single pilot ifr trip tonight

[Guy Elden Jr.]

Just got back from a good proficiency practice flight. This was the first
time I'd flown single pilot IFR at night with conditions that could
potentially deteriorate to actual instrument. (cloudy, rain developing as
the flight progressed, visibility dropping somewhat)

The basic rundown... got the plane, preflighted in the dark, and realized
that it was the first time I had actually done a full preflight at night.
All the other night flights I did the preflight at dusk or earlier.
Definitely took me a few extra minutes to get oriented to the darkness and
using my flashlight.

I got through that ok, ready to do, and poof! My flashlight _light_ (not the
batteries) goes out! Just like the bright, microsend flash of illumination
you see from a normal light bulb then total darkness. Crap! Fortunately, I
had a spare light, smaller, but did the job. I was a bit disappointed in the
bulb that burnt out though... it was a Maglight, and barely over a year old
with hardly any use. I'm tempted to send it back to them for a replacement.

Takeoff out of CDW was uneventful, although the controller was a bit pushy
when I wanted to clarify the squawk before departing... she said "You need
to get rolling" after confirming the code was correct... somebody on
downwind was undoubtedly going to plow into me I guess if I didn't hurry
along. Needless to say, I didn't hurry. (I was still holding short, so if
need be could've just continued to hold short, but she (the controller) was
obviously in need of some excitement on a dreary night with barely any
traffic to manage).

So up up and away we go, didn't even have time to make the initial turn to
180 before departure vectored me to SAX. Then enroute to SWF for a practice
ILS.

I noticed before departing that one of the two radio / nav units in the
plane was not functioning... it's one of those that has a primary and
secondary freq, but the display was completely dead, so I decided to just
leave it off. So even before starting the flight, I knew I had only one
working com and one working nav / vor unit operational. No problem, if
things got too heavy, I could just cancel IFR and continue VFR... clouds
were definitely high enough on the way up (around 6000 OVC). As I got closer
to SWF, I tried tuning in the NDB so I could identify an intersection along
the LOC. No dice. I didn't hear the magic morse in the background, and the
needle spun and spun til I got dizzy. Strike two on operational components
in the plane! Still, I managed to get to SWF safely, and taxied off to the
side to get myself setup for the trip back to CDW.

Departure out of SWF was a bit more interesting, as I had to read the SWF.4
departure procedure. Easy to do, and so off I went. Unfortunately, the
routing back home wasn't optimal... was supposed to go out to HUG then turn
south to head to CDW, so I asked for a shortcut to SAX instead. After
getting handed off to NY Approach on 127.6, I had a helluva time hearing a
transmission from the controller. I asked to hear it again, and again, even
with the volume all the way up, it was barely audible. I got the instruction
ok tho... left turn to 170. And fortunately the gremlin in the radio cleared
itself up on the next transmission. But this turns out to have been strike 3
for equipment in the plane... I encountered this problem a couple other
times, fortunately when other pilots were transmitting, and not ATC.

Getting back in to CDW was a bit dicey, as the rain had started to come
down, and the mist was making it difficult to pick out CDW (which is
difficult enough these days anyway with 4/22 being closed for repairs). I
told the controller at one point that I had the beacon in sight, but that
wasn't good enough for him. 2 miles later, I could make out 9/27, so I was
handed off for a visual approach, which wasn't my best approach, but was a
squeaker of a landing.

So to sum up: I had 1 VOR, 1 COM, and no backups in the plane for this trip.
And the COM was flaky toward the end. Methinks this plane is about to be
decommissioned from the flight line, because the owner refuses to put any
more money into it. It also just came out of 100 hour, so should (in theory)
be at its best operating capacity. I know I won't be trying any more trips
at night or IFR in it anytime soon, but I'm glad I had the chance to push
the boundaries a bit with the bare minimums for night IFR flight.

--
Guy Elden Jr.

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
Guy Elden Jr. > wrote:
>bulb that burnt out though... it was a Maglight, and barely over a year old
>with hardly any use. I'm tempted to send it back to them for a replacement.

Maglights used to come with a spare bulb wrapped in a swatch of foam
inside the battery spring.

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

[rip]

I carry 6 flashlights, and 4 of them have LED's instead of bulbs. LED's
last forever, and are shockproof. One of my flashlights doesn't even use
batteries. You shake it for about 30 seconds to get about 5 minutes of
light.

Guy Elden Jr. wrote:
> Just got back from a good proficiency practice flight. This was the first
> time I'd flown single pilot IFR at night with conditions that could
> potentially deteriorate to actual instrument. (cloudy, rain developing as
> the flight progressed, visibility dropping somewhat)
>
> The basic rundown... got the plane, preflighted in the dark, and realized
> that it was the first time I had actually done a full preflight at night.
> All the other night flights I did the preflight at dusk or earlier.
> Definitely took me a few extra minutes to get oriented to the darkness and
> using my flashlight.
>
> I got through that ok, ready to do, and poof! My flashlight _light_ (not the
> batteries) goes out! Just like the bright, microsend flash of illumination
> you see from a normal light bulb then total darkness. Crap! Fortunately, I
> had a spare light, smaller, but did the job. I was a bit disappointed in the
> bulb that burnt out though... it was a Maglight, and barely over a year old
> with hardly any use. I'm tempted to send it back to them for a replacement.
>
> Takeoff out of CDW was uneventful, although the controller was a bit pushy
> when I wanted to clarify the squawk before departing... she said "You need
> to get rolling" after confirming the code was correct... somebody on
> downwind was undoubtedly going to plow into me I guess if I didn't hurry
> along. Needless to say, I didn't hurry. (I was still holding short, so if
> need be could've just continued to hold short, but she (the controller) was
> obviously in need of some excitement on a dreary night with barely any
> traffic to manage).
>
> So up up and away we go, didn't even have time to make the initial turn to
> 180 before departure vectored me to SAX. Then enroute to SWF for a practice
> ILS.
>
> I noticed before departing that one of the two radio / nav units in the
> plane was not functioning... it's one of those that has a primary and
> secondary freq, but the display was completely dead, so I decided to just
> leave it off. So even before starting the flight, I knew I had only one
> working com and one working nav / vor unit operational. No problem, if
> things got too heavy, I could just cancel IFR and continue VFR... clouds
> were definitely high enough on the way up (around 6000 OVC). As I got closer
> to SWF, I tried tuning in the NDB so I could identify an intersection along
> the LOC. No dice. I didn't hear the magic morse in the background, and the
> needle spun and spun til I got dizzy. Strike two on operational components
> in the plane! Still, I managed to get to SWF safely, and taxied off to the
> side to get myself setup for the trip back to CDW.
>
> Departure out of SWF was a bit more interesting, as I had to read the SWF.4
> departure procedure. Easy to do, and so off I went. Unfortunately, the
> routing back home wasn't optimal... was supposed to go out to HUG then turn
> south to head to CDW, so I asked for a shortcut to SAX instead. After
> getting handed off to NY Approach on 127.6, I had a helluva time hearing a
> transmission from the controller. I asked to hear it again, and again, even
> with the volume all the way up, it was barely audible. I got the instruction
> ok tho... left turn to 170. And fortunately the gremlin in the radio cleared
> itself up on the next transmission. But this turns out to have been strike 3
> for equipment in the plane... I encountered this problem a couple other
> times, fortunately when other pilots were transmitting, and not ATC.
>
> Getting back in to CDW was a bit dicey, as the rain had started to come
> down, and the mist was making it difficult to pick out CDW (which is
> difficult enough these days anyway with 4/22 being closed for repairs). I
> told the controller at one point that I had the beacon in sight, but that
> wasn't good enough for him. 2 miles later, I could make out 9/27, so I was
> handed off for a visual approach, which wasn't my best approach, but was a
> squeaker of a landing.
>
> So to sum up: I had 1 VOR, 1 COM, and no backups in the plane for this trip.
> And the COM was flaky toward the end. Methinks this plane is about to be
> decommissioned from the flight line, because the owner refuses to put any
> more money into it. It also just came out of 100 hour, so should (in theory)
> be at its best operating capacity. I know I won't be trying any more trips
> at night or IFR in it anytime soon, but I'm glad I had the chance to push
> the boundaries a bit with the bare minimums for night IFR flight.
>
> --
> Guy Elden Jr.
>
>
>

[Joseph D. Farrell]

If it was the female controller I think it is at CDW - she is wound
WAAAY too tight to be a controller for very long . . .

she'd cleared people to land who were ON a short final and then she
clears me to depart - what if they guy goes around? They do it all
the time at big airports, but whats the big deal if I hold for another
20 seconds - this guy was inside a 1/2 mile. [

Then there was the mid air @ CDW a while ago.

your radio and nav problems could have been caused by storng solar and
magnetic storm . . .

Or just an old tired airplane that the FBO does not wantto spend alot
of money on = now you know why safety dictates 2 VOR's and 2 COM's in
addition to anything else!

Joe

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:28:04 -0500, "Guy Elden Jr."
> wrote:


>
>Takeoff out of CDW was uneventful, although the controller was a bit pushy
>when I wanted to clarify the squawk before departing... she said "You need
>to get rolling" after confirming the code was correct... somebody on
>downwind was undoubtedly going to plow into me I guess if I didn't hurry
>along. Needless to say, I didn't hurry. (I was still holding short, so if
>need be could've just continued to hold short, but she (the controller) was
>obviously in need of some excitement on a dreary night with barely any
>traffic to manage).
>
>So up up and away we go, didn't even have time to make the initial turn to
>180 before departure vectored me to SAX. Then enroute to SWF for a practice
>ILS.
>
>I noticed before departing that one of the two radio / nav units in the
>plane was not functioning... it's one of those that has a primary and
>secondary freq, but the display was completely dead, so I decided to just
>leave it off. So even before starting the flight, I knew I had only one
>working com and one working nav / vor unit operational. No problem, if
>things got too heavy, I could just cancel IFR and continue VFR... clouds
>were definitely high enough on the way up (around 6000 OVC). As I got closer
>to SWF, I tried tuning in the NDB so I could identify an intersection along
>the LOC. No dice. I didn't hear the magic morse in the background, and the
>needle spun and spun til I got dizzy. Strike two on operational components
>in the plane! Still, I managed to get to SWF safely, and taxied off to the
>side to get myself setup for the trip back to CDW.
>
>Departure out of SWF was a bit more interesting, as I had to read the SWF.4
>departure procedure. Easy to do, and so off I went. Unfortunately, the
>routing back home wasn't optimal... was supposed to go out to HUG then turn
>south to head to CDW, so I asked for a shortcut to SAX instead. After
>getting handed off to NY Approach on 127.6, I had a helluva time hearing a
>transmission from the controller. I asked to hear it again, and again, even
>with the volume all the way up, it was barely audible. I got the instruction
>ok tho... left turn to 170. And fortunately the gremlin in the radio cleared
>itself up on the next transmission. But this turns out to have been strike 3
>for equipment in the plane... I encountered this problem a couple other
>times, fortunately when other pilots were transmitting, and not ATC.
>
>Getting back in to CDW was a bit dicey, as the rain had started to come
>down, and the mist was making it difficult to pick out CDW (which is
>difficult enough these days anyway with 4/22 being closed for repairs). I
>told the controller at one point that I had the beacon in sight, but that
>wasn't good enough for him. 2 miles later, I could make out 9/27, so I was
>handed off for a visual approach, which wasn't my best approach, but was a
>squeaker of a landing.
>
>So to sum up: I had 1 VOR, 1 COM, and no backups in the plane for this trip.
>And the COM was flaky toward the end. Methinks this plane is about to be
>decommissioned from the flight line, because the owner refuses to put any
>more money into it. It also just came out of 100 hour, so should (in theory)
>be at its best operating capacity. I know I won't be trying any more trips
>at night or IFR in it anytime soon, but I'm glad I had the chance to push
>the boundaries a bit with the bare minimums for night IFR flight.

[Roy Smith]

"Guy Elden Jr." > wrote:
> Takeoff out of CDW was uneventful, although the controller was a bit pushy
> when I wanted to clarify the squawk before departing... she said "You need
> to get rolling" after confirming the code was correct... somebody on
> downwind was undoubtedly going to plow into me I guess if I didn't hurry
> along.

More likely, the tower was given a small window by NY Approach to
release you. At a place like CDW (i.e. any towered airport that doesn't
have their own approach control), when you tell the tower you're ready
to go, the tower calls the remote approach facility and requests
permission to launch you. This is why the tower says "hold for
release". When approach tells tower to release you, tower clears you
for takeoff. The window of time in which the tower is allowed to
release you may be very small. At someplace like CDW, they've got to
find a gap in the TEB, MMU, and maybe even EWR traffic to fit you in.
Until they get you radar identified, they're tying up a big chunk of
airspace for you. That's why the tower guy was trying to hurry you
along.

All that being said, NEVER let anybody rush you. Nothing bad can happen
as long as your wheels are still on the taxiway. You did exactly the
right thing asking for clarification of something you weren't sure about
before moving onto the runway. The worst that could have happened if
you missed the window is the tower controller would have been annoyed
that he had to call approach back and ask for another release window,
and you might have been delayed a few minutes.

> So to sum up: I had 1 VOR, 1 COM, and no backups in the plane for this trip.
> And the COM was flaky toward the end. Methinks this plane is about to be
> decommissioned from the flight line, because the owner refuses to put any
> more money into it. It also just came out of 100 hour, so should (in theory)
> be at its best operating capacity. I know I won't be trying any more trips
> at night or IFR in it anytime soon, but I'm glad I had the chance to push
> the boundaries a bit with the bare minimums for night IFR flight.

Pardon my pessimism, but I read the story as a disaster unfolding with a
lucky ending despite bad decision making. You were single pilot IFR, at
night, in deteriorating weather. You had no previous experience in this
environment. You had three equipment failures (flashlight, nav/com, and
adf), two of which you knew about before you left the ground yet decided
to depart anyway.

Actually, you had another equipment failure you knew about before you
took off: runway 4/22 was closed. You not only didn't have the LOC
approach available, but you were also down to one runway, substantially
shorter than the main one, with inferior lighting and terrain
obstructing one end.

Finally, your last remaining radio started to act up on you. What would
you have done if the problem was something in the electrical system and
the slowly decaying avionics were just the early symptoms? What if
instead of getting better, the last radio died too?

The most obvious immediate problem would have been that you would have
no way to talk to ATC (unless you carry a handheld radio). You would
have also had no way to navigate. Do you have a handheld GPS? It's
night and the weather is going down. Was visibility still good enough
to find your way home visually? You would also have no way to turn the
runway lights on at an uncontrolled airport.

What were you flying? A 172 with electric flaps? If so, you might not
have had enough power left to put the flaps down. 27 has 2900 feet
after the displaced threshold. Under normal conditions, that's not a
big deal. But can you handle that with no flaps, no landing light, at
night, no VASI, and wet pavement? Maybe your last remaining flashlight
went out too, so you can't even see the ASI?

The point is, no single one of the problems you encountered was bad
enough to be critical, but accidents are not usually caused by single
problems, they're caused by chains of events. Each one eats into the
number of options you've got left until you don't have any left at all
and you die. The key to avoiding this is to recognize the chain early
and do something to break it.

Your flashlight died. Do they sell flashlights in the pilot shop?
Could you have delayed your flight 10 minutes to run back into the FBO
and buy a new one? Why not just carry several? I've got about 3 or 4
in my flight bag.

Your radio died. At night, during the week, with marginal weather, the
FBO probably has a flightline full of airplanes sitting idle. Could you
have gone back in and told them to give you a different plane?

Your ADF died on the way into Stewart. Could you have found a mechanic
while you were on the ground to come take a look at it and make sure
nothing systemic was going on with the electrical system?

Your second radio started flaking out. Could you have turned around at
that point, gotten back on the ground at SWF, and sorted things out?
Maybe called the FBO and told them to send another plane up to get you?

[Maule Driver]

Well, upon reflection, you will probably gain more from this flight than you
think.

I was caught somewhat unawares by yesterday's weather on a flight from HPN
to RDU (actually to my homebase of 8nc8). The forecast was for VFR and
improving conditions. I filed IFR as I usually do for long CCs post9/11 -
especially going past DC. There was a time when I would not have fretted
about not having all the charts or skipping some flight planning details
given the forecast. I've learned to always have everything lined up for IFR
flight if I file. It sucks showing up with 1/3 fuel at the now IMC
destination without the necessary charts.

After a 20 minute delay waiting for a clearance at HPN after my DUATs filing
fell short ("no one here knows where or what 8nc8 is"), I was rewarded with
a clearance via JFK. Wow! Seeing NYC in the morning light with foilage at
max saturation and 50 mile visibility was great! Being the major climb
obstacle obstacle for half a dozen departing heavies out of JFK was fun too
("Ecuador 1234 maintain 5,000, do you see the Maule 11:00, 2 miles at 6?" I
saw 'em all).

Anyway, down the shore and approaching Dover I notice that the layer over my
head is thickening rather than thinning and it looks hazy towards the south.
A few Cheap ******* inquiries and I see the TAFs are still suggesting VFR
but the METARS for Richmond and RDU are moving in the wrong direction. The
next round of TAFs is moving to MVFR but Richmond and RDU are 1200 - then
800. What the heck!

At Patauxant (sp) I enter IMC at 4,000 and never see the ground again. I
landed Richmond with ATIS reporting 800' ceilings and the tower asking when
I break out - which turns out to be 400'.

Obviously the forecast had flushed itself and the flight home was a new
deal. I never would have left Westchester if I had known. Now it was going
to be IMC from takeoff to landing at RDU and a cab ride home. After takeoff
my transponder decides to act up. I look and the interrogation indicator is
stuck on. After much cycling and such - the light stays on and I'm
reporting progress via Radials and DME reading without radar coverage. I'm
told that RDU won't want to take me with no blinker (4oclock in the PM with
400' ceilings, what's the problem...).Transponder stays belly up for nearly
40 minutes. I believe that Greensboro is a VFR out but I press on wanting
to get home. Main thing is that I'm single pilot IMC hand flying light
chop. Everything is a major chore and challenge. The easiest thing is to
fly to my planned destination.

Then, for relief, a Bonanza pilot reports within 20 miles of my location
that they need the location of the nearest ap. "Yeah, it's an emergency, we
just lost the engine for a few seconds" Everyone remains hyper cool - it
helps to have an autopilot and a copilot. "We think is was water in one
tank, we're going with the other tank.... but we'll continue on to
Richmond". It's an interesting 10 minute exchange with me thinking "is the
controller remembering I'm out here without radar coverage?"

They switch me to RDU. I take a quick look at the transponder and the light
is off but not blinking. I say Hi and look down and it is being interogated
and the controller treats the handoff routinely. When did it fix itself?
Sunspots??

So after a really sharp approach, I land. Sharp? After 3 straight
*unexpected* approaches to 400' ceiling in that same */?@@## weather
system, I had sharpened up a bit.

A lot of people on this list wouldn't fly my a/c in those conditions (what
happens if the engine quits, you encounter embedded moderate T, single vac
says bye, GSO socks in, your NAV fails, etc). I've made similar flights
ending at night - I wouldn't now.

I like to think I would have stayed on the ground for your flight given the
a/c, night, and the weather. But I've made comparable flights before. It's
too easy to self righteously state what one should or shouldn't accept as
risks - especially as one accesses better equipment and gains experience.
While trying to avoid that, I'd suggest that the flight you describe is not
one you want to repeat. Sometimes the most satisfying flights end up
teaching that they are best not repeated.

BTW, I just counted 4 working flashlights in my flight bag and know there is
at least one more in the plane. I have a fully charged backup nav(com?) but
no backup GPS...next on the list. IFR is just an excuse for more equipment.

