Forward" vs. "Reverse" sensing are indeed simply paradigms based upon the
>pilot's perspective of the world. For most pilots, the "Forward" sensing
>paradigm is much easier to interpret than your alternative (though
>acceptable) geometric paradigm.

How would you know this? You have obviously never used the method, so
you have no basis to make this statement.



>I agree that the "Reverse" sensing paradigm
>is a bit harder than your geometric paradigm, but that accounts for a small
>minority of time for most pilots compared with time under the "Forward"
>paradigm.
>
>--------------------
>Richard Kaplan

>www.flyimc.com
>

wrote:

> Start by explaining that the ONLY information provided by a VOR head
> is the position of the aircraft with respect to two lines.

Actually, it gives you the position with respect to four lines, as the
TO/FROM flag allows you to bisect the course line and narrow your
position down to one of four quandrants. This is explained particularly
well in Peter Dogan's book.


> There is NO directional information provided, and without some other
> instrument to provide directional information, it is useless as a
> navigation tool.

Well, not exactly. It provides no information as to the heading of the
aircraft, but it provides a lot of information as to what direction to fly.

Matt

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 06:45:28 -0500, Matt Whiting
> wrote:

wrote:
>
>> Start by explaining that the ONLY information provided by a VOR head
>> is the position of the aircraft with respect to two lines.
>
>Actually, it gives you the position with respect to four lines, as the
>TO/FROM flag allows you to bisect the course line and narrow your
>position down to one of four quandrants. This is explained particularly
>well in Peter Dogan's book.


If you visualize the lines stopping at the VOR and another continuing
out the other side. I prefer to visualize that as a single line,
therefore I visualize only two lines.
>
>
>> There is NO directional information provided, and without some other
>> instrument to provide directional information, it is useless as a
>> navigation tool.
>
>Well, not exactly. It provides no information as to the heading of the
>aircraft, but it provides a lot of information as to what direction to fly.
>
>Matt

As I said, without the sun, the stars, or an instrument to use to
turn to that direction, it is useless.

Am I missing something in this thread? With an HSI if you set the front course
bearing on the OBS, you fly inbound on a back course approach into the needle
just as you do with the front course.

Richard Kaplan wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > As far as radios are concerned, if you have the OBS ring set to the
> > single localizer course, and you are west of course, it will indicate
> > west
>
> I say again.... when things are bouncing around in the airplane and you need
> a quick answer, which way do you turn when the needle is deflected?
>
> For 99% of pilots, it is MUCH easier to turn in the direction of the needle
> than to consider which geometric side of the course will result in what sort
> of deflection. It is MUCH easier and safer if interpretation of the needle
> is simplified in this format.
>
> "Forward" vs. "Reverse" sensing are indeed simply paradigms based upon the
> pilot's perspective of the world. For most pilots, the "Forward" sensing
> paradigm is much easier to interpret than your alternative (though
> acceptable) geometric paradigm. I agree that the "Reverse" sensing paradigm
> is a bit harder than your geometric paradigm, but that accounts for a small
> minority of time for most pilots compared with time under the "Forward"
> paradigm.
>
> --------------------
> Richard Kaplan
>
> www.flyimc.com

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 06:32:32 -0800, wrote:

>Am I missing something in this thread? With an HSI if you set the front course
>bearing on the OBS, you fly inbound on a back course approach into the needle
>just as you do with the front course.



Yep.

Exactly what you do with a DG/OBS, if you create a mental HSI by
superimposing the DG onto the OBS, or vice versa.

An HSI does not sense anything any differently. It combines two
instruments for ease of interpretation. The same thing can be done
mentally, if you want to save yourself $8000 or so.

If you set the OBS to the inbound course on a back course, and fly
headings that are on the CDI side of the OBS ring, you are doing what
the HSI "tells" you to do.


>
>Richard Kaplan wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > As far as radios are concerned, if you have the OBS ring set to the
>> > single localizer course, and you are west of course, it will indicate
>> > west
>>
>> I say again.... when things are bouncing around in the airplane and you need
>> a quick answer, which way do you turn when the needle is deflected?
>>
>> For 99% of pilots, it is MUCH easier to turn in the direction of the needle
>> than to consider which geometric side of the course will result in what sort
>> of deflection. It is MUCH easier and safer if interpretation of the needle
>> is simplified in this format.
>>
>> "Forward" vs. "Reverse" sensing are indeed simply paradigms based upon the
>> pilot's perspective of the world. For most pilots, the "Forward" sensing
>> paradigm is much easier to interpret than your alternative (though
>> acceptable) geometric paradigm. I agree that the "Reverse" sensing paradigm
>> is a bit harder than your geometric paradigm, but that accounts for a small
>> minority of time for most pilots compared with time under the "Forward"
>> paradigm.
>>
>> --------------------
>> Richard Kaplan
>>
>> www.flyimc.com

wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 06:32:32 -0800, wrote:
>
> >Am I missing something in this thread? With an HSI if you set the front course
> >bearing on the OBS, you fly inbound on a back course approach into the needle
> >just as you do with the front course.
>
> Yep.
>
> Exactly what you do with a DG/OBS, if you create a mental HSI by
> superimposing the DG onto the OBS, or vice versa.
>

I don't think my brain could handle that one. I did a lot of instrument instructing
many years ago, before HSIs appeared in light aircraft. I thought then, and think
now, of flying away from the CDI needle when flying inbound on a back course.

"Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote
> Here disagree - the current use appears to imply a "design flaw" but that
> is only because of imporper use and instruction of the instrument. It does
> not "point" to the course, rather it shows what sector of the localizer
> course you are on. (shaded or unshaded.)

This is of course correct - provided you can get the student to do
mental math on the approach. Of course to someone brought up on the
ADF, that's not a big deal - if you fly ADF approaches, every approach
requires mental math all the time.

However, in today's instructional environment, the ADF is introduced
late (as an advanced technique) or not introduced at all (since it is
no longer required). Further, in the real world of IFR flying, the
ADF is no longer particularly relevant to most pilots.

> It is a back course - meaning you are coming from the other way. You know
> this. Clearly the instruction should be corrected - it is a lot cheaper
> than everyone buying HSIs.

It may not be cheaper than installing a switch. Instruction also
costs money, if nothing else than in aircraft operation time. In the
higher end aircraft, it may not be cheaper than buying HSI's.

> > but the addition of a cheap,
> > simple, and reliable part to the CDI (or replacement with an HSI)
> > eliminates the potential for error - and is thus clearly an advantage.
>
> And what is thins part?

The switch.

> I contest that ensuring the blue and yellow colors on the instrument and
> proper training would avert the confusion.

I'm not convinced that blue and yellow colors on the instrument would
be cheaper than the switch. They are certainly not common on modern
CDI's. And the proper training you advocate involves being able to do
mental math, which in my experience most pilots can't do. You may not
realize this, but the elementary education system has changed. Have
you ever seen what happens at a store these days when the power goes
down and the cash registers don't work? Everything grinds to a halt;
most of the cashiers can't make change without the register computing
it.

Michael

It seems hard only because you learned a different method, and old
ideas and habits are hard to replace with new ones.

It's a real simple concept, however, simpler really than "reverse
sensing" by a a lot. Anyone can learn it, and it takes the guesswork
out of the equation.





On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 07:32:44 -0800, wrote:

>
>
wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 06:32:32 -0800, wrote:
>>
>> >Am I missing something in this thread? With an HSI if you set the front course
>> >bearing on the OBS, you fly inbound on a back course approach into the needle
>> >just as you do with the front course.
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>> Exactly what you do with a DG/OBS, if you create a mental HSI by
>> superimposing the DG onto the OBS, or vice versa.
>>
>
>I don't think my brain could handle that one. I did a lot of instrument instructing
>many years ago, before HSIs appeared in light aircraft. I thought then, and think
>now, of flying away from the CDI needle when flying inbound on a back course.

