The Instrument you can live without

[Chris W]

If you were about to go on an IFR flight, and for some unknown,
hypothetical reason you had to pick one instrument in the standard six
pack that you could not use, which one would it be?

--
Chris W

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
One stop wish list for any gift,
from anywhere, for any occasion!
http://thewishzone.com

[Michael 182]

"Chris W" > wrote in message
news:mKx0f.117$%42.106@okepread06...
> If you were about to go on an IFR flight, and for some unknown,
> hypothetical reason you had to pick one instrument in the standard six
> pack that you could not use, which one would it be?

The DG. Mag compass (not to mention GPS) can be uesd as a backup. If wings
are level and the compass isn't moving, I'm ok on direction and bank.

Michael

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Chris W" > wrote in message
news:mKx0f.117$%42.106@okepread06...
>
> If you were about to go on an IFR flight, and for some unknown,
> hypothetical reason you had to pick one instrument in the standard six
> pack that you could not use, which one would it be?
>

VSI

[Ron Garret]

In article et>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Chris W" > wrote in message
> news:mKx0f.117$%42.106@okepread06...
> >
> > If you were about to go on an IFR flight, and for some unknown,
> > hypothetical reason you had to pick one instrument in the standard six
> > pack that you could not use, which one would it be?
> >
>
> VSI
>

I second that. The altimeter is more than adequate as a backup for the
VSI. And when you're trying to damp out phugoid oscillations the
altimeter is actually better than the VSI for judging ascent/descent
because the VSI lags.

rg

[Robert M. Gary]

I've lots the airspeed indicator in IMC twice now and didn't find it
effected the flight awhole lot. Both times were during climb out into
low IMC (stuck spring cover). However, if I had to pick, I'd probably
take the VSI. Nowadays with ok GPS altitude you could also lose the
alitimeter and make a reasonable attempt with the GPS altitude after
figuring out the difference from ATC's mode C response.

[[email protected]]

The VSI only lags in giving a RATE of climb/descent. In smooth air, or
smooth pilot inputs, the VSI will give nearly immediate response up or
down.
I could live without the VSI, or the AI, or DG, and make do with the
rest of them and do a decent approach. I began teaching what I call
"Primitive Panel" over 30 years ago with a loss of gyros, then taking
away the Turn/Slip, the VSI, and leaving the student with little to
work with. They can do fine if they use their heads. Too many times in
over a thousand hours of actual IFR I've seen gyros fail as well as
other instruments and you had to extrapolate all the available
information. So far so good......
Ol Shy & Bashful

[Matt Whiting]

Chris W wrote:

> If you were about to go on an IFR flight, and for some unknown,
> hypothetical reason you had to pick one instrument in the standard six
> pack that you could not use, which one would it be?
>

DG.


Matt

[[email protected]]

Chris W wrote:
> If you were about to go on an IFR flight, and for some unknown,
> hypothetical reason you had to pick one instrument in the standard six
> pack that you could not use, which one would it be?

If I had to leave an instrument behind on takeoff, my choices would be:
1. VSI
2. DG
3. AI
4. TC
5. ASI
6. ALT

If I was going to have a single instrument fail during flight:
1. VSI
2. TC
3. DG
4. AI
5. ASI
6. ALT

-cwk.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
>
> I could live without the VSI, or the AI, or DG, and make do with the
> rest of them and do a decent approach. I began teaching what I call
> "Primitive Panel" over 30 years ago with a loss of gyros, then taking
> away the Turn/Slip, the VSI, and leaving the student with little to
> work with. They can do fine if they use their heads. Too many times in

During my IFR instruction my CFII allowed me to see the AI maybe one
out of ten hours. It actually felt weird when he let me see it. I could
take it or leave it for the most part until we get into unusual
attitudes. I'd like to think I could keep my grip long enough to figure
it out partial panel, but I know I can make sense of the situation a
lot faster with an AI.

-cwk.

[vincent p. norris]

> I began teaching what I call
>"Primitive Panel" over 30 years ago with a loss of gyros, then taking
>away the Turn/Slip, the VSI, and leaving the student with little to
>work with. They can do fine if they use their heads.