"Guy Elden Jr." > wrote in message
...
> Just got back from a good proficiency practice flight. This was the first
> time I'd flown single pilot IFR at night with conditions that could
> potentially deteriorate to actual instrument. (cloudy, rain developing as
> the flight progressed, visibility dropping somewhat)
>
> The basic rundown... got the plane, preflighted in the dark, and realized
> that it was the first time I had actually done a full preflight at night.
> All the other night flights I did the preflight at dusk or earlier.
> Definitely took me a few extra minutes to get oriented to the darkness and
> using my flashlight.
>
> I got through that ok, ready to do, and poof! My flashlight _light_ (not
the
> batteries) goes out! Just like the bright, microsend flash of illumination
> you see from a normal light bulb then total darkness. Crap! Fortunately, I
> had a spare light, smaller, but did the job. I was a bit disappointed in
the
> bulb that burnt out though... it was a Maglight, and barely over a year
old
> with hardly any use. I'm tempted to send it back to them for a
replacement.
>
> Takeoff out of CDW was uneventful, although the controller was a bit pushy
> when I wanted to clarify the squawk before departing... she said "You need
> to get rolling" after confirming the code was correct... somebody on
> downwind was undoubtedly going to plow into me I guess if I didn't hurry
> along. Needless to say, I didn't hurry. (I was still holding short, so if
> need be could've just continued to hold short, but she (the controller)
was
> obviously in need of some excitement on a dreary night with barely any
> traffic to manage).
>
> So up up and away we go, didn't even have time to make the initial turn to
> 180 before departure vectored me to SAX. Then enroute to SWF for a
practice
> ILS.
>
> I noticed before departing that one of the two radio / nav units in the
> plane was not functioning... it's one of those that has a primary and
> secondary freq, but the display was completely dead, so I decided to just
> leave it off. So even before starting the flight, I knew I had only one
> working com and one working nav / vor unit operational. No problem, if
> things got too heavy, I could just cancel IFR and continue VFR... clouds
> were definitely high enough on the way up (around 6000 OVC). As I got
closer
> to SWF, I tried tuning in the NDB so I could identify an intersection
along
> the LOC. No dice. I didn't hear the magic morse in the background, and the
> needle spun and spun til I got dizzy. Strike two on operational components
> in the plane! Still, I managed to get to SWF safely, and taxied off to the
> side to get myself setup for the trip back to CDW.
>
> Departure out of SWF was a bit more interesting, as I had to read the
SWF.4
> departure procedure. Easy to do, and so off I went. Unfortunately, the
> routing back home wasn't optimal... was supposed to go out to HUG then
turn
> south to head to CDW, so I asked for a shortcut to SAX instead. After
> getting handed off to NY Approach on 127.6, I had a helluva time hearing a
> transmission from the controller. I asked to hear it again, and again,
even
> with the volume all the way up, it was barely audible. I got the
instruction
> ok tho... left turn to 170. And fortunately the gremlin in the radio
cleared
> itself up on the next transmission. But this turns out to have been strike
3
> for equipment in the plane... I encountered this problem a couple other
> times, fortunately when other pilots were transmitting, and not ATC.
>
> Getting back in to CDW was a bit dicey, as the rain had started to come
> down, and the mist was making it difficult to pick out CDW (which is
> difficult enough these days anyway with 4/22 being closed for repairs). I
> told the controller at one point that I had the beacon in sight, but that
> wasn't good enough for him. 2 miles later, I could make out 9/27, so I was
> handed off for a visual approach, which wasn't my best approach, but was a
> squeaker of a landing.
>
> So to sum up: I had 1 VOR, 1 COM, and no backups in the plane for this
trip.
> And the COM was flaky toward the end. Methinks this plane is about to be
> decommissioned from the flight line, because the owner refuses to put any
> more money into it. It also just came out of 100 hour, so should (in
theory)
> be at its best operating capacity. I know I won't be trying any more trips
> at night or IFR in it anytime soon, but I'm glad I had the chance to push
> the boundaries a bit with the bare minimums for night IFR flight.
>
> --
> Guy Elden Jr.
>
>
>

[Maule Driver]

BTW, regarding my long post, Guy did mention he wouldn't do this flight
again in the same a/c in the same way, so if I got carried away.... sorry.

> >...I know I won't be trying any more trips
> > at night or IFR in it anytime soon,

Bill

[Stan Gosnell]

(Ben Jackson) wrote in
news:vqJnb.55004$e01.155566@attbi_s02:

> In article >,
> Guy Elden Jr. > wrote:
>>bulb that burnt out though... it was a Maglight, and barely over a
>>year old with hardly any use. I'm tempted to send it back to them for
>>a replacement.
>
> Maglights used to come with a spare bulb wrapped in a swatch of foam
> inside the battery spring.
>

Unless you already used it, and forgot to buy new ones. That's why I've
about given up on Maglites. I have one AA model for a backup to a backup,
but I've gone to LED lights almost completely. Much better battery life,
way better bulb life, and better light to boot. My primary flashlight has
5 LEDs, and give lots of light. I also have a couple of small disk-type
LED lights attached to my survival vest just in case, and for flying I have
a green LED on my mike boom that I can activate with my lip or keep on with
a switch. That's all I use in the cockpit, the main flashlight is for
preflighting, etc. A full flashlight in the cockpit at night is far too
bright; a single colored LED is perfect.

--
Regards,

Stan

[Guy Elden Jr.]

I've read all the replies, and appreciate everyone's comments!

I did actually have another spare flashlight that I always bring along with
me... I got it from Sporty's, and it's a flex neck type with a red led in it
that you can clip onto the visor. I had it positioned at the instrument
panel, so I did actually have a backup light in addition to the spare white
I was already using. I also discovered, thanks to Ben's post, that there was
indeed a spare bulb in the base of my Maglight, so I replaced it and it's
working again. For good measure, I bought another one, plus a headband red
led / white led combo unit at Target on the way home, so now I know I'm
golden on the flashlight situation.

As for the minimum equipment, night, etc, I knew I would be able to fly this
flight both to and from SWF under VFR if I had had to. I wouldn't have tried
if I couldn't, and actually scrubbed an attempt last week when the winds
started picking up as I was getting ready to preflight. This time, the winds
were real calm, clouds were very high (at least 5000 both up and back), and
visibility, while it did drop off as I approached CDW, was still at least 6
nm the entire trip.

All of my previous single-pilot IFR trips have been in a 172SP, with
alternate static source, dual COM, dual NAV, ADF, GPS, dual-axis
Autopilot... basically the works minus a standby vacuum. I wanted to do this
trip to get back to the basics, and didn't think it was as unsafe as it
might sound. It did give me a very good appreciation for GPS though... I
wouldn't fly passengers in actual without it, and I definitely won't be
taking such an underequipped plane out at night anymore.

--
Guy Elden Jr.

[Lynne Miller]

I am sorry if this offends anybody, however this sentence "It did give
me a very good appreciation for GPS though... I wouldn't fly
passengers in actual without it..." is quite concerning to me. I
understand that each person has a different comfort level, but what is
happening to the pilots of today when we are no longer comfortable
flying passengers without the use of GPS? What happened to VOR and ADF
skills? Maybe rather than not flying passengers without GPS, it would
be a better idea of going to get some dual in VOR and ADF usage so you
are comfortable flying with passengers without the use of GPS.

Lynne

"Guy Elden Jr." > wrote in message >...

> All of my previous single-pilot IFR trips have been in a 172SP, with
> alternate static source, dual COM, dual NAV, ADF, GPS, dual-axis
> Autopilot... basically the works minus a standby vacuum. I wanted to do this
> trip to get back to the basics, and didn't think it was as unsafe as it
> might sound. It did give me a very good appreciation for GPS though... I
> wouldn't fly passengers in actual without it, and I definitely won't be
> taking such an underequipped plane out at night anymore.

[Maule Driver]

"Lynne Miller" > wrote in message
om...
> I am sorry if this offends anybody, however this sentence "It did give
> me a very good appreciation for GPS though... I wouldn't fly
> passengers in actual without it..." is quite concerning to me. I
> understand that each person has a different comfort level, but what is
> happening to the pilots of today when we are no longer comfortable
> flying passengers without the use of GPS? What happened to VOR and ADF
> skills? Maybe rather than not flying passengers without GPS, it would
> be a better idea of going to get some dual in VOR and ADF usage so you
> are comfortable flying with passengers without the use of GPS.
>
Valid point. On my last CC I spent some time practicing my VOR navigation
simply because once again I found myself losing what little 'touch' I had.
Haven't done a VOR approach in awhile though.

I don't have an ADF - only have book learning and with zero experience.

I think the opposite applies in some cases - while a lot of people rely on
GPSs, not everyone is proficient using the particular unit they are relying
on. They seem both easier and more challenging if that's possible.

[Guy Elden Jr.]

"Lynne Miller" > wrote in message
om...
> I am sorry if this offends anybody, however this sentence "It did give
> me a very good appreciation for GPS though... I wouldn't fly
> passengers in actual without it..." is quite concerning to me. I
> understand that each person has a different comfort level, but what is
> happening to the pilots of today when we are no longer comfortable
> flying passengers without the use of GPS? What happened to VOR and ADF
> skills? Maybe rather than not flying passengers without GPS, it would
> be a better idea of going to get some dual in VOR and ADF usage so you
> are comfortable flying with passengers without the use of GPS.

It's not about a comfort level for me... it's about pilot workload. There is
a tremendous amount of work involved in flying heads down in the clouds, so
any device that can help alleviate that load is welcome by me. It may be
legal to fly in instrument conditions with two VORs and an ADF, but is it
really safe if you're the only pilot in the plane, weather is forming all
around you, and you have to hand fly the plane? My instructor is definitely
of the opinion (and I share the same view) that it is not.

I make it a point to be proficient at using all of the equipment available
in the plane... VOR, NDB, COM, Transponder, GPS, Autopilot in my case. If
any (or all) of them went TU, no problem, I know the emergency procedures
very well. But I don't think it's worth it to risk the lives of anybody but
myself if I don't have every single one of those "assistants" helping me out
when I'm the only pilot in the plane.

--
Guy Elden Jr.

[David Megginson]

"Guy Elden Jr." > writes:

> It may be legal to fly in instrument conditions with two VORs and an
> ADF, but is it really safe if you're the only pilot in the plane,
> weather is forming all around you, and you have to hand fly the
> plane?

Why wouldn't it be safe? I have nothing against GPS or an autopilot
-- I'll happily accept the gift of a Garmin 530 and/or STEC 30
installed in my Warrior from the first person who offers -- but even
though I'm a very new IFR pilot (only since last August), I've flown
myself and my family several times in solid IMC, day and night, using
the VORs and the ADF. As far as workload goes, I don't think it's any
harder tuning in a VOR frequency than it is selecting three or four
alphanumerics with a rocker switch or buttons for a GPS waypoint.

The only time I'd be reluctant to trust VOR or ADF for enroute would
be flying through a canyon or something similar, where a mile or so
off course would matter quite a bit. I don't live near any terrain
that high, though.


All the best,


David

[Teacherjh]

>>
It may be
legal to fly in instrument conditions with two VORs and an ADF, but is it
really safe if you're the only pilot in the plane, weather is forming all
around you, and you have to hand fly the plane?
<<

That depends on the proficiency of the pilot. In the long term, (over)
reliance on GPS reduces your proficiency in the cockpit. This can come back to
bite.

Jose


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

[Lynne Miller]

I think it is very safe to fly the airplane with two VORs and ADF, if
you are a proficient instrument pilot. This was done for thirty plus
years prior to GPS coming into the cockpit without much problem.
Remember, GPS is still a rather new invention when it comes to
aviation usage.

Lynne

"Guy Elden Jr." > wrote in message >...
> It may be
> legal to fly in instrument conditions with two VORs and an ADF, but is it
> really safe if you're the only pilot in the plane, weather is forming all
> around you, and you have to hand fly the plane? My instructor is definitely
> of the opinion (and I share the same view) that it is not.

[David Megginson]

(Lynne Miller) writes:

> I think it is very safe to fly the airplane with two VORs and ADF,
> if you are a proficient instrument pilot. This was done for thirty
> plus years prior to GPS coming into the cockpit without much
> problem. Remember, GPS is still a rather new invention when it
> comes to aviation usage.

The reason I'm puzzled by the original poster's statement (and his
instructor's) is that the GPS, VOR, and ADF are all secondary
problems.

The primary task during flight in IMC is keeping the plane upright,
and a GPS does not help with that any more than a VOR or ADF does (in
fact, in the unlikely event that I lost *all* gyros but still somehow
had electricity, I'd probably choose the ADF over the GPS for trying
to keep the wings level, due to the ADF's faster response time).

Unless you're flying very low around high terrain, even a
completely-busted VOR, ADF, or GPS shouldn't kill you, so I don't see
how a functioning one puts you at risk. Of course, you will need some
way to land eventually, but in that case ILS is more accurate than GPS
anyway.


All the best,


David

[Snowbird]

David Megginson > wrote in message >...
> "Guy Elden Jr." > writes:
> > It may be legal to fly in instrument conditions with two VORs and an
> > ADF, but is it really safe if you're the only pilot in the plane,
> > weather is forming all around you, and you have to hand fly the
> > plane?

> Why wouldn't it be safe?

With all respect, David, I think you and "Maule Guy" are
letting Troller Chick (*aka Lynne Miller* -- remember
"Slav Inger is getting a tattoo" and "throw out that
checklist" etc etc) get it mixed for you.

There's a distinction between proficiency/capability and
safety. And safety is a continuum, where safe/unsafe are
a matter of personal limits.

For example, obviously it's possible to complete a night
IMC flight safely in a single-engine plane equipped with
VOR and ADF. It's possible to be proficient with these
navaids and to know your position with a fair degree of
certainty. Yet some people would argue that night IMC
in a single engine plane is not a safe trip for pax, and
they have an inarguable point IMO. If the fan quits in a
SE plane, your options are strictly limited, no matter
how proficient and capable and situationally aware you are.
Night, IMC, and night IMC both decrease your options.

If someone's personal limits don't allow them to take
pax IMC in a single, I have no argument against their view
even though my own personal limits differ and we fly our
daughter SE IMC.

There's a similar issue with GPS. Yes, it's possible
to know exactly where you are w/ 2 VORs and an ADF,
but single pilot IMC, there's no question it's higher
workload-- may require retuning stations and resetting
radials with the possibility for undetected error which
this entails. And this is true no matter how proficient
and capable you are with the equipment.

GPS adds situational awareness and capability. Thus
it adds safety. If you start smelling smoke, a handheld
GPS gives you the option to slap the master switch off
while maintaining the ability to navigate. If the fan
quits, it will take you to the nearest airport at the
touch of a button. IMO it's just as inarguable that
GPS adds safety and that it's a perfectly reasonable view
to say "I wouldn't fly pax in IMC without it" -- and this
has absolutely nothing to do with VOR/ADF proficiency.

Now, a multiengine plane and the continued proficiency to
fly it safely are a significant capitol investment.

But a useful handheld GPS can be had for a couple hundred
bucks. Maybe less if you shop carefully for a used unit.

So don't dismiss the viewpoint that it's unsafe to fly pax
IMC without a GPS. Think about your plans if you start
smelling electrical smoke in IMC (BTDT), or if the engine quits,
or even if you have a vacuum failure or wx is forming around
you and you have to scurry for an airport in a hurry. That
GPS adds a lot of safety "bang for the buck" and I have no
argument against the viewpoint of someone who wouldn't leave
home IMC without it.

Best,
Sydney

[David Megginson]

(Snowbird) writes:

> So don't dismiss the viewpoint that it's unsafe to fly pax
> IMC without a GPS. Think about your plans if you start
> smelling electrical smoke in IMC (BTDT), or if the engine quits,
> or even if you have a vacuum failure or wx is forming around
> you and you have to scurry for an airport in a hurry. That
> GPS adds a lot of safety "bang for the buck" and I have no
> argument against the viewpoint of someone who wouldn't leave
> home IMC without it.

I agree entirely that a handheld GPS in the flightbag is an excellent
safety investment, precisely because it gives you a way to navigate
independent of the plane's systems. Ditto for a cellphone with a
headset adapter (handheld VHF transcievers have lousy ranges, but over
populated areas, you can almost always hit a cell).

I didn't have the impression, though, that the poster was writing
about emergency backup -- I had the impression that he (and his
instructor) thought that flying with VOR or ADF was somehow more
dangerous than flying with GPS. In fact, if we're talking about using
a handheld GPS in IMC, we're talking about extra workload, because the
pilot has to tune in the VOR and/or ADF and *then* tune the handheld
backup as well. It may be worthwhile sometimes, but there's a price
to consider.

As I mentioned in a previous posting, none of that navigational
equipment addresses the main safety requirement in IMC, keeping the
plane upright. I would agree that using with *any* equipment you're
not proficient with is a dangerous distraction, but given equal
proficiency, tuning and spinning an ADF or VOR receiver involves no
higher a workload than fiddling with GPS buttons.

The poster also mentioned flying with an autopilot, though it fell out
of the followups. That makes a lot more sense as a personal safety
minimum, since the AP does actually help to keep the wings level.
Personally, I'm happy to hand fly, but I believe that my plane would
be safer if it had a simple wing-leveller that I could hit as a panic
button if I ever experienced extreme vertigo. I'm willing to fly
without it, but I can respect that other people might not be.


All the best,


David

[Peter R.]

David Megginson ) wrote:

> The poster also mentioned flying with an autopilot, though it fell out
> of the followups. That makes a lot more sense as a personal safety
> minimum, since the AP does actually help to keep the wings level.
> Personally, I'm happy to hand fly, but I believe that my plane would
> be safer if it had a simple wing-leveller that I could hit as a panic
> button if I ever experienced extreme vertigo. I'm willing to fly
> without it, but I can respect that other people might not be.

Interesting you mention this point. I am in the process of watching a few
of the Richard Collins Sporty's aviation DVDs. In the IFR Tips and
Techniques DVD, he offers a PoV that suggest a pilot hand flying in IMC
does not necessarily have the big picture view that a pilot who uses an AP
might.

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[David Megginson]

Peter R. > writes:

> Interesting you mention this point. I am in the process of watching
> a few of the Richard Collins Sporty's aviation DVDs. In the IFR
> Tips and Techniques DVD, he offers a PoV that suggest a pilot hand
> flying in IMC does not necessarily have the big picture view that a
> pilot who uses an AP might.

I haven't heard that before. Is it because hand flying doesn't leave
you as much time to look at charts, etc., and interpret secondary
information?


All the best,


David

[Mick Ruthven]

My opinion is that an autopilot is one of the most important items of safety
equipment for single-pilot IFR. It frees a lot of brain cells for important
tasks like situational awareness and, in VMC, looking for traffic. My CFII
fully agreed with that and recommended liberal use of the autopilot for
single-pilot IFR. And before the flames start, I'm fully aware of the need
to be proficient in flying IFR without the A/P.

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> David Megginson ) wrote:
>
> > The poster also mentioned flying with an autopilot, though it fell out
> > of the followups. That makes a lot more sense as a personal safety
> > minimum, since the AP does actually help to keep the wings level.
> > Personally, I'm happy to hand fly, but I believe that my plane would
> > be safer if it had a simple wing-leveller that I could hit as a panic
> > button if I ever experienced extreme vertigo. I'm willing to fly
> > without it, but I can respect that other people might not be.
>
> Interesting you mention this point. I am in the process of watching a few
> of the Richard Collins Sporty's aviation DVDs. In the IFR Tips and
> Techniques DVD, he offers a PoV that suggest a pilot hand flying in IMC
> does not necessarily have the big picture view that a pilot who uses an AP
> might.
>
> --
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

[Peter R.]