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote
>> Here disagree - the current use appears to imply a "design flaw" but
>> that
>> is only because of imporper use and instruction of the instrument. It
>> does
>> not "point" to the course, rather it shows what sector of the localizer
>> course you are on. (shaded or unshaded.)
>
> This is of course correct - provided you can get the student to do
> mental math on the approach. Of course to someone brought up on the
> ADF, that's not a big deal - if you fly ADF approaches, every approach
> requires mental math all the time.

What mental math? You look at the needle, determine what sector it is in,
then look at the chart and matchi it up. There is no math - you just match
a pattern of shaded or unshaded. I don't understand your objection about it
being difficult.


>
> However, in today's instructional environment, the ADF is introduced
> late (as an advanced technique) or not introduced at all (since it is
> no longer required). Further, in the real world of IFR flying, the
> ADF is no longer particularly relevant to most pilots.

I don't know if I would go that far. For those that use them it is a
wonderful tool. For those that do not it is useless.

>
>> It is a back course - meaning you are coming from the other way. You
>> know
>> this. Clearly the instruction should be corrected - it is a lot cheaper
>> than everyone buying HSIs.
>
> It may not be cheaper than installing a switch. Instruction also
> costs money, if nothing else than in aircraft operation time. In the
> higher end aircraft, it may not be cheaper than buying HSI's.

Agreed, but my point was that if the training had been correct the first
time around it would all be avoided.

>
>> > but the addition of a cheap,
>> > simple, and reliable part to the CDI (or replacement with an HSI)
>> > eliminates the potential for error - and is thus clearly an advantage.
>>
>> And what is thins part?
>
> The switch.

And you think that people would remember to flip the switch? It is
essentially the same issue as remembering you are on a BC. If you can
remember that you don't need the switch. It is the same problem, but now
you have added a component to the avioinics...

As you pointed out earier I seem to have started a religious war and I am
sorry for it. I have not been on this group long enough to have seen this
one before. My apologies.

>
>> I contest that ensuring the blue and yellow colors on the instrument and
>> proper training would avert the confusion.
>
> I'm not convinced that blue and yellow colors on the instrument would
> be cheaper than the switch. They are certainly not common on modern
> CDI's. And the proper training you advocate involves being able to do
> mental math, which in my experience most pilots can't do.

A simple memory aid will also work. But again, I see no mental math to do.
Nothing can be simpler.

> You may not
> realize this, but the elementary education system has changed. Have
> you ever seen what happens at a store these days when the power goes
> down and the cash registers don't work? Everything grinds to a halt;
> most of the cashiers can't make change without the register computing
> it.

I do, and I lament it terribly. I own many rental properties and pay taxes
for many school districts and I am certainly not getting my "money's worth"
from our local governments. I tutored some students recently and was
appalled at the curriculum and the text books.



>
> Michael

wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 06:32:32 -0800, wrote:
>
>
>>Am I missing something in this thread? With an HSI if you set the front course
>>bearing on the OBS, you fly inbound on a back course approach into the needle
>>just as you do with the front course.
>
>
>
>
> Yep.
>
> Exactly what you do with a DG/OBS, if you create a mental HSI by
> superimposing the DG onto the OBS, or vice versa.
>
> An HSI does not sense anything any differently. It combines two
> instruments for ease of interpretation. The same thing can be done
> mentally, if you want to save yourself $8000 or so.
>
> If you set the OBS to the inbound course on a back course, and fly
> headings that are on the CDI side of the OBS ring, you are doing what
> the HSI "tells" you to do.

True, but the HSI makes it much easier.


Matt

> wrote in message
...>


> You (1) look at the OBS, (2) select a heading on the needle side
> that provides the intercept angle you desire, and (3) fly that
> heading. You willl intercept the course on that angle.

You are referring to the situation where a VOR is used to find one's
position, i.e. establishing an initial course to a VOR.

I am referring instead to the more common situation where a pilot is flying
an instrument approach and needs to stay on course. In that situation,
there is a 2-step process, i.e. look at the needle and adjust track in that
direction (normal sensing) or opposite that direction (reverse sensing).

> Only because of the law of primacy. It is not MUCH easier, in fact it
> is more complex because of the mental processing required, and it is
> certainly not safer. I have seen too many pilots reverse course and
> fly away from their desired approach course because they kept turning
> right or left when the needle didn't start to center.

Again, let's discuss instrument approaches. If a pilot does a 180 on an
instrument approach then there are much more important issues at play than
CDI interpretation paradigms.

> How would you know this? You have obviously never used the method, so
> you have no basis to make this statement.

Why is this "obvious"?


--------------------
Richard Kaplan

> wrote in message
...


> It's a real simple concept, however, simpler really than "reverse
> sensing" by a a lot. Anyone can learn it, and it takes the guesswork
> out of the equation.

If we accept for the moment that your observation is correct, then how does
a pilot know when to activate the reverse-sense button on an autopilot?
Most autopilots seem to make the same "error" as most pilots in using the
"forward" vs. "reverse" sensing paradigm.


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

www.flyimc.com

> What mental math? You look at the needle, determine what sector it is in,
> then look at the chart and matchi it up. There is no math - you just match
> a pattern of shaded or unshaded. I don't understand your objection about it
> being difficult.

You don't need to know where you are, you need to know what to do. (not that situation awareness is not important, but when on final what you need to
know is whether to scooch left or right, or to scooch down or up. (or equivalently, if you are right or left of course, and high or low of the
glideslope).

With your approach, you know where you are, but you don't know what to do, until you figure out where you're pointed, and how that lies with respect
to where you should be pointed. It's not "difficult", but it does take more cycles, and those cycles might be needed elsewhere. Not usually, but
every now and then, and that's when you get bit.

What would be nice (and you can fudge this yourself) is a note on the CDI that says "BACKWARDS", just as a reminder when your cycles get used up.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
news:1100570202.0vj8752dnaoz5yN9HC14CA@teranews...
>
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>> It's a real simple concept, however, simpler really than "reverse
>> sensing" by a a lot. Anyone can learn it, and it takes the guesswork
>> out of the equation.
>
> If we accept for the moment that your observation is correct, then how
> does a pilot know when to activate the reverse-sense button on an
> autopilot? Most autopilots seem to make the same "error" as most pilots
> in using the "forward" vs. "reverse" sensing paradigm.

There is no reverse sensing. Look at a localizer approach - front or back
course. On the Nav head picture the left side of the indication to mean you
are in the blue sector (shaded) and the right side to mean you are in the
yellow (unshaded) sector. You just turn to intercept the center of the
course. There is no reverse, back, forward, etc. No math involved, no
switch, nothing, just consistent application of the same idea regardless of
Front course, back course, discourse, datcourse, ass course...



>
>
> --------------------
> Richard Kaplan, CFII
>
> www.flyimc.com
>

> There is no reverse sensing. Look at a localizer approach - front or back
> course. On the Nav head picture the left side of the indication to mean you
> are in the blue sector (shaded) and the right side to mean you are in the
> yellow (unshaded) sector. You just turn to intercept the center of the
> course. There is no reverse, back, forward, etc. No math involved, no
> switch, nothing, just consistent application of the same idea regardless of
> Front course, back course, discourse, datcourse, ass course...