A couple of years ago,a high-time pilot who, according to reports,
emphasized partial panel work, took off from TEB and soon killed
himself and family in a Bonanza. Apparently a gyro failure.

Have you any words of explanation to offer, or do you know what the
accident report said?

I practice partial panel regularly, but accidents like that worry me;
if that guy couldn't hack it, could I?

vince norris

[George Patterson]

vincent p. norris wrote:

> A couple of years ago,a high-time pilot who, according to reports,
> emphasized partial panel work, took off from TEB and soon killed
> himself and family in a Bonanza. Apparently a gyro failure.

The only Bonanza accident at TEB that I remember in the last 5 years or so
involved a doctor who was taking proscribed medication and had been for some
time. After the failure, he couldn't seem to follow ATC's instructions -- just
kept repeating that he was in trouble. Wound up putting it into an urban area
and killing a few people on the ground.

If that's the one you're thinking of, it wouldn't be a good case for arguing a
stand on any partial panel situation. Seems to me the most important instrument
that failed was the pilot's brain, and that had been running on partial panel
for years.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[cjcampbell]

Chris W wrote:
> If you were about to go on an IFR flight, and for some unknown,
> hypothetical reason you had to pick one instrument in the standard six
> pack that you could not use, which one would it be?

You do err, for as the CFI-I, I am the one who gets to pick which of
those instruments it will be, and I am liable to pick more than one of
them. BWOOWOOHAHAHAHAHAA!

[Mark T. Dame]

vincent p. norris wrote:
>
> A couple of years ago,a high-time pilot who, according to reports,
> emphasized partial panel work, took off from TEB and soon killed
> himself and family in a Bonanza. Apparently a gyro failure.
>
> Have you any words of explanation to offer, or do you know what the
> accident report said?

The problem with a gyro failure isn't flying the plane without your gyro
instruments, but recognizing the failure in the first place. I would
guess that most crashes caused by failed gyros were because the pilot
didn't recognize the failure.

A failed gyro can be very difficult to detect. I've done it in a
simulator and didn't notice for a several minutes. For people who focus
too much on the AI, it's especially bad because they can end up putting
the plane in an unusual attitude very quickly.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime
rates in the country."
-- Marion Barry, Mayor, Washington, D.C.

[[email protected]]

vincent p. norris wrote:
>
> I practice partial panel regularly, but accidents like that worry me;
> if that guy couldn't hack it, could I?
>

The problem here is the same as with the "are twins safer?" debate: we
don't hear about the partial-panel flights that *don't* crash. You will
find single incidents of very experienced pilots making every mistake
in the book.

-cwk.

[Matt Whiting]

vincent p. norris wrote:

>>I began teaching what I call
>>"Primitive Panel" over 30 years ago with a loss of gyros, then taking
>>away the Turn/Slip, the VSI, and leaving the student with little to
>>work with. They can do fine if they use their heads.
>
>
> A couple of years ago,a high-time pilot who, according to reports,
> emphasized partial panel work, took off from TEB and soon killed
> himself and family in a Bonanza. Apparently a gyro failure.
>
> Have you any words of explanation to offer, or do you know what the
> accident report said?
>
> I practice partial panel regularly, but accidents like that worry me;
> if that guy couldn't hack it, could I?

That is the main flaw with partial panel practice. You know the gyro
has failed. In a real failure, you may well not notice the failure
until it is too late. That is one reason why my Skylane had a low
vacuum light and a PF standby system.


Matt

[Stefan]

Matt Whiting wrote:

> That is the main flaw with partial panel practice. You know the gyro
> has failed. In a real failure, you may well not notice the failure
> until it is too late.

You will know it pretty eimdiately, *if* you are not too lazy to
permanently do the cross checks. Cross check possibility is the reason
why you have all those "useless" instruments like VSI and turn coordinator.

Stefan

[Matt Whiting]

Stefan wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> That is the main flaw with partial panel practice. You know the gyro
>> has failed. In a real failure, you may well not notice the failure
>> until it is too late.
>
>
> You will know it pretty eimdiately, *if* you are not too lazy to
> permanently do the cross checks. Cross check possibility is the reason
> why you have all those "useless" instruments like VSI and turn coordinator.