David Megginson ) wrote:

> Peter R. > writes:
>
> > Interesting you mention this point. I am in the process of watching
> > a few of the Richard Collins Sporty's aviation DVDs. In the IFR
> > Tips and Techniques DVD, he offers a PoV that suggest a pilot hand
> > flying in IMC does not necessarily have the big picture view that a
> > pilot who uses an AP might.
>
> I haven't heard that before. Is it because hand flying doesn't leave
> you as much time to look at charts, etc., and interpret secondary
> information?

I believe that is what he was alluding to, although he did not expand on
the point other than a few general sentences. IIRC, he stating that
allowing the AP to fly frees up the more of the pilot's brain cycles to
monitor engine instruments, charts, GPS, weather, as well as completely
prepare for the upcoming approach.

Collins did mention the dilemma of maintaining proficiency with hand
flying, but he still advocates the majority of flying be done by the AP in
IMC, as (in his experience) the big picture in IMC is so crucial to a
successful outcome.

There is complete segment on another of his DVDs devoted solely to the use
of AP. I expect that he expands on these thoughts, but I have yet to view
it.

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Peter R.]

Mick Ruthven ) wrote:

> My opinion is that an autopilot is one of the most important items of safety
> equipment for single-pilot IFR. It frees a lot of brain cells for important
> tasks like situational awareness and, in VMC, looking for traffic. My CFII
> fully agreed with that and recommended liberal use of the autopilot for
> single-pilot IFR.

I am learning that any piece of equipment that increases the safety of my
flight ought to be used to its fullest potential.

> And before the flames start, I'm fully aware of the need to be proficient
> in flying IFR without the A/P.

Me, too. Once again, the key here is to avoid the warm and seducing arms
of complacency.

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Roger Halstead]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 16:11:52 GMT, David Megginson
> wrote:

>Peter R. > writes:
>
>> Interesting you mention this point. I am in the process of watching
>> a few of the Richard Collins Sporty's aviation DVDs. In the IFR
>> Tips and Techniques DVD, he offers a PoV that suggest a pilot hand
>> flying in IMC does not necessarily have the big picture view that a
>> pilot who uses an AP might.
>
>I haven't heard that before. Is it because hand flying doesn't leave
>you as much time to look at charts, etc., and interpret secondary
>information?
>
Pretty much, but it also eliminates the danger of turning in the
direction you look.

Turn your head to the right and look down at charts and you will have
a tendency to do the same with the airplane. With "George" doing the
flying that doesn't happen. OTOH never forget to keep up the
scan...Although rare, George can make mistakes too and sometimes some
rather rapid ones.
>

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
>All the best,
>
>
>David

[David Megginson]

Roger Halstead > writes:

> Turn your head to the right and look down at charts and you will
> have a tendency to do the same with the airplane. With "George"
> doing the flying that doesn't happen. OTOH never forget to keep up
> the scan...Although rare, George can make mistakes too and sometimes
> some rather rapid ones.

As I mentioned, I'd love to install a wing leveller some day when I
have money available, so I'm not anti-autopilot. That said, this
particular problem is an easy one to avoid -- if you're messing with a
chart or plates or anything else, let go of the yoke. Touching it
cannot possibly do any good when you're not actually looking at the
attitude instruments.


All the best,


David

[Roger Halstead]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 19:58:10 GMT, David Megginson
> wrote:

>Roger Halstead > writes:
>
>> Turn your head to the right and look down at charts and you will
>> have a tendency to do the same with the airplane. With "George"
>> doing the flying that doesn't happen. OTOH never forget to keep up
>> the scan...Although rare, George can make mistakes too and sometimes
>> some rather rapid ones.
>
>As I mentioned, I'd love to install a wing leveller some day when I
>have money available, so I'm not anti-autopilot. That said, this
>particular problem is an easy one to avoid -- if you're messing with a
>chart or plates or anything else, let go of the yoke. Touching it
>cannot possibly do any good when you're not actually looking at the
>attitude instruments.

That can work quite well, except when you are in some turbulence and
getting bounced around. It also depends on the airplane. On a smooth
day the Deb is a joy to hand fly, but it's pretty slipery. OTOH if it
gets really rough you turn off the autopilot and hand fly it any way.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

>
>
>All the best,
>
>
>David

[Nathan Young]

David Megginson > wrote in message >...
> Peter R. > writes:
>
> > Interesting you mention this point. I am in the process of watching
> > a few of the Richard Collins Sporty's aviation DVDs. In the IFR
> > Tips and Techniques DVD, he offers a PoV that suggest a pilot hand
> > flying in IMC does not necessarily have the big picture view that a
> > pilot who uses an AP might.
>
> I haven't heard that before. Is it because hand flying doesn't leave
> you as much time to look at charts, etc., and interpret secondary
> information?

Collins is a big supporter of APs, and I'm with him. I have a
wing-leveler in my PA28-180. It is a huge help when copying clearance
amendments, studying an approach plate, or eating lunch. I definitely
agree with RC's point that the AP frees up mental bandwidth to process
other things like the big picture.

A lot of people get uptight about APs - but when used properly (ie not
a crutch) they can be a huge asset to single-pilot flying,
particularly IFR.

-Nathan

[Snowbird]

David Megginson > wrote in message >...
> (Snowbird) writes:
> > So don't dismiss the viewpoint that it's unsafe to fly pax
> > IMC without a GPS. Think about your plans if you start
> > smelling electrical smoke in IMC (BTDT), or if the engine quits,
> > or even if you have a vacuum failure or wx is forming around
> > you and you have to scurry for an airport in a hurry. That
> > GPS adds a lot of safety "bang for the buck" and I have no
> > argument against the viewpoint of someone who wouldn't leave
> > home IMC without it.

> I agree entirely that a handheld GPS in the flightbag is an excellent
> safety investment

Well, just to clarify my views: a handheld GPS in the flightbag
is next to useless. It has to be set up, turn on, and acquired
at the beginning of the flight to have practical value if things
go south.

> I didn't have the impression, though, that the poster was writing
> about emergency backup

Not clear. The statement IIRC was simply that he wouldn't want
to fly pax in IMC without GPS. I concur.

> -- I had the impression that he (and his
> instructor) thought that flying with VOR or ADF was somehow more
> dangerous than flying with GPS. In fact, if we're talking about using
> a handheld GPS in IMC, we're talking about extra workload, because the
> pilot has to tune in the VOR and/or ADF and *then* tune the handheld
> backup as well.

Huh?

I fly around with two GPS on and acquired in the cockpit, and
I've never "tuned" one yet :). I have selected a navaid or
airport -- is that what you mean?

The point is:
A moving map GPS is a significant aid to situational awareness
whether the GPS has anything selected, or not. It will always
tell you where you are relative to nearby airports and navaids.

So it doesn't have to increase workload one iota.

> I would agree that using with *any* equipment you're
> not proficient with is a dangerous distraction, but given equal
> proficiency, tuning and spinning an ADF or VOR receiver involves no
> higher a workload than fiddling with GPS buttons.

Actually the opposite is true. Tuning a VOR receiver and setting
the OBS is a significantly *lower* workload than setting up
a route, loading an approach, or even selecting a navaid and
inputting a course on the typical older panel-mount IFR GPS.

However, given a choice between flying a VOR or NDB approach
or flying a stand-alone GPS approach in actual, I want the latter
every time.

My thing with simple wing-leveler autopilots is I'm not
sure how well ours (anyway) would work in really nasty
conditions. The sort of conditions most likely to induce
spatial disorientation. Not dissing it as a safety item
at all, just saying I see it more as a workload-reducer.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Snowbird]

David Megginson > wrote in message >...

> As I mentioned, I'd love to install a wing leveller some day when I
> have money available, so I'm not anti-autopilot. That said, this
> particular problem is an easy one to avoid -- if you're messing with a
> chart or plates or anything else, let go of the yoke.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

This has to be someone who flies Cessnas or (possibly) Pipers

I gotta read this one to my (Grumman specialist) CFI he'll
get a good belly laugh too.

Sydney (it's not true that all small GA planes are stable enough
to fly hands-off level long enough to "mess with" a
chart or plate or anything else)

[[email protected]]

Response not crossposted - it's against my religion.

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 11:34:36 -0500, Peter R. >
wrote:

>> And before the flames start, I'm fully aware of the need to be proficient
>> in flying IFR without the A/P.
>
>Me, too. Once again, the key here is to avoid the warm and seducing arms
>of complacency.

Disclaimer: I am instrument rated, but not much more than that; I
haven't flown an IFR flight plan since I got the ticket last year, at
least in a real airplane (I've done a few in Flight Simulator). That
said...

I plan to almost always hand-fly instrument approaches in practice
conditions, other than during training sessions with a CFII to better
understand the autopilot as used in APR mode.

But, if I'm making an approach in actual conditions, without that CFII
in the other seat, I'm probably going to let the autopilot fly the
approach to the MAP/DH or darn near close to that, with me managing the
vertical descent as needed on non-ILS approaches.

Of course, this assumes that I'm proficient in the use of the autopilot
for approach work...

But , if I'm in an airplane that has an AP that I'm not familiar with,
then I'll hand fly it. But in general I'd rather let the machinery keep
me upright and alive as long as possible when I'm Doing The Real Thing -
there's a lot going on then and I'll use every available aid to keep the
workload as manageable as possible.

My ego is OK with that approach (no pun intended). I would rather be
overly cautious and alive than doggedly hand-fly an approach in
marginal conditions.

My .02,

Dave Blevins

[David Megginson]

(Snowbird) writes:

>> I agree entirely that a handheld GPS in the flightbag is an excellent
>> safety investment
>
> Well, just to clarify my views: a handheld GPS in the flightbag
> is next to useless. It has to be set up, turn on, and acquired
> at the beginning of the flight to have practical value if things
> go south.

I can see how that would be helpful, but I'm not sure I would be that
strident about it. Again, the most important thing in IMC is to keep
the plane right-side up; the second most important thing is to
maintain altitude and airspeed. Unfortunately, the GPS does not help
at all with any of those -- in fact, it does not come into play until
everything else is calm (or at least stabilized), and you decide it's
time to start heading for an airport.

> I fly around with two GPS on and acquired in the cockpit, and
> I've never "tuned" one yet :). I have selected a navaid or
> airport -- is that what you mean?

Exactly. If ATC says (for example), "ABC proceed direct XYZ VOR," and
you don't have a panel-mounted IFR GPS, you have to tune, identify,
and twist for XYZ on the nav radio regardless. If you are using a
handheld GPS, then you *also* have to fiddle with the buttons to set
XYZ as the next waypoint. That's a higher workload, not a lower one
It may well be worthwhile (for the situational awareness benefits you
mentioned), but you cannot argue that it makes the cockpit less busy;
on the contrary, it's one more thing to do. I tend to use my handheld
GPS when things are calm -- when I'm busy, I don't have spare time to
mess with it, and I just stick to the VOR, ADF, and DME. If I had a
panel-mounted IFR GPS, again, things would be different, since it
could be my primary navigation device.

> The point is: A moving map GPS is a significant aid to situational
> awareness whether the GPS has anything selected, or not. It will
> always tell you where you are relative to nearby airports and
> navaids.

My stationary paper map tells me the same thing with a much bigger
display higher resolution, but I agree that moving maps are neat, and
I'd love to have a big one on my panel.

> So it doesn't have to increase workload one iota.

Remember, I mentioned a handheld originally -- that cannot be your
primary means of navigation, so it's always an *extra* thing to tune.
It has a higher cost in workload, though it's fair to argue that for
you (and many other pilots) it also has a higher benefit in
situational awareness. You have to balance the two off against each
other.

> However, given a choice between flying a VOR or NDB approach
> or flying a stand-alone GPS approach in actual, I want the latter
> every time.

I don't think I'd disagree with this point. A VOR or NDB approach
with the navaid on the field is fairly accurate near the end (where it
counts), but when the navaid is off the field, the GPS approach should
always be better. I've never flown a GPS T approach (since I don't
have an IFR GPS), but it looks like it would be nice and easy at the
end of a long flight.

> My thing with simple wing-leveler autopilots is I'm not sure how
> well ours (anyway) would work in really nasty conditions. The sort
> of conditions most likely to induce spatial disorientation. Not
> dissing it as a safety item at all, just saying I see it more as a
> workload-reducer.

The STEC-20 is supposed to be good at handling turbulence. That's
what I'd like to install some day.


All the best,


David

[David Megginson]

(Snowbird) writes:

> Sydney (it's not true that all small GA planes are stable enough to
> fly hands-off level long enough to "mess with" a chart or plate or
> anything else)

Fair enough, but in that case, it's not stable enough to look away
anyway when you're hand flying. My point was that if you're not
looking at the attitude instruments, there's no point messing with the
yoke.

You're right, I do fly a Piper.


All the best,


David

[Dan Luke]

"David Megginson" wrote:
> Again, the most important thing in IMC is to keep
> the plane right-side up; the second most important thing is to
> maintain altitude and airspeed. Unfortunately, the GPS does
> not help at all with any of those

Hmmm, actually, I believe mine does help with those, since I use it to
cross-check the HI.

> I tend to use my handheld
> GPS when things are calm -- when I'm busy, I don't have spare
> time to mess with it, and I just stick to the VOR, ADF, and DME.
> If I had a panel-mounted IFR GPS, again, things would be different,
> since it could be my primary navigation device.

I tend to use mine when things are really jumping. Although I have an
approach certified GPS, I always set up route changes in the yoke
mounted portable GPS first. It's easier to program and is better
situated for maintaining my scan while I'm pushing buttons. Once I get
the new route put in the portable, I will fly off it and set up the
other nav gear at my leisure.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Stan Gosnell]

David Megginson > wrote in
:

> Peter R. > writes:
>
>> Interesting you mention this point. I am in the process
>> of watching a few of the Richard Collins Sporty's aviation
>> DVDs. In the IFR Tips and Techniques DVD, he offers a PoV
>> that suggest a pilot hand flying in IMC does not
>> necessarily have the big picture view that a pilot who
>> uses an AP might.
>
> I haven't heard that before. Is it because hand flying
> doesn't leave you as much time to look at charts, etc., and
> interpret secondary information?

I have to agree with him. I've done it both ways, and not
having to devote full time to keeping the plane straight and
level gives you more time to look at everything else, not just
the basic T. Even better is 2 pilots and an autopilot. I
normally fly in a 2-pilot crew, without autopilot, & I far
prefer to let the FO fly while I keep track of everything else,
especially approaches and the transition to the approach. The
PICMA concept is something I believe in.

--
Regards,

Stan

[David Megginson]

Peter > writes:

>>You're right, I do fly a Piper.
>
> NOT a PA38 presumably :)

No, delta -10.


All the best,


David

[Doug]

If you don't have an autopilot, definitely hand fly it. Problem comes
when you DO have an autopilot. If you have the autopilot fly it, it is
safer and more precise, but if you have the autopilot fly it, then you
don't know if you can do it if the autopilot fails. What I do is use
the autopilot for enroute and handfly the climbouts, arrivals and
approaches. I have used the autopilot for approaches, but I fly so few
in actual, I need all the practice I can get.

It also depends on how good your autopilot is. Mine can outfly me in
smooth air and at cruise speed. I can outfly it in turbulence, and
flying slowly.

[Snowbird]

David Megginson > wrote in message >...
> (Snowbird) writes:
> > Sydney (it's not true that all small GA planes are stable enough to
> > fly hands-off level long enough to "mess with" a chart or plate or
> > anything else)

> Fair enough, but in that case, it's not stable enough to look away
> anyway when you're hand flying.

Sure it is. One just learns to look away in small chunks.
Very small chunks.

And not write down anything which doesn't need to be written
down.

But truthfully, single-pilot IFR would be very difficult
without an autopilot for those times when one has to fold a
chart or copy the clearance for a major rerouting.

What brought me out of the woodwork was what I took to be your
point that simply going "hands off the yoke" is in any way a
substitute for an autopilot.

IMO, that just isn't true. It may be true for some planes
some of the time, but even a Piper will meet conditions
where 5 seconds of hands-off will mean a rapidly steeping
bank.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Tom S.]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> David Megginson ) wrote:
>
> > Peter R. > writes:
> >
> > > Interesting you mention this point. I am in the process of watching
> > > a few of the Richard Collins Sporty's aviation DVDs. In the IFR
> > > Tips and Techniques DVD, he offers a PoV that suggest a pilot hand
> > > flying in IMC does not necessarily have the big picture view that a
> > > pilot who uses an AP might.
> >
> > I haven't heard that before. Is it because hand flying doesn't leave
> > you as much time to look at charts, etc., and interpret secondary
> > information?
>
> I believe that is what he was alluding to, although he did not expand on
> the point other than a few general sentences. IIRC, he stating that
> allowing the AP to fly frees up the more of the pilot's brain cycles to
> monitor engine instruments, charts, GPS, weather, as well as completely
> prepare for the upcoming approach.


www.s-tec.com/pdf/AutoPilotBook.pdf

The above is "advertising", but it still makes several good, cogent points.

[David Megginson]

(Snowbird) writes:

> But truthfully, single-pilot IFR would be very difficult
> without an autopilot for those times when one has to fold a
> chart or copy the clearance for a major rerouting.

Understood. I know that I'm spoiled flying a PA-28 -- I just flew
from Toronto to Ottawa this morning in solid IMC and intermittent
turbulence, and the plane was quite happy to let me fold charts, look
up approaches, etc. etc. On the other hand, I give up a fair bit of
speed to get that stability (my top speed is only around 125 ktas from
160 hp).

> What brought me out of the woodwork was what I took to be your
> point that simply going "hands off the yoke" is in any way a
> substitute for an autopilot.

I suggested that hands off the yoke is a solution for the specific
problem of involuntarily moving the yoke when you look away from the
panel.

> IMO, that just isn't true. It may be true for some planes some of
> the time, but even a Piper will meet conditions where 5 seconds of
> hands-off will mean a rapidly steeping bank.

Even in my Cherokee, I won't look away *or* let go of the yoke for 5
seconds in IMC, except maybe in extremely smooth air. Typically, the
longest I'll look away is 1-2 seconds, and less in rough air (maybe
1/2 second).


All the best,


David

[David Rind]

> (Snowbird) writes:
>>Well, just to clarify my views: a handheld GPS in the flightbag
>>is next to useless. It has to be set up, turn on, and acquired
>>at the beginning of the flight to have practical value if things
>>go south.

Hmm, I think my computer ate my first attempt at replying to
this, so I'll try again.

Can you expand on this position? I keep a GPS in my flightbag
with the thought that if I had a total electrical failure in
IMC that I could climb/circle/continue on course as appropriate
using the vacuum instruments during the five minutes it would
take to have the GPS out and knowing its position.

While I can imagine that this would not be adequate in some
circumstances (such as mountainous terrain) it seems good enough
for most of the flying I do in the northeast.

Is there something I'm missing that you feel would be a major
hazard while getting the GPS out should I ever find myself in this
situation?

--
David Rind

[Snowbird]

David Megginson > wrote in message >...
> (Snowbird) writes:
> >> I agree entirely that a handheld GPS in the flightbag is an excellent
> >> safety investment

> > Well, just to clarify my views: a handheld GPS in the flightbag
> > is next to useless. It has to be set up, turn on, and acquired
> > at the beginning of the flight to have practical value if things
> > go south.

> I can see how that would be helpful, but I'm not sure I would be that
> strident about it.

Suit yourself.

We've been in a couple sticky situations IMC, and I can vouch
that the handheld GPS had great value ONLY because it was turned
on and acquired.

If we'd had to dig it out, set it up, turn it on, and let it
acquire it might as well have been located in Cahokia.