But the plane's steering wheel just goes left and right, not blue and yellow. And my charts are in black and white.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
t...>


> There is no reverse sensing. Look at a localizer approach - front or back

I say again... when using an autopilot to fly a localizer or localizer
backcourse approach, using your technique how does one intuitively know to
push the reverse-sense button so that the autopilot nav mode will operate
properly.

Many autopilots require the "reverse" or "backcourse" button to be pushed
when flying the frontcourse outbound or when flying the backcourse inbound.

You can argue all you want that there is "no such thing" as reverse sensing,
but the fact is that this button exists on many autopilots and such an
autopilot cannot fly a full localizer approach in nav mode without
activating the reverse button for part of the approach and deactivating the
button for part of the approach.


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

www.flyimc.com

"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
>> What mental math? You look at the needle, determine what sector it is
>> in, then look at the chart and matchi it up. There is no math - you just
>> match a pattern of shaded or unshaded. I don't understand your objection
>> about it being difficult.
>
> You don't need to know where you are, you need to know what to do. (not
> that situation awareness is not important, but when on final what you need
> to know is whether to scooch left or right, or to scooch down or up. (or
> equivalently, if you are right or left of course, and high or low of the
> glideslope).


Bull****. You need to know where you are. So you would just blindly follow
needles? Lord help us. What happens when you intercept a localizer and it
is the wrong one? (Perhaps there are two localizers on either end of the
runway and the "wrong one" is turned on? It has happened. Do you just
follow the needles? (So , it is a little contrived, as I would hope you id
the localizer and find it before then)

You can keep following your needles and ignoring where you are, but I like
to know what the hell is going on when I fly. I will do it my way and I
will never, ever "F\forget" about "reverse sensing." Apparently some folks
like to stick with their voodoo.

>
> With your approach, you know where you are, but you don't know what to do,
> until you figure out where you're pointed, and how that lies with respect
> to where you should be pointed. It's not "difficult", but it does take
> more cycles, and those cycles might be needed elsewhere. Not usually, but
> every now and then, and that's when you get bit.

I would not call it cycles. A quick glance at the Heading indicator and at
the chart is all that is needed. My lord, you make it sound like I am
trying to prove a prime number theory or something on final.

>
> What would be nice (and you can fudge this yourself) is a note on the CDI
> that says "BACKWARDS", just as a reminder when your cycles get used up.

You go ahead and use that method. I will stick to something that works 100%
with no "cycles" or reminder about "reverse" sensing.
You are also not always on final when intercepting a localizer. I just
prefer not to have to have some exception to the "rule" about the needle
pointing the right way or not. Understand what the instrument tells you and
you need not do mental math, take cycles or put silly postits on your
instrument panel.
>
> Jose
> --
> Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> So you would just blindly follow
> needles? Lord help us. What happens when
> you intercept a localizer and it
> is the wrong one?

In that case, I'd also be following the wrong blue/yellow areas.

If you read what I said a bit more closely, you'd see that I was not advocating blindly following needles. But once you are established on the right
course, following the needles is the easiest way to get where you're going.

> I would not call it cycles. A quick glance at the Heading indicator and at
> the chart is all that is needed.

That's two glances. I need one. Half the work, freeing twice as much brain for other stuff as you're being bounced around. The chart just fell off
the clip, MDA is 436, you're at 740 and one dot in the yellow, now which was the blue area again?. (the red jack goes on the black queen)

> You are also not always on final when intercepting a localizer.

Of course not. You are never on final when intercepting a localizer.

I know (as well as most other pilots) that the "reverse sensing" is an illusion caused by "reverse pointing" of the nose of the airplane WRT the OBS
(which on a localizer cannot be changed). But if it could, doing so would be the same as flipping the "reverse sense" switch you deride. You accept
the OBS for VOR, don't you?

Whatever works for you works for you. This works for me.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

wrote in :

> I don't think my brain could handle that one. I did a lot of
> instrument instructing many years ago, before HSIs appeared in light
> aircraft. I thought then, and think now, of flying away from the CDI
> needle when flying inbound on a back course.

I teach LOC BC just a little differently; I have had numerous trainees
remark on how simple it is. Just a little change in the way you think.

When flying the localizer back course (without an HSI), think: "I AM THE
NEEDLE. I need to fly toward the center of the CDI." This removes the
"reverse sensing" thought process and makes the whole thing just a little
more intuitive.

L. R. Du Broff
CFII (gold seal)

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 20:54:59 -0500, "Richard Kaplan"
> wrote:

>
>
> wrote in message
...>
>
>
>> You (1) look at the OBS, (2) select a heading on the needle side
>> that provides the intercept angle you desire, and (3) fly that
>> heading. You willl intercept the course on that angle.
>
>You are referring to the situation where a VOR is used to find one's
>position, i.e. establishing an initial course to a VOR.


Wrong. I am referring to intercept and tracking, en route, approach,
or holding courses, inbound or outbound.

>
>I am referring instead to the more common situation where a pilot is flying
>an instrument approach and needs to stay on course. In that situation,
>there is a 2-step process, i.e. look at the needle and adjust track in that
>direction (normal sensing) or opposite that direction (reverse sensing).

Let's refer to the common case where a pilot has crossed the approach
course on an intercept without noticing it. He finally notices the
error and needs to turn.

What does he do under your method?

>
>> Only because of the law of primacy. It is not MUCH easier, in fact it
>> is more complex because of the mental processing required, and it is
>> certainly not safer. I have seen too many pilots reverse course and
>> fly away from their desired approach course because they kept turning
>> right or left when the needle didn't start to center.
>
>Again, let's discuss instrument approaches. If a pilot does a 180 on an
>instrument approach then there are much more important issues at play than
>CDI interpretation paradigms.
>
>> How would you know this? You have obviously never used the method, so
>> you have no basis to make this statement.
>
>Why is this "obvious"?

Because of the statements you have made and the questions you have
asked.
>
>
>--------------------
>Richard Kaplan

>
>
>

Irrelevant.


On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 20:58:13 -0500, "Richard Kaplan"
> wrote:

>
>
> wrote in message
...
>
>
>> It's a real simple concept, however, simpler really than "reverse
>> sensing" by a a lot. Anyone can learn it, and it takes the guesswork
>> out of the equation.
>
>If we accept for the moment that your observation is correct, then how does
>a pilot know when to activate the reverse-sense button on an autopilot?
>Most autopilots seem to make the same "error" as most pilots in using the
>"forward" vs. "reverse" sensing paradigm.
>
>
>--------------------
>Richard Kaplan, CFII

>www.flyimc.com
>

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 04:23:17 GMT, "Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com>
wrote:

>
>There is no reverse sensing. Look at a localizer approach - front or back
>course. On the Nav head picture the left side of the indication to mean you
>are in the blue sector (shaded) and the right side to mean you are in the
>yellow (unshaded) sector. You just turn to intercept the center of the
>course. There is no reverse, back, forward, etc. No math involved, no
>switch, nothing, just consistent application of the same idea regardless of
>Front course, back course, discourse, datcourse, ass course...
>
>
>
Precisely.

And you can get even more precision by using heading information
rather than the more generalized blue/yellow.

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 04:26:26 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> There is no reverse sensing. Look at a localizer approach - front or back
>> course. On the Nav head picture the left side of the indication to mean you
>> are in the blue sector (shaded) and the right side to mean you are in the
>> yellow (unshaded) sector. You just turn to intercept the center of the
>> course. There is no reverse, back, forward, etc. No math involved, no
>> switch, nothing, just consistent application of the same idea regardless of
>> Front course, back course, discourse, datcourse, ass course...
>
>But the plane's steering wheel just goes left and right, not blue and yellow. And my charts are in black and white.
>
>Jose


Your steering wheel can be used to turn to a precise heading as easily
as it can be used to simply turn right and left.