OK, you obviously have no, or very little, experience flying single
pilot IFR. There are times when things get very busy and the cross
checks don't occur at nearly the frequency you might desire. And subtle
failures can be hard to detect in the early stages.

Matt

[Stefan]

Matt Whiting wrote:

> OK, you obviously have no, or very little, experience flying single
> pilot IFR. There are times when things get very busy and the cross
> checks don't occur at nearly the frequency you might desire.

Little. Anyway, if you can't do the cross checks, then you're not safe.
If single pilot IFR means that the workload is too high to regularly do
the cross checks, then it's debatable whether single pilot IFR in IMC
should be allowed at all.

Stefan

[LWG]

That's why I really like practicing IFR with MS Flight Sim. I set the
instruments to fail randomly. The first few times the AI failed, I did tend
to follow the dead AI as it keeled over. I think it really improves your
scan. It just isn't the same when the CFII slaps a plastic disc over it and
says "You've just lost your AI." A good portion of the lesson was lost
already at that point.

"> That is the main flaw with partial panel practice. You know the gyro
> has failed. In a real failure, you may well not notice the failure until
> it is too late.

[Matt Whiting]

Stefan wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> OK, you obviously have no, or very little, experience flying single
>> pilot IFR. There are times when things get very busy and the cross
>> checks don't occur at nearly the frequency you might desire.
>
>
> Little. Anyway, if you can't do the cross checks, then you're not safe.
> If single pilot IFR means that the workload is too high to regularly do
> the cross checks, then it's debatable whether single pilot IFR in IMC
> should be allowed at all.

You can do cross checks, just not every 20 seconds, and maybe not every
60 seconds during certain phases of the flight. You prioritize your
tasks based on needs to be done and the probability that something will
go wrong. Losing the vacuum or losing oil pressure or having all of the
fuel leak out are low probability events so you don't check them every
10 seconds. You need to check your heading and altitude very frequently
when nearing the MDA or DH on an approach, but you don't check nearly as
frequently during cruise.

You have the typical attitude of someone who has read about instrument
flying, but hasn't done any.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

LWG wrote:
> That's why I really like practicing IFR with MS Flight Sim. I set the
> instruments to fail randomly. The first few times the AI failed, I did tend
> to follow the dead AI as it keeled over. I think it really improves your
> scan. It just isn't the same when the CFII slaps a plastic disc over it and
> says "You've just lost your AI." A good portion of the lesson was lost
> already at that point.
>
> "> That is the main flaw with partial panel practice. You know the gyro
>
>>has failed. In a real failure, you may well not notice the failure until
>>it is too late.

I agree. Simulators are a great proficiency tool no doubt. However,
even they don't simulate all that is going on when flying in heavy
weather, at night, with ATC in your ear and a failed alternator. :-)


Matt

[Stefan]

Matt Whiting wrote:

> You have the typical attitude of someone who has read about instrument
> flying, but hasn't done any.

I have, but mainly in gliders. Different priorities there and no approaches.

Stefan

[Roger]

On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 11:09:52 -0400, "Mark T. Dame" >
wrote:

>vincent p. norris wrote:
>>
>> A couple of years ago,a high-time pilot who, according to reports,
>> emphasized partial panel work, took off from TEB and soon killed
>> himself and family in a Bonanza. Apparently a gyro failure.
>>
>> Have you any words of explanation to offer, or do you know what the
>> accident report said?
>
>The problem with a gyro failure isn't flying the plane without your gyro
>instruments, but recognizing the failure in the first place. I would
>guess that most crashes caused by failed gyros were because the pilot
>didn't recognize the failure.
>

Yah, they don't normally fail, they slowly, oh so slowly die and
slowly roll over.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>A failed gyro can be very difficult to detect. I've done it in a
>simulator and didn't notice for a several minutes. For people who focus
>too much on the AI, it's especially bad because they can end up putting
>the plane in an unusual attitude very quickly.
>
>
>-m

[Roger]

On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 22:48:16 +0200, Stefan >
wrote:

>Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> That is the main flaw with partial panel practice. You know the gyro
>> has failed. In a real failure, you may well not notice the failure
>> until it is too late.
>
>You will know it pretty eimdiately, *if* you are not too lazy to
>permanently do the cross checks. Cross check possibility is the reason
>why you have all those "useless" instruments like VSI and turn coordinator.