> Again, the most important thing in IMC is to keep
> the plane right-side up

And how do you do that?

You keep the wings level.

How do you keep the wings level?

You HOLD HEADING

My moving map GPS is a great help in holding heading partial
panel. I can fly partial panel with the map shut off, but
it's clearly much easier with the map, especially in nasty
conditions where the compass is waving around like a bobber
with a prizewinning Bass on the hook and the TC is vibrating.

So I feel you underestimate the value of GPS for fundamental
instrument flying. JMO of course.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Snowbird]

David Rind > wrote in message >...
> > (Snowbird) writes:
> >>Well, just to clarify my views: a handheld GPS in the flightbag
> >>is next to useless. It has to be set up, turn on, and acquired
> >>at the beginning of the flight to have practical value if things
> >>go south.

> Can you expand on this position? I keep a GPS in my flightbag
> with the thought that if I had a total electrical failure in
> IMC that I could climb/circle/continue on course as appropriate
> using the vacuum instruments during the five minutes it would
> take to have the GPS out and knowing its position.

That's a fine viewpoint -- IF you have a stable plane which
is easy to control and continue on course while you dig out
the GPS.

And IF you have 5 minutes to spare while you wait for it
to acquire.

> Is there something I'm missing that you feel would be a major
> hazard while getting the GPS out should I ever find myself in this
> situation?

It seems like entirely unnecessary division of attention and
labor which could be done quickly and easily on the ground,
so as to be prepared.

When we had smoke in the cockpit, we had another problem to work.
Yeah there were two of us, but the last thing we needed was
to screw around setting up another piece of equipment. If the
smoke hadn't stopped when we slapped off the master switch, we
needed the GPS to take us somewhere flat we could let down -- NOW --
not in 5 minutes.

This was on the E coast btw flatlands. Near coast.

Perhaps you don't consider these "major hazards". Dunno.

Sydney

[David Rind]

Snowbird wrote:
> That's a fine viewpoint -- IF you have a stable plane which
> is easy to control and continue on course while you dig out
> the GPS.

Well, honestly if I have a total electrical failure, I don't
care that I hold course all that precisely while turning
on the GPS as long as there's no terrain around. I'm pretty
sure I can keep the plane upright while pulling the GPS out.

> It seems like entirely unnecessary division of attention and
> labor which could be done quickly and easily on the ground,
> so as to be prepared.
>
> When we had smoke in the cockpit, we had another problem to work.
> Yeah there were two of us, but the last thing we needed was
> to screw around setting up another piece of equipment. If the
> smoke hadn't stopped when we slapped off the master switch, we
> needed the GPS to take us somewhere flat we could let down -- NOW --
> not in 5 minutes.

Hadn't thought about a possible fire situation where I would
tolerate a brief landing delay (use the GPS to get to a field)
rather than an emergency descent and landing. Certainly in that
situation, having the GPS up and active could make all the
difference.

I think that that's a sufficient reason to want the GPS up
and running when flying IMC. I'll have to add that to the
things I get set when going IFR in actual. Thanks.

--
David Rind

[David Megginson]

(Snowbird) writes:

>> I can see how that would be helpful, but I'm not sure I would be that
>> strident about it.
>
> Suit yourself.
>
> We've been in a couple sticky situations IMC, and I can vouch
> that the handheld GPS had great value ONLY because it was turned
> on and acquired.

Interestingly, this point came up yesterday morning. I was in solid
IMC and ATC cleared me direct to a VOR that was right at the limit of
my reception range for my low altitude, so I wasn't sure whether to
trust the (still wobbly) CDI yet or to ask for vectors a little
longer. I decided to get a second opinion from my handheld GPS, but I
had to reach behind my seat, open the flight bag, turn on the GPS,
acquire satellites, and then select the VOR as a waypoint. It was a
slight pain, but nothing serious -- I had everything set up in a
couple of minutes (though I did allow a brief 10-degree heading drift
at one point).

In retrospect, I would have been better just to tune in a nearby NDB
for confirmation, since it would have taken less time and effort (even
if the GPS had already been on and acquired).

> How do you keep the wings level?
>
> You HOLD HEADING
>
> My moving map GPS is a great help in holding heading partial
> panel. I can fly partial panel with the map shut off, but
> it's clearly much easier with the map, especially in nasty
> conditions where the compass is waving around like a bobber
> with a prizewinning Bass on the hook and the TC is vibrating.

I would trust a GPS for that only if everything else failed. With a
latency of up to several seconds to register large heading changes, it
would be an awfully messy tool for trying to keep level in turbulence
(in smooth air, almost anything will work fine).

If I lost the AI and HI, I'd use the TC (of course); if I lost the AI,
HI, and TC and still had electricity, I'd use the ADF (which responds
almost instantly to heading changes); if I lost the AI, HI, TC, *and*
ADF (i.e. total vacuum and electrical failure), it would be a coin
toss between the mag compass (which overreacts) and the handheld GPS
(which lags). With my current whiskey compass, I might choose the
GPS, but if I get around to buying a vertical-card compass, I think
I'd choose that first.

> So I feel you underestimate the value of GPS for fundamental
> instrument flying. JMO of course.

I'm very happy to have it available, and have no desire to go back in
time. As I mentioned earlier, I think that the handheld GPS and cell
phone are extremely valuable (and cheap) insurance, and never fly
without both in my flightbag, VFR or IFR. I think we're debating only
the finer points in the middle rather than pro/anti GPS.


All the best,


David

[Maule Driver]

"Snowbird" >
> David Megginson >
> > (Snowbird) writes:
> > I agree entirely that a handheld GPS in the flightbag is an excellent
> > safety investment
>
> Well, just to clarify my views: a handheld GPS in the flightbag
> is next to useless. It has to be set up, turn on, and acquired
> at the beginning of the flight to have practical value if things
> go south.
>
I have a panel mount and don't have a handheld yet. Flying single pilot IFR
sans George, I've always assumed that effective use of the handheld as
backup strongly suggests having it out, mounted, powered and acquired. The
trick to keeping it upright and level when doing the single pilot dance is
preparation and organization.

No question that you can retrieve a loose relief bottle from under the back
seat in light turbulence while handflying in the soup.... *if* you get to
pick the time. But if the power goes out in a puff of smoke while I'm using
same bottle, the handheld GPS needs to be out and ready.

[Snowbird]

David Megginson > wrote in message >...
> I'm very happy to have it available, and have no desire to go back in
> time. As I mentioned earlier, I think that the handheld GPS and cell
> phone are extremely valuable (and cheap) insurance, and never fly
> without both in my flightbag, VFR or IFR. I think we're debating only
> the finer points in the middle rather than pro/anti GPS.

Hi David,

With all respect, I don't think we're debating a fine
point at all. I think we have a fundamental philosophical
difference on two points.

The first point is that you feel very confident in your ability
to continue to aviate, navigate and communicate, while coping
with an emergency or unusual circumstance AND set up a GPS.

Perhaps I'm just a lesser mortal, but I couldn't disagree more.
I feel that in a tight spot, the last thing I need is an additional
distraction. Even if in normal circs and unstressed I can do
an additional task with no problem, I don't want to bet the rent
I can do that when the going is tough. So for me, if something is
gonna be useful in an emergency I want it set up before I leave
the ground. It's not a fine point to me, it's a fundamental principle.

The second point is, I feel very strongly that for something to be
useful in an emergency, it has to be something I use frequently and
am very comfortable with. That means I fly with it under normal
conditions. Again, it's not a fine point to me, it's a fundamental
principle.

All the best,
Sydney

[David Megginson]

(Snowbird) writes:

> The first point is that you feel very confident in your ability
> to continue to aviate, navigate and communicate, while coping
> with an emergency or unusual circumstance AND set up a GPS.

No, I don't feel that way at all, but if I do end up in an emergency,
I plan to do my best to aviate, and to worry about navigating and
communicating only when the opportunities present themselves.

I am still a new pilot (220 hours), so I'm very open to learning, but
I'm not doing a good job coming up with use cases where it's a
potential life-or-death issue whether the GPS is already on. Here are
the most likely emergencies I can think of in IMC:

1. Vacuum failure -- no immediate, direct benefit from the handheld
GPS.

2. Electrical failure -- if I know of VMC anywhere within range (or
above or below), I'll head in that general direction using the
compass or altimeter; if not, then an improvised IAP with a
handheld GPS is much better than nothing, but I don't need the GPS
immediately.

3. Smoke on board, goes away when electrical shut down -- see #2.

4. Smoke on board, does not go away when electrical shut down -- the
handheld GPS is useless (except as survival equipment on the
ground), because I'm landing NOW, even if I'm over bad terrain with
a 100 ft ceiling. I might turn in the direction I think is
flattest during my (very fast) controlled descent, but that's it.
Too many people die trying to get to an airport with an onboard
fire when seconds count.

5. Engine failure -- see #4.

6. Total vacuum and electrical failure -- it's a toss-up between the
handheld GPS or the magnetic compass (overreact or underreact).
Still, my goal is to get to the ground ASAP without losing control
of the plane, not to get to an airport 40 miles away.

That said, my handheld GPS often is on already, and as I mentioned, I
do consider it a useful tool. Another, somewhat more gruesome benefit
of having the GPS on is that the backtrack information acts as a
sort-of cheap-*******s flight data recorder during the NTSB
investigation, if the GPS survives a crash (they tend to be tougher
than human cargo) -- no benefit to you or your loved ones, but it
might help others in the future.

> The second point is, I feel very strongly that for something to be
> useful in an emergency, it has to be something I use frequently and
> am very comfortable with. That means I fly with it under normal
> conditions. Again, it's not a fine point to me, it's a fundamental
> principle.

Sure, I agree with you there -- you have to be proficient with it. I
try to fly a combination of VFR by pure pilotage, VFR by radio nav,
VFR by handheld GPS, IFR by radio nav, and IFR by radio nav with
handheld GPS as backup, so that I'm at least somewhat proficient with
all of them.


All the best,


David

[David Megginson]

Peter > writes:

> The problem is that in IMC there is often (usually here in the UK) a
> lot more turbulence than there is in clear air.

It cuts both ways where I live. Morning ground fog and low stratus
are, of course, the smoothest air you're ever going to see. Thick
afternoon cumulus will happily knock the fillings out of your teeth.


All the best,


David

[Michael]

David Megginson > wrote
> > Interesting you mention this point. I am in the process of watching
> > a few of the Richard Collins Sporty's aviation DVDs. In the IFR
> > Tips and Techniques DVD, he offers a PoV that suggest a pilot hand
> > flying in IMC does not necessarily have the big picture view that a
> > pilot who uses an AP might.
>
> I haven't heard that before. Is it because hand flying doesn't leave
> you as much time to look at charts, etc., and interpret secondary
> information?

That's basically the argument, and I've heard it before in various
incarnations. In its most virulent form, it suggests that single
pilot IFR without an autopilot is inherently unsafe, because the pilot
simply doesn't have enough spare capacity to deal with ATC, keep a
weather picture, monitor the systems, and all the other stuff he needs
to be doing.

The fundamental assumption here is that the fairly trivial task of
maintaining heading and altitude on instruments in cruising flight
absorbs enough pilot workload to materially impact higher order
thinking.

For some reason, such arguments with regard to IFR operations are
actually taken seriously, while similar arguments with regard to VFR
operations (see for example the r.a.piloting thread "Charts in the
cockpit - no more for me." sorry for the long URL
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=449a3d6e.0301291047.3f969136%40posting.goo gle.com&rnum=19&prev=/groups%3Fas_q%3Dgps%26safe%3Doff%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26as_ugroup%3Drec.aviation.*%26as_uauthors%3Dcrw dog69%40hotmail.com%26as_drrb%3Db%26as_mind%3D12%2 6as_minm%3D5%26as_miny%3D2001%26as_maxd%3D3%26as_m axm%3D11%26as_maxy%3D2003%26lr%3D%26num%3D30%26hl% 3D
n ) are treated with the contempt they deserve.

I have my own theory about this, and this being usenet I'm going to
share it. I think the fundamental reason so many pilots actually take
the idea seriously is poor transition and recurrent training.

In general, the curriculum for the instrument rating in the US is
relatively good. In addition to the basics required to operate in the
system, such as ATC communications, approaches, and airways/direct
navigation, the training also includes holding procedures (including
random assigned holds and figuring out the correct entries on the fly,
intersection holds, etc.), partial panel approaches, and even partial
panel holds. There are steep turns and unusual attitude recoveries
(full and partial panel). It's not that there aren't shortcomings -
they are legion. There are glaring deficiencies in the way the the
visual segments of approaches (especially circling approaches) are
taught, and don't even get me started on weather planning and
management. But in comparison to the instrument transition training
most pilots get when stepping up to a more complex, higher performance
aircraft the training is wonderful.

The instrument portion of a multiengine checkride these days consists
of a single full-panel ILS on one engine. A complex endorsement and
high performance endorsement won't include ANY demonstration of
instrument skills in most cases. On paper, once you've gotten an
instrument rating in a Cherokee and added complex and high performance
endorsements in day-VFR conditions, you're legal to go fly night IFR
in a Bonanza.

The recurrent training requirements for IFR flight are pretty sad.
Sure, if you let your currency lapse by a year, then you need an IPC,
which is pretty thorough these days, requiring most of the checkride
tasks to the same tolerances. However, if you do six approaches and a
hold with a safety pilot every six months, you're exempt.

So let's say you have a typical green IFR pilot. Like most, he got
his rating in a C-172, a Cherokee, or something similar. He's pretty
comfortable flying that class of airplane IFR, and while he might like
an autopilot, he views it as a luxury rather than a necessity or
safety-critical item. Eventually, as his skills develop and
maintaining heading and altitude becomes second nature, he starts to
wonder what the big deal is. I actually have a friend who has racked
up hundreds of hours of night and IMC time in his Cherokee 140. He
reads books while flying IFR, and he has no autopilot.

However, most people (unlike my friend) don't keep flying hard IFR in
a Cherokee 140. They usually move up to something with more speed,
more range, and better redundancy. Usually this means less stability,
more things to do, and less time to do them. There is a right way to
approach this and a wrong way.

The right way - practice until you are consistently able to perform
all IFR tasks in the new airplane to the same standards as on the old
airplane (PTS standards or better) including handling any new
equipment, emergency procedures, etc. It takes time, it takes effort,
and it probably means a fair amount of frustration somewhere along the
line. Then, because there are more emergencies (gear issues on a
retract, single engine ops on a twin) and because the old emergencies
have more bite (vacuum failure hurts a lot more in a Bonanza than in a
Cherokee) you take regular recurrent training. And maybe you carry a
copilot until your skills get to the desired level.

Too many people choose the wrong way. They simply assume that the
more demanding aircraft requires an autopilot (rather than more skill)
to fly IFR.
They never really develop the skills for single pilot IFR in that
airplane, even though they might have been fine in something simpler
and slower.

In my opinion, when transitioning to a more demanding airplane for IFR
operations, anything less than a full IPC to PTS standards without use
of autopilot or moving map is inadequate - not just because those
things fail, but because needing those things means the skill level
just isn't there yet to be taking that kind of airplane into the soup
without help. However, what I see more typically is an hour or two of
hood time and maybe a couple of ILS's.

I know some pilots who make it a point to not let their currency lapse
- they want to retain IFR privileges, and I think they know that they
wouldn't pass the checkride if they had to take it again in the plane
they're flying. They're often the same people who claim that real IFR
isn't real practical without an autopilot. I know one light twin
pilot who will only make one trip with an inop autopilot - a day-VFR
flight to the autopilot shop.

On the other hand, the airline captain who taught me to fly my twin
flew his own twin all over the country, for hundreds of hours,
sometimes spending several hours in the soup - with no autopilot.
That kind of flying shaped his standard of IFR proficiency - and he
trained me to that standard, not the multiengine PTS. And so I flew
my twin all over the country, for hundreds of hours, sometimes
spending several hours in the soup - with no autopilot. When I
eventually installed one, I found that I only used it to rest on very
long flights - and never in IMC.

The insurance companies are only now starting to wake up to this - my
insurance (renewed a month ago) requires me to have an IPC in make and
model in the 12 months prior to the flight I'm making. I have a
feeling that this is going to become standard for twins and complex
singles, and will cure a lot of ills.

Michael

[David Megginson]

(Michael) writes:

> That's basically the argument, and I've heard it before in various
> incarnations. In its most virulent form, it suggests that single
> pilot IFR without an autopilot is inherently unsafe, because the
> pilot simply doesn't have enough spare capacity to deal with ATC,
> keep a weather picture, monitor the systems, and all the other stuff
> he needs to be doing.

I'm still new enough to IFR flying that I might just not have had
enough opportunity to be scared properly by IMC, but it could be that
different people just find different kinds of things nerve-racking.
For me, VFR, it's busy uncontrolled airports, with people cutting each
other off all over the place; for other people, it's busy controlled
airspace, worrying about negotiating with ATC.

I've always had trouble understand why some pilots will fly low or out
of their way just to avoid class B/C/D airspace, but they'd probably
be just as puzzled about my preferring to file flight plans and fly
into big controlled airports, even if I pay more for gas or parking.

I guess IMC is another example of the same kind of thing.

> Too many people choose the wrong way. They simply assume that the
> more demanding aircraft requires an autopilot (rather than more skill)
> to fly IFR.

That's a very good lesson. I'll try to remember it in a few years if
I move up to something slicker than my Warrior.

> I know some pilots who make it a point to not let their currency
> lapse - they want to retain IFR privileges, and I think they know
> that they wouldn't pass the checkride if they had to take it again
> in the plane they're flying.

We don't have the choice up here in Canada -- we have to retake the
full IFR flight test every two years to stay current. On the other
hand, we don't get tested on partial panel or unusual attitudes, so it
probably balances out (the good side of that is that I was able to
take my IFR flight test in low IMC rather than wearing the stupid
foggles).


All the best,


David

[Nathan Young]

David Megginson > wrote in message >...
> (Snowbird) writes:
>
> > The first point is that you feel very confident in your ability
> > to continue to aviate, navigate and communicate, while coping
> > with an emergency or unusual circumstance AND set up a GPS.
>
> No, I don't feel that way at all, but if I do end up in an emergency,
> I plan to do my best to aviate, and to worry about navigating and
> communicating only when the opportunities present themselves.
>
> I am still a new pilot (220 hours), so I'm very open to learning, but
> I'm not doing a good job coming up with use cases where it's a
> potential life-or-death issue whether the GPS is already on. Here are
> the most likely emergencies I can think of in IMC:
>
> 1. Vacuum failure -- no immediate, direct benefit from the handheld
> GPS.

I disagree for several reasons. Many GPS models have the ability to
partition the main display and show an 'HSI' and groundspeed in
addition to the moving map. This information is very valuable as a
cross-check to the flight instruments. In IMC - I'll take any clue
available that indicates something is wrong with the gryo instruments.
I'm confident I can fly partial panel, but detecting the failure mode
is the difficult part...

I have flown approaches under the hood with reference to only the GPS
(this is in a PA28 which is a reasonably stable aircraft). While not
easy it is do-able as long as the plane is trimmed before the approach
and control inputs are kept minimal.

Regarding the distraction of setting up a GPS upon the failure. I
think it is significant. I've had a similar situation - an electrical
failure at night (fortunately in MVFR conditions). This was in class
D airspace. Tower called and let me know they lost the transponder.
When I keyed the mic to transmit, the panel went black. This happened
directly over the field. By the time I got the flashlights setup,
grabbed the handheld radio (backseat), plugged in the headset, turned
on, tuned in, and let tower know what was going on - I was 5-6 miles
North (about 3 minutes in the Cherokee).