The first is more positive than the latter. Of course, it requires
that you first know what the heading is that does the job for the task
at hand.

I don't know about you, but I get uneasy flying in the couds with
pilots who only know that it's "somewhere over there on the right"
(where it may or may not be).

So what does any of this have to do with a pilot flying without an
autopilot?

The autopilot is programmed with all kinds of algorithms for flying
intercept headings.

I am quite sure an autopilot doesn't simply fly right towards a right
needle some undetermined amount, and then turn some more when the
needle doesn't move, as many pilots do who use your preferred method.




On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 23:29:57 -0500, "Richard Kaplan"
> wrote:

>
>"Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
t...>
>
>
>> There is no reverse sensing. Look at a localizer approach - front or back
>
>I say again... when using an autopilot to fly a localizer or localizer
>backcourse approach, using your technique how does one intuitively know to
>push the reverse-sense button so that the autopilot nav mode will operate
>properly.
>
>Many autopilots require the "reverse" or "backcourse" button to be pushed
>when flying the frontcourse outbound or when flying the backcourse inbound.
>
>You can argue all you want that there is "no such thing" as reverse sensing,
>but the fact is that this button exists on many autopilots and such an
>autopilot cannot fly a full localizer approach in nav mode without
>activating the reverse button for part of the approach and deactivating the
>button for part of the approach.
>
>
>--------------------
>Richard Kaplan, CFII

>www.flyimc.com
>

Let's say you are about to fly a westbound localizer approach with a
procedure turn.

Approaching from the NNE, you cross the IAF and turn towards the east
for the procedure turn, ending up south of the course due to the
strong winds from the north/northwest and the duration of the turn .

The wind from the north/northwest, means you need to adjust to
re-intercept the approach course for the procedure turn outbound.

Just curious. What do you have your students do?


On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:53:42 GMT, "L. R. Diu Broff"
> wrote:

wrote in :
>
>> I don't think my brain could handle that one. I did a lot of
>> instrument instructing many years ago, before HSIs appeared in light
>> aircraft. I thought then, and think now, of flying away from the CDI
>> needle when flying inbound on a back course.
>
>I teach LOC BC just a little differently; I have had numerous trainees
>remark on how simple it is. Just a little change in the way you think.
>
>When flying the localizer back course (without an HSI), think: "I AM THE
>NEEDLE. I need to fly toward the center of the CDI." This removes the
>"reverse sensing" thought process and makes the whole thing just a little
>more intuitive.
>
>L. R. Du Broff
>CFII (gold seal)

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 19:19:04 -0500, Matt Whiting
> wrote:

wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 06:32:32 -0800, wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Am I missing something in this thread? With an HSI if you set the front course
>>>bearing on the OBS, you fly inbound on a back course approach into the needle
>>>just as you do with the front course.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>> Exactly what you do with a DG/OBS, if you create a mental HSI by
>> superimposing the DG onto the OBS, or vice versa.
>>
>> An HSI does not sense anything any differently. It combines two
>> instruments for ease of interpretation. The same thing can be done
>> mentally, if you want to save yourself $8000 or so.
>>
>> If you set the OBS to the inbound course on a back course, and fly
>> headings that are on the CDI side of the OBS ring, you are doing what
>> the HSI "tells" you to do.
>
>True, but the HSI makes it much easier.
>
>
>Matt

True, but the HSI makes it much more expensive.

"Jose" > wrote in message
om...
>> There is no reverse sensing. Look at a localizer approach - front or
>> back course. On the Nav head picture the left side of the indication to
>> mean you are in the blue sector (shaded) and the right side to mean you
>> are in the yellow (unshaded) sector. You just turn to intercept the
>> center of the course. There is no reverse, back, forward, etc. No math
>> involved, no switch, nothing, just consistent application of the same
>> idea regardless of Front course, back course, discourse, datcourse, ass
>> course...
>
> But the plane's steering wheel just goes left and right, not blue and
> yellow. And my charts are in black and white.

Perhaps instrument flying is not for you. I am truly sorry about your
condition. Sorry to have wasted your time.

>
> Jose
> --
> Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote
> > This is of course correct - provided you can get the student to do
> > mental math on the approach. Of course to someone brought up on the
> > ADF, that's not a big deal - if you fly ADF approaches, every approach
> > requires mental math all the time.
>
> What mental math? You look at the needle, determine what sector it is in,
> then look at the chart and matchi it up.

And then you have to check your heading, and figure out the proper
heading to intercept, turn to that heading, and fly it. That's the
mental math. Sure, it's just addition/subtraction with 3 digit
numbers - but most people can't do that quickly. They get confused.

> I don't know if I would go that far. For those that use them it is a
> wonderful tool. For those that do not it is useless.

Yes, but most don't use it. I do, of course - my home field only has
GPS and NDB approaches, and I don't have IFR GPS. And I do teach ADF
approaches, in actual, to minimums. But I'm an anachronism. Most
flight schools are removing the ADF from the trainers so as not to
have to teach the ADF.

> > It may not be cheaper than installing a switch. Instruction also
> > costs money, if nothing else than in aircraft operation time. In the
> > higher end aircraft, it may not be cheaper than buying HSI's.
>
> Agreed, but my point was that if the training had been correct the first
> time around it would all be avoided.

And my point is that if you're training someone who can't add/subtract
three digit numbers in his head, the training is going to take a long
time.

> And you think that people would remember to flip the switch?

They only have to remember it ONCE - upon starting the approach.

> As you pointed out earier I seem to have started a religious war and I am
> sorry for it.

Why? It's on topic and relevant, and everyone is being civil.

> I have not been on this group long enough to have seen this one before.

Nor I. It was just obviously the sort of thing that starts one here.

> I do, and I lament it terribly. I own many rental properties and pay taxes
> for many school districts and I am certainly not getting my "money's worth"
> from our local governments. I tutored some students recently and was
> appalled at the curriculum and the text books.

Well, what I'm trying to explain to you is that the process you refer
to as simple actually involves mental math - geometry to be exact.
You either have to visualize angles or do three digit
addition/subtraction. The average graduate of the modern educational
system can't do either one quickly, because the necessary skills,
concepts, and drill don't happen early enough. Algebra isn't a
3rd-4th grade subject as it once was (as late as the 1970's in the
Soviet Union) but a High School subject. By then, it's not too late
to get the concepts across (to most) but it is too late to get the
speed.

Michael

wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 19:19:04 -0500, Matt Whiting
> > wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 06:32:32 -0800, wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Am I missing something in this thread? With an HSI if you set the front course
>>>>bearing on the OBS, you fly inbound on a back course approach into the needle
>>>>just as you do with the front course.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Yep.
>>>
>>>Exactly what you do with a DG/OBS, if you create a mental HSI by
>>>superimposing the DG onto the OBS, or vice versa.
>>>
>>>An HSI does not sense anything any differently. It combines two
>>>instruments for ease of interpretation. The same thing can be done
>>>mentally, if you want to save yourself $8000 or so.
>>>
>>>If you set the OBS to the inbound course on a back course, and fly
>>>headings that are on the CDI side of the OBS ring, you are doing what
>>>the HSI "tells" you to do.
>>
>>True, but the HSI makes it much easier.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> True, but the HSI makes it much more expensive.
>

The good things in life aren't free! :-)

Once can argue that a VOR is more expensive than dead/ded reckoning also...