One indication you might get if you fly IFR a lot is getting queasy.
Your body is telling you one thing and your eyes (the AI) are telling
your something else as the AI is dying.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com


>
>Stefan

[Marty]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>>
> During my IFR instruction my CFII allowed me to see the AI maybe one
> out of ten hours. It actually felt weird when he let me see it. I could
> take it or leave it for the most part until we get into unusual
> attitudes. I'd like to think I could keep my grip long enough to figure
> it out partial panel, but I know I can make sense of the situation a
> lot faster with an AI.
>
> -cwk.
>

Hmmm,
I was taught to initially only use the ASI & TC to get to straight & level
from an upset/unusual attitude. Was I taught wrong?

Marty

[Mark T. Dame]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> LWG wrote:
>
> I agree. Simulators are a great proficiency tool no doubt. However,
> even they don't simulate all that is going on when flying in heavy
> weather, at night, with ATC in your ear and a failed alternator. :-)

If you can find a local flight school with a decent simulator (not a PC
with a joystick, but a real simulated cockpit), it can get pretty
realistic. It also allows your instructor to fail instruments at a
critical phase of flight rather than just randomly. It was real
eye-opener for me. It's one thing for someone to tell you what the
instrument will do when if fails. It's a whole different thing to
actually see it and experience it. Just like flying IMC for the first
time, I would wouldn't want my first experience with a failed instrument
to be real. As I mentioned earlier, the difficult part of handling the
problem is recognizing that there is a problem.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"Software Independent: Won't work with any software."

[Matt Whiting]

Marty wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
wrote:
>>
>>During my IFR instruction my CFII allowed me to see the AI maybe one
>>out of ten hours. It actually felt weird when he let me see it. I could
>>take it or leave it for the most part until we get into unusual
>>attitudes. I'd like to think I could keep my grip long enough to figure
>>it out partial panel, but I know I can make sense of the situation a
>>lot faster with an AI.
>>
>>-cwk.
>>
>
>
> Hmmm,
> I was taught to initially only use the ASI & TC to get to straight & level
> from an upset/unusual attitude. Was I taught wrong?

I'd say yes. I was taught to use all available information. AI first
to get the right attitude and then cross check ASI, TC, VSI, etc., to be
sure that the AI wasn't lying. Keep in mind that although usually quite
reliable, the TC isn't failure proof nor is the ASI! Actually, the club
Arrow that I now fly just had the TC fail and we're awaiting a new one.
I'd say if you were taught to do anything important based on only one
set of data, when other sets are available, then you were taught wrong.


Matt

[vincent p. norris]

>> A couple of years ago,a high-time pilot who, according to reports,
>> emphasized partial panel work, took off from TEB and soon killed
>> himself and family in a Bonanza. Apparently a gyro failure.
>
>The only Bonanza accident at TEB that I remember in the last 5 years or so
>involved a doctor who was taking proscribed medication and had been for some
>time. After the failure, he couldn't seem to follow ATC's instructions -- just
>kept repeating that he was in trouble. Wound up putting it into an urban area
>and killing a few people on the ground.
>
>If that's the one you're thinking of.....

Yes, that's the one. Is there an accident report on the net?

vince norris

[George Patterson]

vincent p. norris wrote:

> Yes, that's the one. Is there an accident report on the net?

I'm sure there is, but I don't know where. I saw reports in the local Star
Ledger and (of course) here.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Bret Ludwig]

I'd like to hear from a current or recent USAF UPT or lead-in T-38 IP.

What are the redundant display systems in this airplane and what is
taught as anticipated failure modes?

I've long believed that simply having some vacuum and some electric
instruments is not enough. You need dual redundant vacuum with
automatic switchover and redundant electrics.