The workload during these few minutes was relatively high.
Significant enough that I revamped how I approach IFR flying. I do
not fly hard IFR at night, and I always keep the handheld charged and
ready to go in the side pocket.

A bit of a rant, but my point is: After a gyro or electrical failure
in actual IMC - the last thing you want to be doing is digging around
in the flightbag, plugging in, powering up, and navigating menus on a
portable GPS. If you own one - power it up and set it up the
beginning of the flight so it's ready to go when you need it.

-Nathan

[David Rind]

David Megginson wrote:
> (Michael) writes:
>
>
>>That's basically the argument, and I've heard it before in various
>>incarnations. In its most virulent form, it suggests that single
>>pilot IFR without an autopilot is inherently unsafe, because the
>>pilot simply doesn't have enough spare capacity to deal with ATC,
>>keep a weather picture, monitor the systems, and all the other stuff
>>he needs to be doing.
>
>
> I'm still new enough to IFR flying that I might just not have had
> enough opportunity to be scared properly by IMC, but it could be that
> different people just find different kinds of things nerve-racking.
> For me, VFR, it's busy uncontrolled airports, with people cutting each
> other off all over the place; for other people, it's busy controlled
> airspace, worrying about negotiating with ATC.
>
> I've always had trouble understand why some pilots will fly low or out
> of their way just to avoid class B/C/D airspace, but they'd probably
> be just as puzzled about my preferring to file flight plans and fly
> into big controlled airports, even if I pay more for gas or parking.
>
> I guess IMC is another example of the same kind of thing.
>
>
>>Too many people choose the wrong way. They simply assume that the
>>more demanding aircraft requires an autopilot (rather than more skill)
>>to fly IFR.
>
>
> That's a very good lesson. I'll try to remember it in a few years if
> I move up to something slicker than my Warrior.
>
>
>>I know some pilots who make it a point to not let their currency
>>lapse - they want to retain IFR privileges, and I think they know
>>that they wouldn't pass the checkride if they had to take it again
>>in the plane they're flying.
>
>
> We don't have the choice up here in Canada -- we have to retake the
> full IFR flight test every two years to stay current. On the other
> hand, we don't get tested on partial panel or unusual attitudes, so it
> probably balances out (the good side of that is that I was able to
> take my IFR flight test in low IMC rather than wearing the stupid
> foggles).

I've made sure that I can fly single pilot IFR without an
autopilot, but I also recognize that this is an extremely
high workload situation and that I don't want to routinely
be in IMC without an autopilot. I practice without the autopilot,
and get tested without the autopilot, but when I'm really
going somewhere in actual, I want the autopilot functional
so that if something happens I can let it fly while I deal
with other urgent issues. And I want more of my brain left to
think ahead and monitor the plane.

That said, I need to be in good enough practice to complete
the trip if the autopilot fails. But on balance I think I'm
better off using the autopilot to decrease my workload
in IMC so that I have more brain cycles to apply to other
aspects of the flight.

--
David Rind

[Jim Harper]

Michael wrote (with a lot of excellent commentary cut out):

> In my opinion, when transitioning to a more demanding airplane for IFR
> operations, anything less than a full IPC to PTS standards without use
> of autopilot or moving map is inadequate - not just because those
> things fail, but because needing those things means the skill level
> just isn't there yet to be taking that kind of airplane into the soup
> without help.

Just to set the stage for this posting, I would like to say that I
agree with your premise up to a point, Michael. I agree that
transition training leaves a lot to be desired. I agree that pilots
tend to lose the edge the farther they get from their test. I have no
argument with any of those points.

However. I am a bit troubled by the phrase that I saved. "anything
less than a full IPC to PTS standards without use of autopilot or
moving map is inadequate..."

While it is sort of satisfying to read that and savagely nod "yeah!",
I am in a quandry. We are starting to see glass cockpits coming down
to the level of private aviation. My airplane is a homebuilt with
basically a two screen glass cockpit. I have an CNX 80 and a Blue
Mountain EFIS. I will have an autopilot when they ship the controller.

Oh, sure, I have a couple of steam gauges, for that total failure, but
if you ask me to do a full IPC to PTS standards without the use of my
moving map(s) would leave me doing it with T&B, AS and altimeter. My
electrics are 3x redundant, and I have two elecronic boxes, so failure
would be pretty darn unlikely...and if it happens in the soup it will
be an honest-to-God help me mamma emergency...altho I have backups
that ought to give me a fighting chance.

But I digress. My system is not dissimilar to some that are rolling
down the pike...to the point that there will be a generation of pilots
(in the not very distant future) who learn with the moving maps, etc.

And to my point. There was a time that the guys who trained in open
cockpits fought, kicked and battled to keep their heads in the
air...'cause a pilot couldn't rely on that nasty old ASI...he needed
the wind in his face. And we are seeing guys who refuse to give up the
ADF's. And I am sure that there are several other things that...if you
couldn't do it that way, you just weren't good enough.

Is your argument similar? Just wanted to ask that question.

Thanks!

JV

[Barry]

> However. I am a bit troubled by the phrase that I saved. "anything
> less than a full IPC to PTS standards without use of autopilot or
> moving map is inadequate..."
>

I'm also troubled. When I do an IPC with someone who uses the autopilot a
lot, I do part of the flight with and part without. I know that he will use
the autopilot when flying without me, so it doesn't make sense to refuse to
include that as part of the IPC. Same argument applies to advanced avionics.

Barry

[David Megginson]

(Nathan Young) writes:

>> 1. Vacuum failure -- no immediate, direct benefit from the handheld
>> GPS.
>
> I disagree for several reasons. Many GPS models have the ability to
> partition the main display and show an 'HSI' and groundspeed in
> addition to the moving map.

That could be a nice indirect benefit, but the danger is ending up
with yet another distraction. The GPS pseudo-HSI display is much
easier to interpret but lags dangerously, while the TC and ASI are
harder to interpret but have minimal lag. I'd be nervous that in an
emergency my eyes would be drawn too much to the false security of the
GPS pseudo-HSI display instead of where they should be, on the TC and
ASI.

> This information is very valuable as a cross-check to the flight
> instruments.

Agreed, but I don't think I'm a good enough pilot to use it safely in
a partial-panel situation, where I'm already under a great deal of
stress. I'd probably keep the GPS just on a basic navigation display,
and even then, only if I wasn't able to talk to ATC. My preference
(of course) would be vectors with nice shallow no-gryo turns, so all I
had to worry about was basic flying.

> In IMC - I'll take any clue available that indicates something is
> wrong with the gryo instruments. I'm confident I can fly partial
> panel, but detecting the failure mode is the difficult part...

My only vacuum failure so far was in night VMC, but it was impossible
to miss the big orange annuciator light right above the altimeter --
even my passenger saw it immediately. I never thought of the
importance of having altimeter/oil/vacuum annunciators inside my main
scan when I was shopping for planes, but I'm certainly glad now that I
have it in my Warrior.

Of course, the best insurance is just keeping all the primary
instruments in your scan. Annunciator bulbs can burn out (though I
test them in every preflight).

> I have flown approaches under the hood with reference to only the GPS
> (this is in a PA28 which is a reasonably stable aircraft). While not
> easy it is do-able as long as the plane is trimmed before the approach
> and control inputs are kept minimal.

How rough was the air? I wouldn't mind trying it in nice, smooth
stratus or even in light chop, but I wouldn't have wanted to count on
it in some of the cumulus I was flying through this weekend.

> Regarding the distraction of setting up a GPS upon the failure. I
> think it is significant. I've had a similar situation - an electrical
> failure at night (fortunately in MVFR conditions). This was in class
> D airspace. Tower called and let me know they lost the transponder.
> When I keyed the mic to transmit, the panel went black. This happened
> directly over the field. By the time I got the flashlights setup,
> grabbed the handheld radio (backseat), plugged in the headset, turned
> on, tuned in, and let tower know what was going on - I was 5-6 miles
> North (about 3 minutes in the Cherokee).

If or when I'm ever in an emergency, I won't appreciate being
second-guessed afterwards, so I'll try not to do that now, but I do
like to learn from people who have been in real emergency situations.
At the time, what was your motivation for plugging in the handheld,
etc., rather than just landing NORDO? Would you make the same
decision again?

> The workload during these few minutes was relatively high.
> Significant enough that I revamped how I approach IFR flying. I do
> not fly hard IFR at night, and I always keep the handheld charged and
> ready to go in the side pocket.

I'm starting to wonder if my handheld was worth the money, since its
transmission range is so small without an external antenna. I'm
thinking of getting a pass-through cell-phone headset adapter instead,
since I'll be able to reach help much quickly (and can keep ATC and
FSS emergency numbers on the speed-dial).


All the best,


David

[Snowbird]

David Megginson > wrote in message >...
> (Michael) writes:
> > That's basically the argument, and I've heard it before in various
> > incarnations. In its most virulent form, it suggests that single
> > pilot IFR without an autopilot is inherently unsafe, because the
> > pilot simply doesn't have enough spare capacity to deal with ATC,
> > keep a weather picture, monitor the systems, and all the other stuff
> > he needs to be doing.

> I'm still new enough to IFR flying that I might just not have had
> enough opportunity to be scared properly by IMC, but it could be that
> different people just find different kinds of things nerve-racking.
> For me, VFR, it's busy uncontrolled airports, with people cutting each
> other off all over the place; for other people, it's busy controlled
> airspace, worrying about negotiating with ATC.

There's definately some truth to what both of you say here. For
example, we're now based at an airport which gives some local pilots
the heebie-jeebies. It's uncontrolled, has crossing runways, and
is inhabited by a large population of the most glorious antique
planes and homebuilts you'll see outside a flyin (ie many of the
planes are NORDO and radio work isn't a priority for many of the
pilots). When someone pulls onto the runway or lands crossing
my flight path while I'm on final, I think "Home, Home Again,
I Like to Be Here When I Can" (plenty of room, no dent no deal).
Another pilot might think "Scotty Beam Me Up!" or "OhMYGAWD!".

And it's a safe bet that if you put some of our local pilots into
busy controlled airspace, *they'd* be thinking "Scotty Beam Me
Up!."

But frankly, while I wouldn't go so far as to say flying w/out
an autopilot is inherently unsafe, I will say that I have no desire
to fly our particular make of plane in IMC without an autopilot or
a second person who can hold the yoke for a bit and it has nothing
whatsoever to do with transition training or proficiency.

I switched from a C172 to our plane fairly early in my IFR training,
and late in the game from a peaceful, gentle "what's two hundred
feet between friends?" procedural expert CFI to a CFI who is an exquisitly
skilled stick, expert in make aand model, takes no prisoners and
considers 20 feet a serious lapse in scan.

There's no question my rating took me way longer than it could
have, and no question I can fly my plane IMC without an autopilot
for long stretches, negotiate w/ ATC, get wx, pull out a chart,
program a GPS etc.

But without an autopilot or someone to hold the yoke, I'm STILL
going to be in a world of hurt if I get a major rerouting which
requires me to copy a new clearance or study a chart significantly
while thinking the pictur through.

It's just not stable enough.

Everyone I know in this make who doesn't have an autopilot, wants
one. Badly. And that includes my CFI, who can certainly fly
without one like he's on rails.

> > Too many people choose the wrong way. They simply assume that the
> > more demanding aircraft requires an autopilot (rather than more skill)
> > to fly IFR.

There is definately some truth to this. I know after hours and
literally years (well, that's another story) of remedial CFI beating
I can fly my plane in a way I didn't think it could be flown.
(Hopefully it doesn't have to take years to get there. I had a couple
of pregnancies and a baby involved.)

It may take more time, for some people, than they have to give to
flying or training -- which opens another can of worms. There's
something to be said for pilots who fly recreationally and can't
put a lot of time into flying sticking to simple, stable planes.
Cessnas and Pipers are popular for good reason.

But I don't think it's the whole story, either. It's just plain
tough to correctly absorb something like the big picture of a complete
rerouting if you can't spend significant time perusing a chart.
I don't care how gloriously skilled and proficient you are, it's
darn tough to do in 1 second intervals.

I don't think this point really ought to be argued. If you take
two pilots of equal, exquisite skill, both fully capable of plane
control at a near automatic level, which is going to have a better
grasp of the "big picture" when something significant changes
enroute? The guy who had to handfly the whole time, or the guy who
was able to turn the plane over to "George" for a few while he
processed the changes?

I'll bet money on the latter, every time. And that's the point of
this "value the autopilot" mantra.

FWIW,
Sydney

[Dan Luke]

"Snowbird" wrote:
> If you take two pilots of equal, exquisite skill, both fully
> capable of plane control at a near automatic level, which
> is going to have a better grasp of the "big picture" when
> something significant changes enroute? The guy who had
> to handfly the whole time, or the guy who was able to turn
> the plane over to "George" for a few while he
> processed the changes?
>
> I'll bet money on the latter, every time. And that's the
> point of this "value the autopilot" mantra.

Yep.

Michael has a real knack for making me feel like a wuss every time he
posts one of his autopilot rants, but I still use mine practically the
whole time I'm flying IFR. There is sometimes a slim margin in
single-pilot IFR flying between having the situation under control and
falling behind. Using the autopilot can widen that margin, IMO. Can I
fly in the terminal area without it? Of course. Do I think that's smart?
No.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Snowbird]

David Megginson > wrote in message >...
> (Snowbird) writes:
> > The first point is that you feel very confident in your ability
> > to continue to aviate, navigate and communicate, while coping
> > with an emergency or unusual circumstance AND set up a GPS.

> No, I don't feel that way at all, but if I do end up in an emergency,
> I plan to do my best to aviate, and to worry about navigating and
> communicating only when the opportunities present themselves.

OK, David, *listen to yourself*

That's a very correct philosophy.

Now draw the obvious correllary.

You have something in your flight bag which could be useful to
you in the emergency, and you're going to be busy aviating,
and trying to navigate and communicate when the opportunities
present themselves.

With that totally correct set of priorities, that means you're
also going to be setting up your GPS "when the opportunities
present themselves", vs. *having it set up and ready to use*.

Which makes more sense?

> I am still a new pilot (220 hours), so I'm very open to learning, but
> I'm not doing a good job coming up with use cases where it's a
> potential life-or-death issue whether the GPS is already on.

Well, I suppose this would be another fundamental difference
between us.

If I have a potentially useful piece of equipment, I don't need
to persuade myself that "life or death" situations are involved,
to want to be able to use it directly and immediately without
adding workload to an already divided attention which (rightly)
has several higher priorities.

Frankly my goal is to keep my flights boring, make unusual circumstances
as routine as possible, avoiding making them into emergencies or life
or death situations.

> 1. Vacuum failure -- no immediate, direct benefit from the handheld
> GPS.

I totally disagree.

> 2. Electrical failure -- if I know of VMC anywhere within range (or
> above or below), I'll head in that general direction using the
> compass or altimeter;

Well here's another I don't get (how does the altimeter help you
head towards VMC? and if it's just your electrical system, why
aren't you using your DG?) but the immediate, direct benefit of a set-up,
ready to go GPS seems pretty obvious. You aren't simply heading
in a general direction, you can be heading towards a specific
goal with specific bearing and distance information to use in your
planning. Now not 10 minutes from now.

> 3. Smoke on board, goes away when electrical shut down -- see #2.
> 4. Smoke on board, does not go away when electrical shut down -- the
> handheld GPS is useless

Well, you know, we've been there (fortunately in what turned out
to be Case #3), and I can vouch for several things:
1. it was psychologically much easier to reach for the master and
switch it off knowing that we could navigate seamlessly

don't overlook the psychological aspect -- there are several
accidents on record with a negative outcome, where the pilot
chose to keep the master on so he could navigate,
and the outcome might have been different had he the means
to navigate accurately master-off

2. we immediately started planning for Case #4, and the specific
situational awareness provided by the GPS was of great assistance
in deciding which direction we would point and coming up with a
plan, quickly while under pressure.

> 5. Engine failure -- see #4.

Yes -- and my response to it.

> That said, my handheld GPS often is on already

Alright, than what are we arguing about? I thought you were
taking the position that it was just as useful to you in your
flightbag.

I disagree -- but frankly, you seem determined to say it's
no particular advantage to 'set up' vs. 'in bag' in the face of
what seems to me obvious evidence to the contrary, and it's not
a debate I'll continue.

If in practice, you don't in fact leave the GPS in your flight
bag but fly with it set up and turned on, why are you arguing
for a practice you don't yourself follow?

Aye Yi Yi!
Sydney

[Dan Luke]

"David Megginson" wrote:
> I'd be nervous that in an emergency my eyes would be drawn too
> much to the false security of the GPS pseudo-HSI display instead
> of where they should be, on the TC and ASI.

May I suggest that you try it under the hood? I've found that it makes
flying my airplane no-gyro very easy. That may not be true of higher
performance airplanes, I haven't tried it in one.

> > This information is very valuable as a cross-check to the flight
> > instruments.
>
> Agreed, but I don't think I'm a good enough pilot to use it safely in
> a partial-panel situation, where I'm already under a great deal of
> stress.

Try it. I think you'll find it reduces the stress.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[David Megginson]

(Snowbird) writes:

> With that totally correct set of priorities, that means you're
> also going to be setting up your GPS "when the opportunities
> present themselves", vs. *having it set up and ready to use*.

Just out of curiosity, do you fly with your cell phone plugged into
your headset and ready to use, with ATC and FSS numbers on the speed
dial? I'd expect that that would be significantly more valuable in an
IMC emergency, but I have to admit that I do not (yet) do that either.
If you do, then please accept my honest admiration.

> Well here's another I don't get (how does the altimeter help you
> head towards VMC?

Airspace is 3D -- sometimes the nearest safe and accessible VMC is
above or below you.

>> That said, my handheld GPS often is on already
>
> Alright, than what are we arguing about? I thought you were
> taking the position that it was just as useful to you in your
> flightbag.

If you look back at Google, I said that I thought the statement was
too strident. I don't argue that there are benefits, but I think it's
an exaggeration to say that lack of a fully set-up handheld GPS in a
vacuum or electrical failure would normally be a life-or-death issue,
or that a GPS still in the flight bag is virtually useless. If we go
around telling pilots that *everything* is life-or-death, we get into
a boy-who-cried-wolf syndrome, and people start to ignore the things
that really do matter. There are a lot more important things to have
prepared in IMC, including (in approximate order of importance to me):

- more than one flashlight right at hand, with fresh batteries
- a very accurate knowledge where I am all the time
- a knowledge of current weather, including the closest VMC
- the highest nearby obstructions and bodies of water *memorized*
(i.e. the CN tower in Toronto, the highest hills in the Adirondacks,
the approximate distance and direction to Lake Ontario, etc.)
- charts and plates already open and folded appropriately
- a timer
- a cell phone and headset adapter (I don't have that yet, but I'm
going to order one) with ATC and FSS on speed dial

The set-up handheld GPS is undoubtedly a benefit, but it comes a bit
further down the list, probably after a couple more things I haven't
thought of yet -- I don't think I'd say that it was life-or-death,
since it's not something you should be worrying about during the first
few critical minutes of an emergency, whether it's on your lap or in
the flight bag. Often mine's already on, but sometimes it's not, and
I don't think that my risk profile changes much either way.


All the best,


David

[David Megginson]

"Dan Luke" > writes:

> May I suggest that you try it under the hood? I've found that it makes
> flying my airplane no-gyro very easy. That may not be true of higher
> performance airplanes, I haven't tried it in one.

Personally, the only time I've found flying under the hood or foggles
useful was on cloudy nights over relatively unpopulated terrain --
otherwise, the light and shadows in the airplane make the hood even
less effective at simulating IMC flight than a flight simulator on my
home computer. I recognize that other pilots may have different
experiences, of course, but that's one of the reasons I took my IFR
flight test in IMC, so that I would know if the examiner thought I was
safe in the real thing.