Matt

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote
>> > This is of course correct - provided you can get the student to do
>> > mental math on the approach. Of course to someone brought up on the
>> > ADF, that's not a big deal - if you fly ADF approaches, every approach
>> > requires mental math all the time.
>>
>> What mental math? You look at the needle, determine what sector it is
>> in,
>> then look at the chart and matchi it up.
>
> And then you have to check your heading, and figure out the proper
> heading to intercept, turn to that heading, and fly it. That's the
> mental math. Sure, it's just addition/subtraction with 3 digit
> numbers - but most people can't do that quickly. They get confused.

I don't see how the sector method neccesitates doing math where "yours" (the
left right) does not. (However, I would argue that flying a heading is the
proper way to fly regardless, otherwise you have no idea what is going on.
Chasing needles is worthless and prone to cause significant problems later
on.)

You can figure out "left" or "right" by looking at the chart - it is one
extra glance at the chart compared to the more popular left/right method and
no math is involved.

>
>> I don't know if I would go that far. For those that use them it is a
>> wonderful tool. For those that do not it is useless.
>
> Yes, but most don't use it. I do, of course - my home field only has
> GPS and NDB approaches, and I don't have IFR GPS. And I do teach ADF
> approaches, in actual, to minimums. But I'm an anachronism. Most
> flight schools are removing the ADF from the trainers so as not to
> have to teach the ADF.

My instructor was an anachronism as well. He loathes the pretty maps and
pictures on the display. Thinks it is killing all understanding of IFR
flying.

>
>> > It may not be cheaper than installing a switch. Instruction also
>> > costs money, if nothing else than in aircraft operation time. In the
>> > higher end aircraft, it may not be cheaper than buying HSI's.
>>
>> Agreed, but my point was that if the training had been correct the first
>> time around it would all be avoided.
>
> And my point is that if you're training someone who can't add/subtract
> three digit numbers in his head, the training is going to take a long
> time.

I suppose, I am not a CFII. I have no idea what to say to that - (however,
I am not sure the method I advocate requires doing math - there is a way to
find "left/right" by looking at a chart) So how do these folks figure out
intercept angles or other such stuff? Surely you have to prepare them to be
ready to intercept airways and courses, etc. (There is also the timed
turns) I am astounded that this is the hard part and not those other issues
for people who can't do math. I cringe thinking about how they must start
smoking out their heads when they have to come up with wind corrections or
other stuff.

>
>> And you think that people would remember to flip the switch?
>
> They only have to remember it ONCE - upon starting the approach.

But what if they do not? The problem can be reduced to the same thing - if
there is a possibility of forgetting it any time during the approach without
the switch, surely there is a possibility of forgetting it for the entire
approach. it is likely they will realize something is wrong when the needle
goes crazy according to their misunderstanding of the situation.

>
>> As you pointed out earier I seem to have started a religious war and I am
>> sorry for it.
>
> Why? It's on topic and relevant, and everyone is being civil.
>
>> I have not been on this group long enough to have seen this one before.
>
> Nor I. It was just obviously the sort of thing that starts one here.
>
>> I do, and I lament it terribly. I own many rental properties and pay
>> taxes
>> for many school districts and I am certainly not getting my "money's
>> worth"
>> from our local governments. I tutored some students recently and was
>> appalled at the curriculum and the text books.
>
> Well, what I'm trying to explain to you is that the process you refer
> to as simple actually involves mental math - geometry to be exact.
> You either have to visualize angles or do three digit
> addition/subtraction. The average graduate of the modern educational
> system can't do either one quickly, because the necessary skills,
> concepts, and drill don't happen early enough. Algebra isn't a
> 3rd-4th grade subject as it once was (as late as the 1970's in the
> Soviet Union) but a High School subject. By then, it's not too late
> to get the concepts across (to most) but it is too late to get the
> speed.

I don't even want to discuss the horrors I see constantly with the local
"education" system.

>
> Michael

> wrote in message
...>

> So what does any of this have to do with a pilot flying without an
> autopilot?

You mentioned the law of primacy. We should assume that even the pilot of
an airplane without an autopilot may eventually fly with an autopilot, so
therefore we should fly under a paradigm compatible with autopilot
operation. It is impossible to use your method with an autopilot -- the
pilot must understand the concept of forward vs. reverse sensing to fly an
approach with an autopilot.



> I am quite sure an autopilot doesn't simply fly right towards a right
> needle some undetermined amount, and then turn some more when the
> needle doesn't move, as many pilots do who use your preferred method.

Establishing a proper intercept angle can be done with either paradigm -- I
don't see the issue here.

In any event, I say again... flying a localizer approach with an autopilot
requires understanding of the "forward" vs. "reverse" sensing algorithm.
That is reason enough for all IFR pilots to use this paradigm.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

> wrote in message
...

> Irrelevant.

No, it is not irrelevant. This is in fact the best rationale of all to use
the forward vs. reverse sensing paradigm.

An IFR procedures paradigm which cannot be carried over to autopilot
operation when a pilot steps up to an autopilot-equipped airplane is a poor
paradigm.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 02:17:56 -0500, "Richard Kaplan"
> wrote:

>
> wrote in message
...>
>
>> So what does any of this have to do with a pilot flying without an
>> autopilot?
>
>You mentioned the law of primacy. We should assume that even the pilot of
>an airplane without an autopilot may eventually fly with an autopilot, so
>therefore we should fly under a paradigm compatible with autopilot
>operation. It is impossible to use your method with an autopilot -- the
>pilot must understand the concept of forward vs. reverse sensing to fly an
>approach with an autopilot.
>
>
Beyond ridiculous.


>
>> I am quite sure an autopilot doesn't simply fly right towards a right
>> needle some undetermined amount, and then turn some more when the
>> needle doesn't move, as many pilots do who use your preferred method.
>
>Establishing a proper intercept angle can be done with either paradigm -- I
>don't see the issue here.
>
>In any event, I say again... flying a localizer approach with an autopilot
>requires understanding of the "forward" vs. "reverse" sensing algorithm.
>That is reason enough for all IFR pilots to use this paradigm.


I say again.

Totally ridiculous.


>
>--------------------
>Richard Kaplan

>www.flyimc.com
>
>

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 02:19:44 -0500, "Richard Kaplan"
> wrote:

>
> wrote in message
...
>
>> Irrelevant.
>
>No, it is not irrelevant. This is in fact the best rationale of all to use
>the forward vs. reverse sensing paradigm.
>
>An IFR procedures paradigm which cannot be carried over to autopilot
>operation when a pilot steps up to an autopilot-equipped airplane is a poor
>paradigm.


The problem is in your assumption (unproven, undemonstrated) that the
method cannot be carried over to an autopilot.

It is a cute attempt to grasp at a straw to support your argument, but
it is dead wrong.

So it is, indeed, irrelevant.

Not that I really care at this point.

I have seen your method used. I have seen experienced pilots using
your method turn towards the needle and wait for it to center, with
no idea of what angle of intercept they are using, or even if they are
intercepting the course at all. I have seen them turn "a little bit
more" towards the needle, until they have completely turned around and
headed the other way.

I have seen them totally screwed up because of the mental gyrations
required to mentally turn the aircraft so that they know whether to
turn right or left, and then have to mentally turn the aircraft the
"other" way because they forgot they were making a localizer procedure
turn, or got screwed up by wind outbound in a localizer holding
pattern, and thought the holding course was on their right when it was
on their left or dead ahead of them , and they flew your method until
they were ten miles off the course.

I have seen them become so screwed up by this time that they not only
do not know their right from their left, they hardly know up from
down.

So I have given your method a chance, and it failed muster, so I
moved on to a better method. A more positive method, less error prone
and less pilot overload.

But you hang in there. I'm outta here on this one.