>> Agreed, but I don't think I'm a good enough pilot to use it safely
>> in a partial-panel situation, where I'm already under a great deal
>> of stress.
>
> Try it. I think you'll find it reduces the stress.

I'm worried that it might reduce the stress a little too much, causing
me to fixate on it and ignore the TC and ASI, but I will try it some
time with an instructor or safety pilot anyway.


Thanks, and all the best,


David

[Michael]

(Jim Harper) wrote
> Oh, sure, I have a couple of steam gauges, for that total failure, but
> if you ask me to do a full IPC to PTS standards without the use of my
> moving map(s) would leave me doing it with T&B, AS and altimeter.

Well, in your case you need the screens - but not necessarily moving
maps - for full panel operation. If I were giving you an IPC, I would
configure your screens not to show you a moving map. I'm sure it can
present an HSI and a bunch of engine gauges. I would also expect you
to do a non-precision approach and unusual attitude recovery partial
panel. First, because a non-precision partial panel approach is now
required as part of an IPC, and appropriate PTS standards are
provided. Second, and more importantly, because it's a demonstration
of safety margin through skill.

See, nobody really expects that you're going to do a circling NDB to
mins to a short obstructed runway if you lose your gyros and/or moving
maps. That's not really the point. The point is that being able to
do it in training demonstrates a skill reserve - the ability to handle
a workload far in excess of what's normal for the aircraft. That pays
dividends two ways.

First, if both your fancy boxes go TU, you have a real fighting chance
of getting on the ground in one piece. However, as you point out,
it's highly unlikely. Second, and far more importantly, the ability
to stretch to those limits makes routine IFR, well, routine. It also
makes minor problems minor. If you can handle a full procedure
partial panel circling NDB to a short obstructed runway, then copying
a complex clearance and verifying it while hand flying in turbulence
becomes a non-event. Is it important to do that when you have a
properly functioning autopilot? No. But it sure will be important to
have the spare cycles when a loose wire in a gyro causes the autopilot
to go hard over on the ailerons. More importantly, it will be
important to have the spare cycles to catch the error you will
inevitably make one day - like accidentally disengaging the altitude
hold while you're troubleshooting some minor item.

> My
> electrics are 3x redundant, and I have two elecronic boxes, so failure
> would be pretty darn unlikely...

3x redundant? Do you mean you have 3 fully independent electrical
busses? Or at least two? My electrical system includes 2 generators
(which, because they don't require power to the field, will keep
working if the battery and/or master contactor fail) and a battery -
but only a single bus. I still keep a yoke-mounted GPS with backup
batteries - given their low cost, it seems silly not to. I expect you
do something similar. An overlay approach using the handheld (not in
moving map mode, if available), ASI, TC, and altimeter makes a lot of
sense to me - as a hedge against the highly unlikely dire emergency,
and far more importantly as a proficiency maneuver. And yes, I would
expect that to be flown to PTS standards for a partial panel approach.
Do you really feel that's unreasonable?

> But I digress. My system is not dissimilar to some that are rolling
> down the pike...to the point that there will be a generation of pilots
> (in the not very distant future) who learn with the moving maps, etc.

I doubt it. In 2000, the single engine GA fleet numbered 150,000 and
averaged almost 30 years. I've just read an FAA publication that
predicts that by 2020, the average age of the fleet will approach 50.
How many of those glass cockpit GA airplanes are being built? A few
hundred a year at most?

> And I am sure that there are several other things that...if you
> couldn't do it that way, you just weren't good enough.

I think a lot of that thinking does permeate GA. I'm not sure it's
altogether a bad thing. For example, in those days you allude to when
pilots wanted to feel the wind on their faces, because you couldn't
trust the ASI, the ASI's available truly were not reliable. Neither
were the engines - the idea of flying at night in a single engine
airplane without a parachute was simply insane. Much of flight
training focused on the emergency power-off landing.

Back when a pilot could expect an engine failure every hundred hours
(or less), not being able to pick a good spot and put it right there
meant that at best, the pilot was going to tear up a lot of airplanes.
At worst, he would get injured or killed. If you couldn't cut the
throttle and put it on the spot, you just weren't good enough.

These days, the equipment is dramatically more reliable. We now fly
night and IMC in single engine airplanes, even carrying passengers for
hire, and nobody has a parachute. But the private pilot is still
expected to be able to handle an engine failure by picking a field and
setting up to land there. At the commercial pilot level, he is
expected to cut the engine abeam the numbers, no higher than 1000 AGL,
and put it inside a 200 ft window. At the ATP level, he has to do it
three times consecutively.

Perhaps one day aircraft engines will achieve the reliability of
modern auto engines, and aircraft fuel systems will become
sufficiently simple and robust that people will stop running out of
gas. At which point, it would make sense to drop the power-off
landing in favor of a precautionary landing with partial power. But
first off, we're not there yet. And second, I can't help thinking
that important skills will be lost.

An awful lot of accidents happen on landing. I find it difficult to
believe that developing the skill to consistently land on the spot,
power off, won't make a pilot more likely to maintain control on a
difficult landing. The value of the power-off spot landing is largely
(though not entirely) gone as a necessary maneuver, but I think it
remains valid as a skill building maneuver.

Single pilot GA IFR has a hideous accident rate, almost all of it
pilot error. What's more, much of it appears to be egregious pilot
error, like descending below published minimum altitudes, turning in
the wrong direction, etc. In my opinion, it's usually pilot error due
to loss of situational awareness. A pilot who has lost the big
picture can easily make an error that's way worse than any likely
equipment failure in a well-equipped airplane with good redundancy.
For that reason, I believe it's actually more important to train for
the worst case scenario in the well-equipped airplanes - not because
the worst case scenario is more likely in those airplanes (it's not -
just the opposite) but because those airplanes tend to have more
complexity, more speed, and more range - all the ingredients for
making pilot error more likely.

Even when the day comes that moving maps are so ubiquitous and so
reliable that everyone has one all the time (and that day is not here,
and may not be here for decades, if ever) there will still be a lot of
value to flying without them in recurrent training. Maintaining
situational awareness without the moving map is more demanding. It
requires that the pilot think faster, and integrate more sources of
information to build a complete picture. Developing situational
awareness skills is vitally important - especially as it seems that so
many IFR accidents are the result of deficiencies in those very
skills.

A good friend of mine recently had to give up flying the 727 because
his airline retired them. He is now in an Airbus. Unlike the
majority of Airbus captains, he makes it a point to hand fly it (to
the extent the equipment allows it) any time it's below the flight
levels, even though it's totally unnecessary. He has two reasons -
first, it actually is possible, with enough failures, to get down to
the point where it's necessary. However, even he admits this is
highly unlikely - only happened a couple of times in twenty years of
operation. Second, and far more improtantly, at his airline the
Airbus fleet has a disproportionate share of the minor incidents -
blown tires, hard landings, operational errors - that sort of thing.
He fully believes that this is the result of skill deterioration among
the crews. His airline has recently added the hand-flying he does to
the recurrent training regimen.

Michael

[Michael]

"Barry" > wrote
> I'm also troubled. When I do an IPC with someone who uses the autopilot a
> lot, I do part of the flight with and part without. I know that he will use
> the autopilot when flying without me, so it doesn't make sense to refuse to
> include that as part of the IPC. Same argument applies to advanced avionics.

I don't think you understood. Yes, the use of advanced avionics and
autopilots should be part of the recurrent training regimen if they
are used in real life. However, the pilot should also be able to meet
the IPC requirements without them.

More equipment in the plane makes proper recurrent training longer and
more difficult, not shorter and easier.

Michael

[Snowbird]

David Megginson > wrote in message >...
> (Snowbird) writes:
> > With that totally correct set of priorities, that means you're
> > also going to be setting up your GPS "when the opportunities
> > present themselves", vs. *having it set up and ready to use*.

> Just out of curiosity, do you fly with your cell phone plugged into
> your headset and ready to use

No. It's within reach with the adapter cord plugged in, but there's
no good place to park it, near my headset and I wouldn't bother to
create one. I do use it on the ground before and after flights, which
is why it's close by and set up.

But I don't see nearly the same emergency value (in flight) in a
cell phone that I see in a GPS, sorry. Wouldn't bother me if it
were packed in the back in my purse.

> I'd expect that that would be significantly more valuable in an
> IMC emergency

I don't see that, and in fact the priorities you correctly list
contradict that view. A GPS helps (well, helps me anyway, YMMV) with
aviating and navigating. A cell phone helps only with communicating.
Communicating with anyone is a way lower priority than aviating
and navigating. Bernoulli not Marconi makes the plane fly, etc etc.

> > Well here's another I don't get (how does the altimeter help you
> > head towards VMC?

> Airspace is 3D -- sometimes the nearest safe and accessible VMC is
> above or below you.

Good point.

> If you look back at Google, I said that I thought the statement was
> too strident. I don't argue that there are benefits, but I think it's
> an exaggeration to say that lack of a fully set-up handheld GPS in a
> vacuum or electrical failure would normally be a life-or-death issue

If you look back at Google, you'll see that the "life or death issue"
is YOUR introduction. What I said is that IMO a GPS still in the
flight bag is not of much practical use (useless) in a tight spot.

I stand by that belief, but it's a considerably different statement
than making it a "life or death issue". My cell phone is useless if
it's sitting on the front seat of my car while I'm in my plane, but
it hardly follows that it's a life-or-death issue not to have it.

I also explicitly pointed out that I didn't consider something had to
be a "life or death" matter to have great value in an emergency, or
to be worth setting up ahead of time.

>If we go
> around telling pilots that *everything* is life-or-death

Then it's a good thing that wasn't what I said. Kindly don't
put words in my mouth.

> There are a lot more important things to have
> prepared in IMC, including (in approximate order of importance to me):

> - more than one flashlight right at hand, with fresh batteries
> - a very accurate knowledge where I am all the time

*sigh*

I suspect at this point that I might as well go spit upwind but:

One more time. The GPS is of great value in *giving* you very
accurate knowledge of where you are all the time, especially if
it so happens that you've been getting vectored around, your
groundspeed is varying widely, and you're very properly dividing
your attention between maintaining SA and updating wx/planning an
approach etc. IME, it is also of great value in aviating while
partial panel.

But it only possesses this value if it is *set up*, *on* and
*acquired* when things go south.

Otherwise, it has no immediate value, and will have no value until
you can pry enough attention lose from aviating, navigating, and
communicating to set it up and turn it on.

I call that 'practically useless', YMMV -- though it's rather
odd there's no connection here:

> - charts and plates already open and folded appropriately

Why is it important to have charts and plates already open and
folded appropriately?

Because if you need them in a hurry, they are *useless* to you
if they are packed away. They have no value until you can spare
the attention to dig them out, open them, and locate the relevant
portion.

Is having a chart folded rather than right-at-hand in a tight spot
a "life or death" situation? Probably not.

Is the chart useful to you in an emergency if it's packed away?
No. It is not. Until you can spare time to set it up, it might
as well be in Cahokia. It is "practically useless".

> The set-up handheld GPS is undoubtedly a benefit, but it comes a bit
> further down the list

Than a timer, or a flashlight (for daytime???), or a cell phone?

All I can say is I believe your priorities to be seriously mistaken.

But I grasp at this point that nothing I could say will have
persuasive
value to you, so hopefully anyone who cares has taken my point by now.

Over and out,
Sydney

[David Megginson]

(Snowbird) writes:

> I don't see that, and in fact the priorities you correctly list
> contradict that view. A GPS helps (well, helps me anyway, YMMV) with
> aviating and navigating. A cell phone helps only with communicating.
> Communicating with anyone is a way lower priority than aviating
> and navigating. Bernoulli not Marconi makes the plane fly, etc etc.

My reason for using a cell phone to talk to ATC after an electrical
failure in IMC would be to get a lot of help with the navigating, up
to and including a PAR approach if there was a military base nearby.
If I lose electrical in high IMC, it should be a non-event -- just
descend below the clouds and proceed VFR to the nearest field. If I
lose electrical in low IMC, I'm going to need all the weather and
navigation information I can get.


All the best,


David

[Jeremy Lew]

I think the point of Dan's question was to inquire whether you have tested
your theory that a GPS-derived HSI's lag is 'dangerous' or not. Everything
I've read suggests that it's perfectly possible to keep the plane upright
using this, although you'll tend to oscillate around your intended attitude
a bit because of the lag. I have a Garmin 196 which has this kind of setup,
but I have not really tried to use it as my primary instrument. I'm going to
do that test soon.

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
...
> "Dan Luke" > writes:
>
> > May I suggest that you try it under the hood? I've found that it makes
> > flying my airplane no-gyro very easy. That may not be true of higher
> > performance airplanes, I haven't tried it in one.
>
> Personally, the only time I've found flying under the hood or foggles
> useful was on cloudy nights over relatively unpopulated terrain --
> otherwise, the light and shadows in the airplane make the hood even
> less effective at simulating IMC flight than a flight simulator on my
> home computer. I recognize that other pilots may have different
> experiences, of course, but that's one of the reasons I took my IFR
> flight test in IMC, so that I would know if the examiner thought I was
> safe in the real thing.
>
> >> Agreed, but I don't think I'm a good enough pilot to use it safely
> >> in a partial-panel situation, where I'm already under a great deal
> >> of stress.
> >
> > Try it. I think you'll find it reduces the stress.
>
> I'm worried that it might reduce the stress a little too much, causing
> me to fixate on it and ignore the TC and ASI, but I will try it some
> time with an instructor or safety pilot anyway.
>
>
> Thanks, and all the best,
>
>
> David

[Michael]

(Snowbird) wrote
> I don't think this point really ought to be argued. If you take
> two pilots of equal, exquisite skill, both fully capable of plane
> control at a near automatic level, which is going to have a better
> grasp of the "big picture" when something significant changes
> enroute? The guy who had to handfly the whole time, or the guy who
> was able to turn the plane over to "George" for a few while he
> processed the changes?
>
> I'll bet money on the latter, every time. And that's the point of
> this "value the autopilot" mantra.

Let's fast forward a couple of years. One of the pilots made it a
point to hand fly in IMC all the time. The other one turned the plane
over to "George" for a few when he needed to process the changes. Who
is more proficient now? Who is better able to divide attention?

For any individual flight, you're right. But in the long run, letting
"George" do it means that certain skills just don't develop. All else
being equal, the guy with the autopilot has an edge (however slight) -
but in reality all else won't be equal.

BTW - for a while, I worked with a low time pilot (less than 300 hrs
TT) whose IFR skills, by his own admission, were gone. His airplane
was a Tiger. He had an autopilot. In the entire time we flew
together, it was on for just about 10 minutes - long enough for me to
ascertain that he knew how to use it and understood its quirks and
limitations.

By the time we were done, he was hand flying two hour night-IMC legs
while effectively communicating with ATC and carrying on a discussion
with me about the best way to avoid the worst of the weather being
painted by his Strikefinder. I think it took him a little over 10
hours to get to that point. A little long for an ICC, I admit. In
fact, I signed off his ICC about halfway through the process - once he
demonstrated that he met the applicable standards. We kept flying
because he was looking for more than a signature certifying he met
minimum standards - he was looking for true IFR proficiency.

Michael

[Jim Harper]

(Michael) wrote a lot of excellent stuff. I saved
a bit for response.

Michael: I appreciate your response, both for the extent that you
clearly thought it out, and for the time you took. I find your points
reasonable, and I accept it completely.

regarding: "3x redundant? Do you mean you have 3 fully independent
electrical
busses? Or at least two? My electrical system includes 2 generators
(which, because they don't require power to the field, will keep
working if the battery and/or master contactor fail) and a battery -
but only a single bus. I still keep a yoke-mounted GPS with backup
batteries..." Same deal here. Two separate
busses/batteries/generator/alternator (one of each) and a panel-mount
(velcro) handheld running off the airplane's batteries but with about
30 minutes of life when they are done. That's treble redundancy in my
book.

As far as my point on the moving maps, we are likely saying the same
thing differently, but if you fail my EFIS, the CNX 80 is going to
present its information as a map. If you fail my CNX 80, the EFIS is
going to present ITS information as a map. If you fail both, the
handheld is going to ...yep, a map. By map, I mean a graphic
representation of what I need to do next.

I don't have a separate OBS/resolver. It is unnecessary since the CNX
80 is certified to TSO C146a. It does have a built-in navcom, but
without the HSI, I have no needles to follow. It does, however,
present a graphical representation (map) on its screen.

I've actually saved a bit of panel space to put that extra set of
needles in if it becomes obvious that I need it.

Truth be told, I am still shaking my system down, and have not/will
not go into the soup until I am convinced that I am not missing
something. At this point, I am 99.9% convinced that I am NOT missing
something.

Thanks again for the well thought out reply.

Jim

[Snowbird]

"Jeremy Lew" > wrote in message >...
> I think the point of Dan's question was to inquire whether you have tested
> your theory that a GPS-derived HSI's lag is 'dangerous' or not. Everything
> I've read suggests that it's perfectly possible to keep the plane upright
> using this, although you'll tend to oscillate around your intended attitude
> a bit because of the lag. I have a Garmin 196 which has this kind of setup,
> but I have not really tried to use it as my primary instrument. I'm going to
> do that test soon.

I've heard good things about it, but IMO a simple
GPS moving map is very helpful partial panel,
especially if a 'direct to' button has set up
a courseline. It is not a primary instrument,
and I would not want to depend upon it to keep
the plane upright, but in any kind of rough air
where the compass and TC are bobbing a mad dance
it is very helpful in assessing how well I am
doing at holding heading (ie, at keeping the
wings level).

Obviously other people's milage can vary, and does :)

Sydney

[Snowbird]

(Michael) wrote in message >...
> (Snowbird) wrote
> > I don't think this point really ought to be argued. If you take
> > two pilots of equal, exquisite skill, both fully capable of plane
> > control at a near automatic level, which is going to have a better
> > grasp of the "big picture" when something significant changes
> > enroute? The guy who had to handfly the whole time, or the guy who
> > was able to turn the plane over to "George" for a few while he
> > processed the changes?

> > I'll bet money on the latter, every time. And that's the point of
> > this "value the autopilot" mantra.

> For any individual flight, you're right. But in the long run, letting
> "George" do it means that certain skills just don't develop. All else
> being equal, the guy with the autopilot has an edge (however slight) -
> but in reality all else won't be equal.

Apples and oranges to the point I'm trying to make.

Instrument skills are a "lose 'em or use 'em" proposition,
there's no question. Someone who relies on George will
lose the ability to do routine things like:

> By the time we were done, he was hand flying two hour night-IMC legs
> while effectively communicating with ATC and carrying on a discussion
> with me about the best way to avoid the worst of the weather being
> painted by his Strikefinder.

But if the contention is no competent, IMC proficient pilot
ought to need an autopilot, my point is that when the autopilot
comes in really handy is when things aren't routine. When you're
flying outside familiar territory and are handed a major (or
maybe the 2nd or 3rd major) rerouting from ATC and you not
only need to process the route, you need to reassess the wx
and fuel pictures completely, esp. single pilot.

God himself would do better handing the plane-handling
over to George for a bit and freeing up some extra brain
cycles to 'get the picture'.

IMO anyway.

FWIW,
Sydney

[Roger Halstead]

On 4 Nov 2003 12:16:24 -0800, (Michael) wrote:

(Snowbird) wrote
>> I don't think this point really ought to be argued. If you take
>> two pilots of equal, exquisite skill, both fully capable of plane
>> control at a near automatic level, which is going to have a better
>> grasp of the "big picture" when something significant changes
>> enroute? The guy who had to handfly the whole time, or the guy who
>> was able to turn the plane over to "George" for a few while he
>> processed the changes?
>>
>> I'll bet money on the latter, every time. And that's the point of
>> this "value the autopilot" mantra.
>
>Let's fast forward a couple of years. One of the pilots made it a
>point to hand fly in IMC all the time. The other one turned the plane
>over to "George" for a few when he needed to process the changes. Who
>is more proficient now? Who is better able to divide attention?
>
>For any individual flight, you're right. But in the long run, letting
>"George" do it means that certain skills just don't develop. All else
>being equal, the guy with the autopilot has an edge (however slight) -
>but in reality all else won't be equal.
>

Here we differ 180 degrees.
"George", is like GPS in that we use him most of the time, but we
still have to maintain those basic skills. We still have to practice
approaches and cross country by hand flying if we are to remain
proficient. Now, as to the guy who always hand fly...has he, or she
spent enough time using "George" to be proficient flying the different
phases of the trip using George?

An AP is great, but you just don't normally just turn it on off. Like
GPS you needed to be proficient at doing what ever you have to do to
get the thing in operation. Finding you are in a situation where you
need George is not the time to be turning the AP on.

Although far simpler than GPS you'd not want to be programming in a
bunch of way points while being bounced around, trying to intercept a
radial. Turning on the AP, getting the altitude stabilized before
turning on the altitude hold, and selecting the proper instrument to
slave can be almost as taxing.

>BTW - for a while, I worked with a low time pilot (less than 300 hrs
>TT) whose IFR skills, by his own admission, were gone. His airplane
>was a Tiger. He had an autopilot. In the entire time we flew
>together, it was on for just about 10 minutes - long enough for me to
>ascertain that he knew how to use it and understood its quirks and
>limitations.
>
>By the time we were done, he was hand flying two hour night-IMC legs
>while effectively communicating with ATC and carrying on a discussion
>with me about the best way to avoid the worst of the weather being

I may have phrased this badly so to make it short in summary:

A complete pilot should be proficient at using all the instruments at
his disposal, but dependent on none.

Be proficient with GPS, but not to the point of dependency.
Be proficient with what every AP is available, but not dependent.
Keep an awareness of you location independently of the primary
instrumentation.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
>painted by his Strikefinder. I think it took him a little over 10
>hours to get to that point. A little long for an ICC, I admit. In
>fact, I signed off his ICC about halfway through the process - once he
>demonstrated that he met the applicable standards. We kept flying
>because he was looking for more than a signature certifying he met
>minimum standards - he was looking for true IFR proficiency.
>
>Michael

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

FWIW, in Germany, single pilot IFR is only legally allowed with an
autopilot with ALT hold.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Michael]

(Snowbird) wrote
> Apples and oranges to the point I'm trying to make.

Not really. Not unless your point is that "George" remains idle 99.9%
of the time spent in IMC, and is only engaged on an emergency basis.

> Instrument skills are a "lose 'em or use 'em" proposition,
> there's no question. Someone who relies on George will
> lose the ability to do routine things like:

Like dealing with routine IFR issues on his own?

All time is not created equal. You may spend two hours droning along
in stratus over the midwest, going direct to destination. That's two
hours of actual. Is it as much experience as an hour in and out of
bumpy cumulus with multiple reroutes? Well, that depends. If you
hand-fly it, then no - the hour hand-flying in bumps while copying,
reading back, verifying, and setting up radios for the new clearances
is a lot more experience, even though it's only half as much time and
a quarter of the actual. But not if you have "George" holding heading
and altitude for you.

My main objection to letting "George" do it is this - most of us are
just not getting that much actual experience. We need that experience
to develop our skills - the hood is not the same. It's silly to give
that experience away to a gadget.

> But if the contention is no competent, IMC proficient pilot
> ought to need an autopilot, my point is that when the autopilot
> comes in really handy is when things aren't routine. When you're
> flying outside familiar territory and are handed a major (or
> maybe the 2nd or 3rd major) rerouting from ATC and you not
> only need to process the route, you need to reassess the wx
> and fuel pictures completely, esp. single pilot.

I guess I look at it differently. I consider what you're describing
routine. Major reroutes are a way of life when flying busy airspace -
I don't think I've ever made the Houston-New York run (which I've made
many times) without multiple major reroutes. I also don't recall ever
making that run without encountering significant weather. In fact,
the whole point of an instrument rating is going places. Unless
you've already seen it all, some of those places are going to be
unfamiliar.

> God himself would do better handing the plane-handling
> over to George for a bit and freeing up some extra brain
> cycles to 'get the picture'.

In theory, there's no way to argue with that. It must take SOME
effort to fly the plane, and there is SOME limit to pilot capability.
In reality, I find that the cycles necessary to keep the plane upright
are minimal, and also that I'm not at my cycle limit flying IFR.

Further, I would argue that anyone who IS at task saturation flying
IFR is doing something very, very dangerous. After all, if it's
taking all you've got just to deal with the situation as it is
(aircraft control, ATC, navigation, weather) to the point that if you
don't have "George" fly while dealing with a reroute, you risk losing
the big picture, then what happens when you have a minor emergency?
Seriously? What happens when you're climbing out, night/IMC, being
rerouted - and your AI tumbles? What happens when you lift off, get a
positive rate, cycle the gear up, and as you're entering the soup the
lights dim and you smell smoke?

Michael

[Snowbird]

(Michael) wrote in message >...
> (Snowbird) wrote
> > Apples and oranges to the point I'm trying to make.

> Not really. Not unless your point is that "George" remains idle 99.9%
> of the time spent in IMC, and is only engaged on an emergency basis.

Absolutely not. If "George" remains idle 99.9% of the time, then
clearly the pilot has no business engaging George on an emergency
basis because he has not maintained his proficiency in the care
and feeding of "George". In an emergency KISS and stick to what's
familiar say I.

Can't tell at this point if you're not reading what I say,
or if I'm not adequately able to communicate what I mean, but
clearly communication isn't taking place so I'm outta here.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Ray Andraka]

I bought one of those shake it lights, but found the magnet inside it is strong
enough to swing the compass if the light was anywhere forward of the backs
of the front seats. No good for the airplane, and frankly not bright enough for
general use around the house.

rip wrote:

> I carry 6 flashlights, and 4 of them have LED's instead of bulbs. LED's
> last forever, and are shockproof. One of my flashlights doesn't even use
> batteries. You shake it for about 30 seconds to get about 5 minutes of
> light.
>
>

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[Ray Andraka]

I wouldn't have departed night with a known radio problem plus a dead flashlight

(I have no less than six flashlights in my plane and flight bag), plus in
conditions
you had never flown in. You had a series of additional radio failures which
indicates a possible electrical system problem. Was your alternator still
on-line?
Rather than waxing on about the great flight, I'd be thanking my lucky stars for
getting
back in one piece.

"Guy Elden Jr." wrote:

> Just got back from a good proficiency practice flight. This was the first
> time I'd flown single pilot IFR at night with conditions that could
> potentially deteriorate to actual instrument. (cloudy, rain developing as
> the flight progressed, visibility dropping somewhat)
>
> The basic rundown... got the plane, preflighted in the dark, and realized
> that it was the first time I had actually done a full preflight at night.
> All the other night flights I did the preflight at dusk or earlier.
> Definitely took me a few extra minutes to get oriented to the darkness and
> using my flashlight.
>
> I got through that ok, ready to do, and poof! My flashlight _light_ (not the
> batteries) goes out! Just like the bright, microsend flash of illumination
> you see from a normal light bulb then total darkness. Crap! Fortunately, I
> had a spare light, smaller, but did the job. I was a bit disappointed in the
> bulb that burnt out though... it was a Maglight, and barely over a year old
> with hardly any use. I'm tempted to send it back to them for a replacement.
>
> Takeoff out of CDW was uneventful, although the controller was a bit pushy
> when I wanted to clarify the squawk before departing... she said "You need
> to get rolling" after confirming the code was correct... somebody on
> downwind was undoubtedly going to plow into me I guess if I didn't hurry
> along. Needless to say, I didn't hurry. (I was still holding short, so if
> need be could've just continued to hold short, but she (the controller) was
> obviously in need of some excitement on a dreary night with barely any
> traffic to manage).
>
> So up up and away we go, didn't even have time to make the initial turn to
> 180 before departure vectored me to SAX. Then enroute to SWF for a practice
> ILS.
>
> I noticed before departing that one of the two radio / nav units in the
> plane was not functioning... it's one of those that has a primary and
> secondary freq, but the display was completely dead, so I decided to just
> leave it off. So even before starting the flight, I knew I had only one
> working com and one working nav / vor unit operational. No problem, if
> things got too heavy, I could just cancel IFR and continue VFR... clouds
> were definitely high enough on the way up (around 6000 OVC). As I got closer
> to SWF, I tried tuning in the NDB so I could identify an intersection along
> the LOC. No dice. I didn't hear the magic morse in the background, and the
> needle spun and spun til I got dizzy. Strike two on operational components
> in the plane! Still, I managed to get to SWF safely, and taxied off to the
> side to get myself setup for the trip back to CDW.
>
> Departure out of SWF was a bit more interesting, as I had to read the SWF.4
> departure procedure. Easy to do, and so off I went. Unfortunately, the
> routing back home wasn't optimal... was supposed to go out to HUG then turn
> south to head to CDW, so I asked for a shortcut to SAX instead. After
> getting handed off to NY Approach on 127.6, I had a helluva time hearing a
> transmission from the controller. I asked to hear it again, and again, even
> with the volume all the way up, it was barely audible. I got the instruction
> ok tho... left turn to 170. And fortunately the gremlin in the radio cleared
> itself up on the next transmission. But this turns out to have been strike 3
> for equipment in the plane... I encountered this problem a couple other
> times, fortunately when other pilots were transmitting, and not ATC.
>
> Getting back in to CDW was a bit dicey, as the rain had started to come
> down, and the mist was making it difficult to pick out CDW (which is
> difficult enough these days anyway with 4/22 being closed for repairs). I
> told the controller at one point that I had the beacon in sight, but that
> wasn't good enough for him. 2 miles later, I could make out 9/27, so I was
> handed off for a visual approach, which wasn't my best approach, but was a
> squeaker of a landing.
>
> So to sum up: I had 1 VOR, 1 COM, and no backups in the plane for this trip.
> And the COM was flaky toward the end. Methinks this plane is about to be
> decommissioned from the flight line, because the owner refuses to put any
> more money into it. It also just came out of 100 hour, so should (in theory)
> be at its best operating capacity. I know I won't be trying any more trips
> at night or IFR in it anytime soon, but I'm glad I had the chance to push
> the boundaries a bit with the bare minimums for night IFR flight.
>
> --
> Guy Elden Jr.

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[Ray Andraka]

I just put an STEC 20 in my Six last year. Prior to that I put in about 100 hours in actual with no
AP. The Six is wonderfully stable, and I never had any real problems copying clearances, folding
charts etc. Trick is to limit looks away from the panel to very short intervals, no more than a
second or two, and when you look back look for bank info before anything else. Having the AP is
certainly a workload reducer, I can actually fish something out of my flight bag on the middle seat
while in IMC now, and it takes less total time to brief an approach now. Still, I mostly hand fly
and use George to fill in while I handle other tasks.

Nathan Young wrote:

> David Megginson > wrote in message >...
> > Peter R. > writes:
> >
> > > Interesting you mention this point. I am in the process of watching
> > > a few of the Richard Collins Sporty's aviation DVDs. In the IFR
> > > Tips and Techniques DVD, he offers a PoV that suggest a pilot hand
> > > flying in IMC does not necessarily have the big picture view that a
> > > pilot who uses an AP might.
> >
> > I haven't heard that before. Is it because hand flying doesn't leave
> > you as much time to look at charts, etc., and interpret secondary
> > information?
>
> Collins is a big supporter of APs, and I'm with him. I have a
> wing-leveler in my PA28-180. It is a huge help when copying clearance
> amendments, studying an approach plate, or eating lunch. I definitely
> agree with RC's point that the AP frees up mental bandwidth to process
> other things like the big picture.
>
> A lot of people get uptight about APs - but when used properly (ie not
> a crutch) they can be a huge asset to single-pilot flying,
> particularly IFR.
>
> -Nathan

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[Michael]

(Snowbird) wrote
> > Not really. Not unless your point is that "George" remains idle 99.9%
> > of the time spent in IMC, and is only engaged on an emergency basis.
>
> Absolutely not. If "George" remains idle 99.9% of the time, then
> clearly the pilot has no business engaging George on an emergency
> basis because he has not maintained his proficiency in the care
> and feeding of "George". In an emergency KISS and stick to what's
> familiar say I.

By that logic, one should never attempt to fly a twin in an asymmetric
thrust condition in an emergency. After all, 99.9% of the time, the
engines operate in a symmetric condition (both producing approximately
equal output).

Michael

[Ray Andraka]

I've found that I can fly the airplane IMC with just the HSI page on my
Garmin III Pilot as long as I keep the control inputs gentle. Doing this,
my instructor covers all the flight instruments. Update rate is a little
on the slow side, but as long as you keep your turns gentle it is very
doable. This is in a Piper Cherokee Six, which is a pretty stable
platform to begin with. I'm not so sure that it would be doable with
something more slippery like a Bonanza or a Tiger, but it works well in
the truck. It does take a light touch and some practice, but it can
definitely be done.

David Megginson wrote:

> (Lynne Miller) writes:
>
> > I think it is very safe to fly the airplane with two VORs and ADF,
> > if you are a proficient instrument pilot. This was done for thirty
> > plus years prior to GPS coming into the cockpit without much
> > problem. Remember, GPS is still a rather new invention when it
> > comes to aviation usage.
>
> The reason I'm puzzled by the original poster's statement (and his
> instructor's) is that the GPS, VOR, and ADF are all secondary
> problems.
>
> The primary task during flight in IMC is keeping the plane upright,
> and a GPS does not help with that any more than a VOR or ADF does (in
> fact, in the unlikely event that I lost *all* gyros but still somehow
> had electricity, I'd probably choose the ADF over the GPS for trying
> to keep the wings level, due to the ADF's faster response time).
>
> Unless you're flying very low around high terrain, even a
> completely-busted VOR, ADF, or GPS shouldn't kill you, so I don't see
> how a functioning one puts you at risk. Of course, you will need some
> way to land eventually, but in that case ILS is more accurate than GPS
> anyway.
>
> All the best,
>
> David

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[David Megginson]

Ray Andraka > writes:

> I've found that I can fly the airplane IMC with just the HSI page on my
> Garmin III Pilot as long as I keep the control inputs gentle. Doing this,
> my instructor covers all the flight instruments. Update rate is a little
> on the slow side, but as long as you keep your turns gentle it is very
> doable.

My concern is that in moderate turbulence it's much harder to keep
control inputs gentle. On my last trip in IMC, for example, I hit a
couple of jolts that tipped me past 20 deg bank in a fraction of a
second. I'd like to know how well the GPS HSI page works in that
situation (I acknowledge that the TC is also tricky when the air's
that rough, since it has a slight lag built-in).

Has anyone tried using the HSI page on a handheld GPS in moderate
turbulence? I'd be very interested in hearing the results (especially
if it was on a cloudy day or at night, when there were no light or
shadow clues).


All the best,


David

[Dan Truesdell]

On the way back from OSH this summer, we punched through some nascent
cumulous formations (in a C172). While partial panel is something that
we all practice (right?), and, even without a GPS as a backup, is not
that difficult to handle under some (most) circumstances, the few short
forays into the clouds lead me to investigate an electric AI. Although
we were only in the bumpy stuff for a few minutes at a time, I quickly
realized that I would be hard pressed to keep the plane right-side-up if
the vacuum system went south. I love my handheld GPS for general
situational awareness, but I'd much prefer an AI. (Nice spot for it,
too, right under the VSI. We'll need to remove the round G meter that
the original owner I guess thought would be worth while in a 172?)


David Megginson wrote:
> Ray Andraka > writes:
>
>
>>I've found that I can fly the airplane IMC with just the HSI page on my
>>Garmin III Pilot as long as I keep the control inputs gentle. Doing this,
>>my instructor covers all the flight instruments. Update rate is a little
>>on the slow side, but as long as you keep your turns gentle it is very
>>doable.
>
>
> My concern is that in moderate turbulence it's much harder to keep
> control inputs gentle. On my last trip in IMC, for example, I hit a
> couple of jolts that tipped me past 20 deg bank in a fraction of a
> second. I'd like to know how well the GPS HSI page works in that
> situation (I acknowledge that the TC is also tricky when the air's
> that rough, since it has a slight lag built-in).
>
> Has anyone tried using the HSI page on a handheld GPS in moderate
> turbulence? I'd be very interested in hearing the results (especially
> if it was on a cloudy day or at night, when there were no light or
> shadow clues).
>
>
> All the best,
>
>
> David


--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
Dan Truesdell > wrote:
>We'll need to remove the round G meter that
>the original owner I guess thought would be worth while in a 172?)

Sounds like a good rule of thumb: Never buy a non-acrobatic airplane
that a previous owner thought could use a G meter.

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Michael,

> It's silly to give
> that experience away to a gadget.
>

And it's less silly to die while not doing it???

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Ben,

> Never buy a non-acrobatic airplane
> that a previous owner thought could use a G meter.
>

I like it!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Nathan Young]

David Megginson > wrote in message >...
> (Nathan Young) writes:
>
> >> 1. Vacuum failure -- no immediate, direct benefit from the handheld
> >> GPS.
> >
> > I disagree for several reasons. Many GPS models have the ability to
> > partition the main display and show an 'HSI' and groundspeed in
> > addition to the moving map.
>
> That could be a nice indirect benefit, but the danger is ending up
> with yet another distraction. The GPS pseudo-HSI display is much
> easier to interpret but lags dangerously, while the TC and ASI are
> harder to interpret but have minimal lag. I'd be nervous that in an
> emergency my eyes would be drawn too much to the false security of the
> GPS pseudo-HSI display instead of where they should be, on the TC and
> ASI.

Your statements that the GPS lags dangerously are inaccurate (at least
wrt to the Garmin 295). The HSI updates quick enough to show heading
changes of a few degrees as long as the bank angle is kept under a
reasonable amount, say 10 degrees. Easy to do in smooth or light
turbulence.

However, I don't think you could keep the plane level (solely with
reference to the GPS) on a cumulus filled day - the kind where you
have to wrestle the airplane to stay on course/heading/altitude.

-Nathan

[David Megginson]

(Nathan Young) writes:

> Your statements that the GPS lags dangerously are inaccurate (at least
> wrt to the Garmin 295). The HSI updates quick enough to show heading
> changes of a few degrees as long as the bank angle is kept under a
> reasonable amount, say 10 degrees. Easy to do in smooth or light
> turbulence.

The lag is time, not heading. How long does it take a heading change
to register? I've heard that it's at least a second on the 196, and
sometimes two seconds or more on the 295, but I don't own either.


All the best,


David

[Roy Smith]

(Nathan Young) wrote:
> Your statements that the GPS lags dangerously are inaccurate (at least
> wrt to the Garmin 295). The HSI updates quick enough to show heading
> changes of a few degrees as long as the bank angle is kept under a
> reasonable amount, say 10 degrees. Easy to do in smooth or light
> turbulence.

A friend of mine and me tried an experiement once. I put our Archer
into some unusual attitudes, and he recovered using just the synthetic
instruments on his handheld GPS (Garmin something-or-other, might have
been the 295 but I'm not sure). Conditions were night VFR, no
turbulence.