> wrote in message
...>


> Beyond ridiculous.

Do you care to elaborate?

What autopilot(s) have you used to fly localizer approaches?

How do you propose flying a localizer approach using an autopilot in
navigation mode without understanding the paradigm of forward vs. reverse
sensing?

I do not know how to do this with an autopilot without using the concept of
forward or reverse sensing -- do you know of a way to do this? Does anyone
here know of a way to do this?


--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

> wrote in message
...>

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 02:19:44 -0500, "Richard Kaplan"

> It is a cute attempt to grasp at a straw to support your argument, but
> it is dead wrong.

OK, please tell me how to use an autopilot in nav mode on a localizer
approach without using the paradigm of reverse sensing.

Do you have an autopilot in the plane(s) you fly?


> I have seen your method used. I have seen experienced pilots using
> your method turn towards the needle and wait for it to center, with
> no idea of what angle of intercept they are using, or even if they are

That can happen with any pardigm.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
t...>


>> The easiest way to interpret a CDI needle 99% of the time is to think of
>> it in terms of "left" vs "right".

> And that is bad.

Then as I asked in another message in this thread -- how do you propose
using an autopilot in nav mode to fly a localizer approach without utilizing
the concept of forward vs. reverse sensing? It cannot be done.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote
> My instructor was an anachronism as well. He loathes the pretty maps and
> pictures on the display. Thinks it is killing all understanding of IFR
> flying.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. I think a moving map is great - but
unfortunately, it does allow pilots who have not grasped the
difference between heading, bearing, course, and track to obtain an
instrument rating. And it does cause more subtle problems. That's
why I like the ADF - it's a pretty lousy navaid, but it's great for
forcing the student to learn what all those things mean and
internalize the knowledge. It's sort of like the tailwheel of IFR
flying.

> > And my point is that if you're training someone who can't add/subtract
> > three digit numbers in his head, the training is going to take a long
> > time.
>
> I suppose, I am not a CFII. I have no idea what to say to that - (however,
> I am not sure the method I advocate requires doing math - there is a way to
> find "left/right" by looking at a chart)

Yes, but that means doing mental geometry, and most people these days
aren't any better at that than they are at mental arithmetic. Six of
one, half dozen of the other.

> So how do these folks figure out
> intercept angles or other such stuff?

Poorly. With tricks using the DG and/or the CDI and rules of thumb
and memory aids. I never messed with any of that stuff when I was
learning to fly instruments, because I always considered it easier
just to figure it out, but now as an instructor I find that I must
maintain an arsenal of them.

> Surely you have to prepare them to be
> ready to intercept airways and courses, etc. (There is also the timed
> turns) I am astounded that this is the hard part and not those other issues
> for people who can't do math. I cringe thinking about how they must start
> smoking out their heads when they have to come up with wind corrections or
> other stuff.

Unfortunately, that's not far off the mark. There is a reason many
people need 50 hours (or more) for an instrument rating, and this is
it. I've never seen anyone need more than a few hours to develop the
skills necessary to control the airplane adequately when told what
heading and altitude to fly - meaning the skills required for an ASR
or PAR approach. Most people get there in well under 3 hours. Some
of them (those who are good at understanding geometry) move on
quickly, and are ready to pass the checkride at 15-20 hours. Others
bog down on procedures and need an additional 20-50 hours.

Have you noted lately the popularity of such techniques as the
no-brainer NDB approach, the hold entry where you simply turn the
short way to the outbound, and all the other tricks people come up
with to avoid the need for situational awareness?

> > They only have to remember it ONCE - upon starting the approach.
>
> But what if they do not?

Then they will quickly peg the needle and hopefully go missed. Or, if
they're CFII's who are making their first flight in IMC while
instructing a student, they descend below mins with the needle pegged
and wait for the student to identify a local landmark and land the
plane (no **** this really happened).

Michael

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote
>> My instructor was an anachronism as well. He loathes the pretty maps and
>> pictures on the display. Thinks it is killing all understanding of IFR
>> flying.
>
> Well, I wouldn't go that far. I think a moving map is great - but
> unfortunately, it does allow pilots who have not grasped the
> difference between heading, bearing, course, and track to obtain an
> instrument rating. And it does cause more subtle problems. That's
> why I like the ADF - it's a pretty lousy navaid, but it's great for
> forcing the student to learn what all those things mean and
> internalize the knowledge. It's sort of like the tailwheel of IFR
> flying.
>
>> > And my point is that if you're training someone who can't add/subtract
>> > three digit numbers in his head, the training is going to take a long
>> > time.
>>
>> I suppose, I am not a CFII. I have no idea what to say to that -
>> (however,
>> I am not sure the method I advocate requires doing math - there is a way
>> to
>> find "left/right" by looking at a chart)
>
> Yes, but that means doing mental geometry, and most people these days
> aren't any better at that than they are at mental arithmetic. Six of
> one, half dozen of the other.
>
>> So how do these folks figure out
>> intercept angles or other such stuff?
>
> Poorly. With tricks using the DG and/or the CDI and rules of thumb
> and memory aids. I never messed with any of that stuff when I was
> learning to fly instruments, because I always considered it easier
> just to figure it out, but now as an instructor I find that I must
> maintain an arsenal of them.

Yes, my point of view is skewed towards a little more competency.

>
>> Surely you have to prepare them to be
>> ready to intercept airways and courses, etc. (There is also the timed
>> turns) I am astounded that this is the hard part and not those other
>> issues
>> for people who can't do math. I cringe thinking about how they must
>> start
>> smoking out their heads when they have to come up with wind corrections
>> or
>> other stuff.
>
> Unfortunately, that's not far off the mark. There is a reason many
> people need 50 hours (or more) for an instrument rating, and this is
> it. I've never seen anyone need more than a few hours to develop the
> skills necessary to control the airplane adequately when told what
> heading and altitude to fly - meaning the skills required for an ASR
> or PAR approach. Most people get there in well under 3 hours. Some
> of them (those who are good at understanding geometry) move on
> quickly, and are ready to pass the checkride at 15-20 hours. Others
> bog down on procedures and need an additional 20-50 hours.

I must be stupid then as well. I spent about 50 hours in a frasca trainer
before ever getting in the plane to fly (but then it was quick).

>
> Have you noted lately the popularity of such techniques as the
> no-brainer NDB approach, the hold entry where you simply turn the
> short way to the outbound, and all the other tricks people come up
> with to avoid the need for situational awareness?
>
>> > They only have to remember it ONCE - upon starting the approach.
>>
>> But what if they do not?
>
> Then they will quickly peg the needle and hopefully go missed. Or, if
> they're CFII's who are making their first flight in IMC while
> instructing a student, they descend below mins with the needle pegged
> and wait for the student to identify a local landmark and land the
> plane (no **** this really happened).

That is scary. I have also heard scary stories about 15 minute practicals
with about 5 minutes of oral beforehand and the DE was handling the radios
the whole time. It is no wonder so many people end up in the sides of
mountains.


>
> Michael

Yes, and I miss the old 4 course ranges. An approach down one of those
really made a man out of you. All this VOR and DME stuff is for
sissies too. Just gimmie a 4 course range and good set of earphones,
and I'll land 'er in any weather, by gump.


(Michael) wrote in message >...
> "Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote
> > My instructor was an anachronism as well. He loathes the pretty maps and
> > pictures on the display. Thinks it is killing all understanding of IFR
> > flying.
>
> Well, I wouldn't go that far. I think a moving map is great - but
> unfortunately, it does allow pilots who have not grasped the
> difference between heading, bearing, course, and track to obtain an
> instrument rating. And it does cause more subtle problems. That's
> why I like the ADF - it's a pretty lousy navaid, but it's great for
> forcing the student to learn what all those things mean and
> internalize the knowledge. It's sort of like the tailwheel of IFR
> flying.
>
> > > And my point is that if you're training someone who can't add/subtract
> > > three digit numbers in his head, the training is going to take a long
> > > time.
> >
> > I suppose, I am not a CFII. I have no idea what to say to that - (however,
> > I am not sure the method I advocate requires doing math - there is a way to
> > find "left/right" by looking at a chart)
>
> Yes, but that means doing mental geometry, and most people these days
> aren't any better at that than they are at mental arithmetic. Six of
> one, half dozen of the other.
>
> > So how do these folks figure out
> > intercept angles or other such stuff?
>
> Poorly. With tricks using the DG and/or the CDI and rules of thumb
> and memory aids. I never messed with any of that stuff when I was
> learning to fly instruments, because I always considered it easier
> just to figure it out, but now as an instructor I find that I must
> maintain an arsenal of them.
>
> > Surely you have to prepare them to be
> > ready to intercept airways and courses, etc. (There is also the timed
> > turns) I am astounded that this is the hard part and not those other issues
> > for people who can't do math. I cringe thinking about how they must start
> > smoking out their heads when they have to come up with wind corrections or
> > other stuff.
>
> Unfortunately, that's not far off the mark. There is a reason many
> people need 50 hours (or more) for an instrument rating, and this is
> it. I've never seen anyone need more than a few hours to develop the
> skills necessary to control the airplane adequately when told what
> heading and altitude to fly - meaning the skills required for an ASR
> or PAR approach. Most people get there in well under 3 hours. Some
> of them (those who are good at understanding geometry) move on
> quickly, and are ready to pass the checkride at 15-20 hours. Others
> bog down on procedures and need an additional 20-50 hours.
>
> Have you noted lately the popularity of such techniques as the
> no-brainer NDB approach, the hold entry where you simply turn the
> short way to the outbound, and all the other tricks people come up
> with to avoid the need for situational awareness?
>
> > > They only have to remember it ONCE - upon starting the approach.
> >
> > But what if they do not?
>
> Then they will quickly peg the needle and hopefully go missed. Or, if
> they're CFII's who are making their first flight in IMC while
> instructing a student, they descend below mins with the needle pegged
> and wait for the student to identify a local landmark and land the
> plane (no **** this really happened).
>
> Michael

For sissies as well.

Give me an airport next to a good old pig farm upwind, and I'll open
the window and smell my way down, and I never miss the MAP.



On 17 Nov 2004 17:35:06 -0800, (Doug)
wrote:

>Yes, and I miss the old 4 course ranges. An approach down one of those
>really made a man out of you. All this VOR and DME stuff is for
>sissies too. Just gimmie a 4 course range and good set of earphones,
>and I'll land 'er in any weather, by gump.
>
>
(Michael) wrote in message >...
>> "Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote
>> > My instructor was an anachronism as well. He loathes the pretty maps and
>> > pictures on the display. Thinks it is killing all understanding of IFR
>> > flying.
>>
>> Well, I wouldn't go that far. I think a moving map is great - but
>> unfortunately, it does allow pilots who have not grasped the
>> difference between heading, bearing, course, and track to obtain an
>> instrument rating. And it does cause more subtle problems. That's
>> why I like the ADF - it's a pretty lousy navaid, but it's great for
>> forcing the student to learn what all those things mean and
>> internalize the knowledge. It's sort of like the tailwheel of IFR
>> flying.
>>
>> > > And my point is that if you're training someone who can't add/subtract
>> > > three digit numbers in his head, the training is going to take a long
>> > > time.
>> >
>> > I suppose, I am not a CFII. I have no idea what to say to that - (however,
>> > I am not sure the method I advocate requires doing math - there is a way to
>> > find "left/right" by looking at a chart)
>>
>> Yes, but that means doing mental geometry, and most people these days
>> aren't any better at that than they are at mental arithmetic. Six of
>> one, half dozen of the other.
>>
>> > So how do these folks figure out
>> > intercept angles or other such stuff?
>>
>> Poorly. With tricks using the DG and/or the CDI and rules of thumb
>> and memory aids. I never messed with any of that stuff when I was
>> learning to fly instruments, because I always considered it easier
>> just to figure it out, but now as an instructor I find that I must
>> maintain an arsenal of them.
>>
>> > Surely you have to prepare them to be
>> > ready to intercept airways and courses, etc. (There is also the timed
>> > turns) I am astounded that this is the hard part and not those other issues
>> > for people who can't do math. I cringe thinking about how they must start
>> > smoking out their heads when they have to come up with wind corrections or
>> > other stuff.
>>
>> Unfortunately, that's not far off the mark. There is a reason many
>> people need 50 hours (or more) for an instrument rating, and this is
>> it. I've never seen anyone need more than a few hours to develop the
>> skills necessary to control the airplane adequately when told what
>> heading and altitude to fly - meaning the skills required for an ASR
>> or PAR approach. Most people get there in well under 3 hours. Some
>> of them (those who are good at understanding geometry) move on
>> quickly, and are ready to pass the checkride at 15-20 hours. Others
>> bog down on procedures and need an additional 20-50 hours.
>>
>> Have you noted lately the popularity of such techniques as the
>> no-brainer NDB approach, the hold entry where you simply turn the
>> short way to the outbound, and all the other tricks people come up
>> with to avoid the need for situational awareness?
>>
>> > > They only have to remember it ONCE - upon starting the approach.
>> >
>> > But what if they do not?
>>
>> Then they will quickly peg the needle and hopefully go missed. Or, if
>> they're CFII's who are making their first flight in IMC while
>> instructing a student, they descend below mins with the needle pegged
>> and wait for the student to identify a local landmark and land the
>> plane (no **** this really happened).
>>
>> Michael

"Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote
> > Poorly. With tricks using the DG and/or the CDI and rules of thumb
> > and memory aids. I never messed with any of that stuff when I was
> > learning to fly instruments, because I always considered it easier
> > just to figure it out, but now as an instructor I find that I must
> > maintain an arsenal of them.
>
> Yes, my point of view is skewed towards a little more competency.

Ultimately, naviagation competency is performance based. Can you do
it or can't you? If it takes tricks and drill for what ought to be
figured out, it will take longer but ultimately competency can be
achieved. The pilot in question will never be able to design
procedures or even asess their quality, but ultimately it should not
matter. He will perform them as designed, and the TERPS people will
hopefully design them such that they always work.

Then of course there are issues like the LVJ VOR-B, but I try to make
sure my students are warned about those.

> I must be stupid then as well. I spent about 50 hours in a frasca trainer
> before ever getting in the plane to fly (but then it was quick).

I have no idea why you spent 50 hours in a Frasca. I do know that in
general simulators are harder to fly than the real airplane,
especially a trainer. I know that at 20 hours of IMC time, my
instructor told me to go burn hood time with a safety pilot, because I
was ready to pass the checkride. Of course he told me that not
because there is nothing useful to teach beyond 20 hours, but because
there is nothing to teach past 20 hours that you need to pass the
checkride - and passing checkrides was really all he knew.

I spend the full 40 hours with my students not because I can't get
them through the checkride in less but because I have other
priorities, like not hearing about how they had to be scraped off the
side of a mountain. Perhaps your instructor had similar goals?

Michael

Michael > wrote:
>"Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote
>> Can you explain why that is the one advantage (BC)/revers on localizer, and
>> why that is so?
>> Do you mean to say that people confuse which color sector they are in on a
>> localizer due to "reverse needle"?
>
>Yes, that is exactly what I mean to say.
>
>> If so then it is a training issue, not a
>> technology issue.
>
>Oh man, here we go. You've just touched off a religious debate.
>
>In real life, I run a department that designs instrumentation for
>process environments. What that means is that engineers design it,
>but generally non-engineers (plant operators, meter readers,
>technicians) install and use it. These days, most instrumentation has
>software in it, so it should not come as a surprise that I rose into
>that position from software engineering.
>
>In the process, I learned a lot about user interfaces. There are two
>kinds of user interface bug. There is the kind where the user
>interface acts contrary to design, in a useless or unpredictable
>manner in a given situation (coding error) and there is the kind where
>it acts as designed (intentionally or unintentionally), in a manner
>that is predictable and useful but, in certain situations,
>counter-intuitive to the operator (design error). The first kind is
>unusuable in those given situations. The second kind is usable,
>provided you read the manual and are aware of how the system will
>behave. There are those who believe that this means it's not an error
>- that you should simply RTFM. In other words, that it is a training
>issue. They are wrong.

I'd offer another design flaw -- not having the user's involved
in the design from the beginning to mitigate, even eliminate, the
design flaw. If the engineers & designers are not SMEs (Subject Matter
Experts) *AND* users, then I'd question the confidence factor
when the product is put into a normal operating environment.

Not to get into another religious discussion, but let's look at
two examples -- MS Windows -- the user if forced to operate in the
manner Microsoft dictates. Second example -- Air Traffic Control
workstation. Both current and retired ATC controllers were involved
from the very beginning - and it was a multi-year project. They
explained and demonstrated what worked and didn't work. And made
recommendations for improvement. In otherwords, User-Centric
design and implementation.

In article >,
> wrote:
>
>I say again.
>
>Totally ridiculous.

Don't you just love people who use anonymous remailers or forged
names when involved with an allegedly legitimate discussion?

"Blanche" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> > wrote:
> >
> >I say again.
> >
> >Totally ridiculous.
>
> Don't you just love people who use anonymous remailers or forged
> names when involved with an allegedly legitimate discussion?

Shouldn't there be some way the discussion group could just reject such
messages? We don't need 'em.

Rod

On 20 Nov 2004 08:00:00 -0700, Blanche >
wrote:

>In article >,
> > wrote:
>>
>>I say again.
>>
>>Totally ridiculous.
>
>Don't you just love people who use anonymous remailers or forged
>names when involved with an allegedly legitimate discussion?

Actually, I love them more than the anals who are, for some mysterious
reason, seemingly put off by it.

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 10:06:18 -0500, "Rod Madsen"
> wrote:

>
>"Blanche" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >I say again.
>> >
>> >Totally ridiculous.
>>
>> Don't you just love people who use anonymous remailers or forged
>> names when involved with an allegedly legitimate discussion?
>
>Shouldn't there be some way the discussion group could just reject such
>messages? We don't need 'em.
>
>Rod
>

Isn't that why they make "ignore" boxes?

Or, let me see now...

Maybe you could just ignore them on your own??????

By the way, how do I know you are who you say you are?

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 16:01:48 GMT, wrote:

>On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 10:06:18 -0500, "Rod Madsen"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Blanche" > wrote in message
...
>>> In article >,
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >I say again.
>>> >
>>> >Totally ridiculous.
>>>
>>> Don't you just love people who use anonymous remailers or forged
>>> names when involved with an allegedly legitimate discussion?
>>
>>Shouldn't there be some way the discussion group could just reject such
>>messages? We don't need 'em.
>>
>>Rod
>>
>
>Isn't that why they make "ignore" boxes?
>
>Or, let me see now...
>
>Maybe you could just ignore them on your own??????
>
>By the way, how do I know you are who you say you are?


Come to think of it, why should I even care?

Let me answer my own question. I don't.

So please don't feel obligated to answer.

Blanche wrote:
> Michael > wrote:

> I'd offer another design flaw -- not having the user's involved
> in the design from the beginning to mitigate, even eliminate, the
> design flaw. If the engineers & designers are not SMEs (Subject Matter
> Experts) *AND* users, then I'd question the confidence factor
> when the product is put into a normal operating environment.
>
> Not to get into another religious discussion, but let's look at
> two examples -- MS Windows -- the user if forced to operate in the
> manner Microsoft dictates. Second example -- Air Traffic Control
> workstation. Both current and retired ATC controllers were involved
> from the very beginning - and it was a multi-year project. They
> explained and demonstrated what worked and didn't work. And made
> recommendations for improvement. In otherwords, User-Centric
> design and implementation.

Not a valid comparison.
ATC has many safety related issues and *must* have
user input & feedback.
ATC also doesn't need to make a profit, whereas Microsoft
has a limited time to get *any* product into a mass-market.

> wrote:
>
>Isn't that why they make "ignore" boxes?

Killfile after I respond to this.

>Or, let me see now...
>
>Maybe you could just ignore them on your own??????
>
>By the way, how do I know you are who you say you are?


Do you *really* think I'd use the name "Blanche" as an alias?
Besides, there are people on this list who I've met in
person.

It's an issue of credibility. You are advocating an approach to
instructing that altho is intriguing, without any credibility
because you're using forged/false DNS address.

Bye-bye.

Dave Butler wrote:
> Please excuse the hijacking of this religious/political forum to raise a
> question about flying.
>
> My partners and I are faced with a decision. What would you do?
>
> We plan to update our outdated panel with a GNS480. The CDIs currently
> installed are not compatible with the GNS480, so one of them will be
> replaced.
>
> We could replace the existing CDI with a compatible one for $2000.
>
> We could install a non-slaved NSD360 HSI instead for $3500.
>
> If we install the HSI, the no-longer-used CDI hole can be used for the
> electric AI that's been waaaay over on the other side of the panel.
>
> I think I know what we will do (go for the HSI), but I'm collecting
> opinions.
>
> Is the NSD360 likely to become a maintenance headache?
>
> In the electronic age, does it make sense to install an
> electromechanical aid to situational awareness?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dave
>

One thing, if you get the NSD360, make sure that it meets precession spec.
I got one, and after hearing about how the electric coupling made it precess
much lower than the standard DG it replaced, I noticed that it wasn't any
better. I chalked it up to sales hype.

A year or so later, the unit died, and had to go in for service. It was a
simple belt fix, that had to go back to the manufacturer, Century. They
fixed it, and then told me that it was seriously out of spec for precession,
that it would take about %50 of the price of the unit to fix it.
I told them that it had been that way when it left their plant when new.

I ended up getting it repaired on my own dollar, fortunately not at
Century, who have lost me as a customer from now on.

Dave Butler wrote:

> Brenor Brophy wrote:
>
> <liberal snippage>
>
>> This quote is from the Avionics West article at
>> http://avionicswest.com/articles/know_your_autopilot.htm
>> This HSI, slaved or not, MUST have BOTH vacuum and electrical inputs
>> in order to operate. In other words, if you lose vacuum or the
>> electrical system, this HSI compass card will quit!
>
>
> Can anyone confirm the statement above from Avionics West? I consider
> them a reliable source of information, but this seems counterintuitive
> to me. In case of electrical failure, why is the heading information not
> still available? Is the compass card not mechanically connected to the
> gyro?
>
> Obviously, I can see that the navigation information would not be
> available in case of electric failure, but the quote specifically says
> the compass card will quit.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dave
>

The compass card is electrically connected to the gyro. Thats why either
a vacuum out or electrical out can kill it.

THe solution is pretty simple. Move the old DG over and keep it when installing
the new HSI.