What we discovered was that the pitch information you get from the ASI,
VSI, and AI was pretty much worthless, but heading info was useful.
When he tried to level the pitch, he just ended up chasing the
instruments badly. If he ignored pitch (let the trim take care of it)
and just used rudder to zero out rate of turn on the synthetic TC, he
did pretty well.

The Archer is a pretty stable plane. I have no idea how well this would
have worked in something like a Bonanza. I also have no idea how well
it would have worked in turbulence. We were also assuming that the
plane had previously been trimmed for level flight and the power and
trim settings hadn't changed. With something like runaway trim, this
would have obviously been much harder (I'm guessing impossible).

[Snowbird]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in message >...
> Michael,
> > It's silly to give
> > that experience away to a gadget.

> And it's less silly to die while not doing it???

(tieing threads together or branches of threads together)
Here IMO we go back to the difference between something
which is useful in a tight spot vs. a matter of life and
death

A pilot whose skills are such that not using the autopilot
is a matter of life and death is in trouble, with or without
'George'.

But if 'George' is there, in order for 'George' to be useful
in a tight spot, the pilot has to be proficient with George.
He has to know 'George's quirks, how to set George up boomboomboom
without extra brain cycles, and to what extent he can trust
George (or not). Anything less IMHO leave George out of the
picture.

Frankly, IMHO Michael contradicts another of his posts to
speak of "silly to give that experience away to a gadget".

An autopilot is just like a fancy MFD or a moving map GPS or
any other piece of cockpit equipment which can make life
easier *or* cause dependence, and the point he himself makes
in a different post applies. More equipment means more flying
to maintain proficiency with and without ALL the equipment in
the cockpit.

Personally, I look to people I respect totally from what I
know of them, and if people like my instructor and Stan Gosnell
speak of the benefits of SP autopilot use in being able to
develop and maintain a better grasp of the "big picture"
single-pilot, I'm listening. I've never seen the Richard
Collins tape and I don't know anything about him personally,
not meaning to 'dis' him, he's just not on my personal 'scope
and the sort of plane he flies (Cessna Truck) doesn't speak
to me.

BTW I speak of "tight spot" rather than "emergency" quite
deliberately because IMHO many (most?) abnormal situations
never become emergencies because of the quality of the choices
the pilot(s) make. We've been in 4-5 what I consider "tight
spots" which could easily have become emergencies and 0
emergencies so far, partly through luck partly through our
choices. And the quality of choices directly depends on the
quality of the "big picture" the pilot is able to maintain.

Anyone who thinks they can maintain the same quality of "big
picture" single-pilot while hand flying 100% of the time
as they could if they let 'George' take it judiciously,
I think is kidding themselves (or maybe handling a Flying Truck).
Just like anyone who thinks a cell phone ought to be a higher
priority than a GPS for in-flight emergency use (*g*) but
again that's their issue.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Thomas Borchert]

Snowbird,

> A pilot whose skills are such that not using the autopilot
> is a matter of life and death is in trouble, with or without
> 'George'.
>

Agree.

As I said before: Here in Germany, single pilot IFR is legal only with
an autopilot with ALT hold on board.

Without knowing for sure, one of the possible factos for the Kennedy
accident is that he was not proficient enough with the autopilot to let
the machine fly anything but straight and level, e.g. the descent that
was initiated and started the accident sequence. The AP in that
aircraft would have been capable of doing a descent.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Roy Smith]

Thomas Borchert > wrote:
> Without knowing for sure, one of the possible factos for the Kennedy
> accident is that he was not proficient enough with the autopilot to let
> the machine fly anything but straight and level, e.g. the descent that
> was initiated and started the accident sequence. The AP in that
> aircraft would have been capable of doing a descent.

That's not what I get from reading the NTSB report. It says:

"The airplane was equipped with a Bendix/King 150 Series Automatic
Flight Control System (AFCS) [...]

The AFCS installed on the accident airplane had an altitude hold mode
that, when selected, allowed the airplane to maintain the altitude that
it had when the altitude hold was selected. The AFCS did not have the
option of allowing the pilot to preselect an altitude so that the
autopilot could fly to and maintain the preselected altitude as it
climbed or descended from another altitude."

Still, I would imagine you could leave it in "heading hold" mode,
disengage altitude hold, reduce power a bit, and the plane would enter a
perfectly controlled descent just based on trim. And I agree that a
polot properly trained in use of the autopilot should have known how to
do that.

[David Megginson]

[name removed, since this isn't personal] writes:

> Without knowing for sure, one of the possible factos for the Kennedy
> accident [...]

I think that we need to create a new variation of Godwin's Law, for
aviation groups and lists, named in honour of John F. Kennedy Jr.:

John Jr's Law
-------------

As an aviation-related discussion grows longer, the probability of a
cautionary reference to John F. Kennedy Jr.'s fatal crash off
Martha's Vinyard on July 16, 1999 approaches one.


All the best,


David

[Thomas Borchert]

Roy,

Oops! I remembered wrongly. Sorry!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Ron Natalie]

"David Megginson" > wrote in message ...


> John Jr's Law

Gee, my corollary was "When someone famous crashes and non-aviation oriented
people find out that you are a pilot, they're going to ask you about it."

I flew up to my family reunion in Mass. a few weeks after the JFKJr crash. I got
asked that every time I turned around.

[Newps]

Dan Truesdell wrote:
> the few short
> forays into the clouds lead me to investigate an electric AI. Although
> we were only in the bumpy stuff for a few minutes at a time,

Now that the FAA has finally relented and allowed you to throw away your
turn coordinator and get a second AI I went and talked to my local
avionics shop about the RC Allen electric AI that I see advertised for
about $1800. They said don't bother as 90% of them come back because
they are so horribly built. They told me to get the reliability of a
vacuum AI it's gonna take about $4000.

[Dan Truesdell]

Thanks for the heads-up on those. I was figuring on about $2K, but $4K
would mean asking the other 4 owners to kick in $1000 for an item that
they won't use. For a 172, it's probably just as good then to get a
manifold-driven backup vacuum. Too bad the electronic AI's are not
certified for IFR (the $1500 ones, not the $6000 ones.)

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Dan Truesdell wrote:
>
>> the few short forays into the clouds lead me to investigate an
>> electric AI. Although we were only in the bumpy stuff for a few
>> minutes at a time,
>
>
> Now that the FAA has finally relented and allowed you to throw away your
> turn coordinator and get a second AI I went and talked to my local
> avionics shop about the RC Allen electric AI that I see advertised for
> about $1800. They said don't bother as 90% of them come back because
> they are so horribly built. They told me to get the reliability of a
> vacuum AI it's gonna take about $4000.
>


--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.

[Dave Butler]

Dan Truesdell wrote:
> Thanks for the heads-up on those. I was figuring on about $2K, but $4K
> would mean asking the other 4 owners to kick in $1000 for an item that
> they won't use. For a 172, it's probably just as good then to get a
> manifold-driven backup vacuum.

Consider the dual-rotor vacuum pump from http://www.aeroadvantage.com instead.

I've owned one of the manifold-driven backup vacuum systems, and it's marginally
OK, but I wouldn't buy one again. The shuttle valve gets stuck. It requires
pilot action to preflight test it, and to switch it on when you need it. The
vacuum it provides is limited. There is no provision for practicing with it (you
have to physically disconnect the vacuum pump), so you don't get proficient with
flying with the reduced vacuum and altered operational requirements. Under
most operational regimes, you will have to limit engine power in order to keep
the vacuum sucking.

By contrast, the dual-rotor pump failover is automatic, you get full vacuum
without interruption, just a panel annunciator to check during preflight and to
tell you one of the rotors has failed.

The cost is only slightly more than the manifold-dirven system.

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

[Andrew Gideon]

Dan Truesdell wrote:

> Thanks for the heads-up on those. I was figuring on about $2K, but $4K
> would mean asking the other 4 owners to kick in $1000 for an item that
> they won't use. For a 172, it's probably just as good then to get a
> manifold-driven backup vacuum. Too bad the electronic AI's are not
> certified for IFR (the $1500 ones, not the $6000 ones.)

One of our club airplanes has something like this. But someone told me that
it works least well under full throttle...which means down low executing a
missed approach.

Was I told correctly? How serious is "least well"?

- Andrew

[Snowbird]

Roy Smith > wrote in message >...
> A friend of mine and me tried an experiement once. I put our Archer
> into some unusual attitudes, and he recovered using just the synthetic
> instruments on his handheld GPS (Garmin something-or-other, might have
> been the 295 but I'm not sure). Conditions were night VFR, no
> turbulence.

I haven't tried this yet, and I really should.

What I can say is that IME it's significantly easier to fly
a full approach partial panel at night with either my panel
moving map, or my handheld moving map, than it is with both
failed, and that this is not because it's easier to navigate
per se, but because it's easier to *keep the wings perfectly
level* in TB or chop by using the track info on either GPS
to hold a steady track. (Basically, I would hold that navigation
at its most fundamental is simply the ability to hold heading,
and that the ability to hold heading at its most fundamental
is simply the ability to keep the wings level).

Our CFI has absolutely no regard for the FAA's views on
which instruments to fail or how many *g* and we did this
very deliberatly as an emergency exercise, in order to learn
exactly how much info we extract from the moving maps and
the best setup to extract it from our particular equipment.

> If he ignored pitch (let the trim take care of it)
> and just used rudder to zero out rate of turn on the synthetic TC, he
> did pretty well.

I don't have a "synthetic TC", but it sounds analogous to what
I learned to do in the way of zeroing the change on the track.

I'll have to see about trying it with unusual attitudes.

Best,
Sydney

[Dave Butler]

Andrew Gideon wrote:

> Dan Truesdell wrote:

>>For a 172, it's probably just as good then to get a
>>manifold-driven backup vacuum. Too bad the electronic AI's are not
>>certified for IFR (the $1500 ones, not the $6000 ones.)

> One of our club airplanes has something like this. But someone told me that
> it works least well under full throttle...which means down low executing a
> missed approach.
>
> Was I told correctly? How serious is "least well"?

That's exactly right. (From memory) the STC recommends you maintain at least 3.5
inches of vacuum to the gyros. That means the intake manifold pressure has to be
at least 3.5 inches less than the ambient pressure.

At sea level on a standard day, you will have to adjust your power to have a
manifold pressure no higher than (29.92 - 3.5) = 26.42 in Hg.

If you have a fixed prop and no manifold pressure gauge, you have to figure out
what that means for a throttle setting. There will be a calibration placard
giving maximum RPM for different pressure altitudes. At high pressure-altitudes
(low ambient pressure), you will need to reduce power correspondingly to
maintain the required vacuum to keep the gyros spinning.

Specifically, during a missed approach, you'll have to choose between keeping
the gyros spinning and having full power available.

My limited experience is that 3.5 inches is not enough for good reliable
instrument indications. That may be a function of which models of instruments
you have installed and how new the bearings are.

Of course, as I pointed out elsewhere in this thread, you don't get to practice
managing the vacuum under realistic conditions. Pulling out the knob on the
panel doesn't activate the system if you have a working vacuum pump. There is a
shuttle valve that selects the vacuum source that provides the most suck
(manifold or pump) when the panel control is activated.

Said shuttle valve is also a point of failure. You can check it on the ground
with the engine idling. At idle, the manifold will pull more vacuum than the
pump. I can count on the fingers of *no* hands the number of pilots I have ever
seen perform this check routinely.

At risk of beating a dead horse, get the dual-rotor pump from
http://www.aeroadvantage.com instead.

[John R. Copeland]

Seriously close to "not at all".
Your instruments want to see vacuum of about five inches Hg to operate.
I'm guessing they'll still function OK down to four inches Hg.
That means your manifold pressure would need to stay at least 4 inches
below ambient atmospheric pressure to keep your gyros up to speed.
That sacrifices a lot of climb power, for sure.
---JRC---

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message =
online.com...
>=20
> One of our club airplanes has something like this. But someone told =
me that=20
> it works least well under full throttle...which means down low =
executing a=20
> missed approach.
>=20
> Was I told correctly? How serious is "least well"?
>=20
> - Andrew
>

[Jeremy Lew]

Of course, the "synthetic TC" is just the GPS taking the course change delta
and displaying it graphically in a familiar way. It knows that a 3
degree/sec turn should be painted as a TC showing a standard rate turn .
You can do the same thing in your head, it's just somewhat less precise.
During the last dual flight before my ASEL checkride, my instructor failed
the instruments one by one until all I was left with was a non-moving-map
GPS, which was displaying my course as a digital readout. Even just using
this, it was possible to keep flying the plane in smooth air with the hood
on, pretty much indefinitely.

"Snowbird" > wrote in message
om...
> Roy Smith > wrote in message
>...
> > A friend of mine and me tried an experiement once. I put our Archer
> > into some unusual attitudes, and he recovered using just the synthetic
> > instruments on his handheld GPS (Garmin something-or-other, might have
> > been the 295 but I'm not sure). Conditions were night VFR, no
> > turbulence.
>
> I haven't tried this yet, and I really should.
>
> What I can say is that IME it's significantly easier to fly
> a full approach partial panel at night with either my panel
> moving map, or my handheld moving map, than it is with both
> failed, and that this is not because it's easier to navigate
> per se, but because it's easier to *keep the wings perfectly
> level* in TB or chop by using the track info on either GPS
> to hold a steady track. (Basically, I would hold that navigation
> at its most fundamental is simply the ability to hold heading,
> and that the ability to hold heading at its most fundamental
> is simply the ability to keep the wings level).
>
> Our CFI has absolutely no regard for the FAA's views on
> which instruments to fail or how many *g* and we did this
> very deliberatly as an emergency exercise, in order to learn
> exactly how much info we extract from the moving maps and
> the best setup to extract it from our particular equipment.
>
> > If he ignored pitch (let the trim take care of it)
> > and just used rudder to zero out rate of turn on the synthetic TC, he
> > did pretty well.
>
> I don't have a "synthetic TC", but it sounds analogous to what
> I learned to do in the way of zeroing the change on the track.
>
> I'll have to see about trying it with unusual attitudes.
>
> Best,
> Sydney

[PaulaJay1]

In article >, Dave Butler
> writes:

>I've owned one of the manifold-driven backup vacuum systems, and it's
>marginally
>OK, but I wouldn't buy one again.

I've had one pump failure and the manifold vacuum was worth twice the price!

Chuck

[PaulaJay1]

In article >, "Ron Natalie"
> writes:

>Gee, my corollary was "When someone famous crashes and non-aviation oriented
>people find out that you are a pilot, they're going to ask you about it."
>
>I flew up to my family reunion in Mass. a few weeks after the JFKJr crash.
>I got
>asked that every time I turned around.
>

And they didn't like my explaination that he was mostly to blame and that you
could "get behind" and spiral and believe you were level.

Chuck

[Roy Smith]

"Jeremy Lew" > wrote:
> Of course, the "synthetic TC" is just the GPS taking the course change delta
> and displaying it graphically in a familiar way.

Of course that's all it's doing. Same with all the other synthetic
instruments it displays.

I suppose it might be mixing in some higher-order derivitives to try and
simulate the mixed yaw-roll behavior of a real TC, but I suspect there's
not enough useful resolution in the data to make that feasable.

[Snowbird]

Andrew Gideon > wrote in message e.com>...
> Dan Truesdell wrote:
> > Thanks for the heads-up on those. I was figuring on about $2K, but $4K
> > would mean asking the other 4 owners to kick in $1000 for an item that
> > they won't use. For a 172, it's probably just as good then to get a
> > manifold-driven backup vacuum. Too bad the electronic AI's are not
> > certified for IFR (the $1500 ones, not the $6000 ones.)

Well, I'd kind of like to know whether people other than NewPS's
shop have had trouble with the RC Allen electrical AIs. I
know several pilots who have them, IIRC there are several pilots
on these groups who have them, and this is the first I've heard
that they're so incredibly shoddy that the majority of them are
useless. The people I know who have them seem to find them OK.

As far as manifold-driven backup vacuum, my issue is: between us,
DH and I have about 1000 hrs. Our collective tally is:
AI failure (new instrument, less than 1 yr old) --- one
DG failue (overhauled instrument, age > 4 yrs) --- one
vacuum pump failue (about 700 hrs best guess) --- one

So backup vacuum would have helped with only 1/3 failures. Whether
this is typical overall I can't say -- wish ASF or someone would do
a survey. Hmmm, maybe I'll start on on that avionics swap Yahoo
group.

> One of our club airplanes has something like this. But someone told me that
> it works least well under full throttle...which means down low executing a
> missed approach.
> Was I told correctly?

Pretty much, but it still may be useful.

It depends upon the differential between atmospheric pressure and
manifold pressure to work. For your gyros to function happily, they
need about
4" of pressure. So if you're powered back, *shooting* an approach, it
should be helpful. If you're at 8,000 ft with atm. pressure about
22",
you may not be able to throttle back enough to get it to work
adequately
and maintain altitude. Likewise full throttle, going around on a
missed
approach, it may not work well at all (but, it may give you a better
chance to shoot an approach you can land from).

IIRC part of the installation (and the later AD) is to establish a
chart of power settings for adequate operation in the plane in which
its installed. Your club plane should have this lurking around in the
paperwork, and it should give you a good understanding of when and
to what degree it's likely to be helpful.

HTH,
Sydney

[Jeremy Lew]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> "Jeremy Lew" > wrote:
> > Of course, the "synthetic TC" is just the GPS taking the course change
delta
> > and displaying it graphically in a familiar way.
>
> Of course that's all it's doing. Same with all the other synthetic
> instruments it displays.

Well, the fake altimiter and fake "airspeed" indicator are not concerned
with the course delta, but your point is (I think) that everything is
derived from the 2D or 3D position data over time. I wonder too how much
intelligence they have tried to give those fake instruments. They must be
smoothed, if nothing else, to make up for position error jitters. Does WAAS
make them any better? Dunno. It seems like someone should be combine a GPS
with a cheap accelerometer and come up with a servicable backup panel.

[Roy Smith]

"Jeremy Lew" > wrote:
> Well, the fake altimiter and fake "airspeed" indicator are not concerned
> with the course delta, but your point is (I think) that everything is
> derived from the 2D or 3D position data over time.

Yes, obviously. My apologies for being sloppy.

> It seems like someone should be combine a GPS
> with a cheap accelerometer and come up with a servicable backup panel.

Given that I can buy a Garmin eTrex for $100, I have to assume the basic
GPS sensor engine is pretty cheap. The obvious next step would be a GPS
in each wingtip and one in the tail and trying to derive pitch, bank,
and heading from those three 3D data points.

Some day, we'll all be flying GPS/INS/FMS/FADEC computer planes. I
suppose by that time all the fun will be gone :-)

[Nathan Young]

David Megginson > wrote in message >...
> (Nathan Young) writes:
>
> > Your statements that the GPS lags dangerously are inaccurate (at least
> > wrt to the Garmin 295). The HSI updates quick enough to show heading
> > changes of a few degrees as long as the bank angle is kept under a
> > reasonable amount, say 10 degrees. Easy to do in smooth or light
> > turbulence.
>
> The lag is time, not heading. How long does it take a heading change
> to register? I've heard that it's at least a second on the 196, and
> sometimes two seconds or more on the 295, but I don't own either.

It is probably a 1 or 2 sec update rate. That is often enough to
detect and display heading changes of a degree or two (as long as bank
angle is kept reasonable). The 'lag' is roughly equivalent to the
update rate. Ie, the GPS updates every second, and is showing you
position, heading, velocity derived from the t and t-1 epoch.

Most GPS engines are running faster than the display rate. GPS
engines from 5-10 years ago operated on 1 or 2 sec position updates.
Newer engines are more granular, with 5Hz operation being common.
That means the display data shown is typically derived from the
velocity/heading calculated from the time 1 and 1.2 seconds in the
past.

-Nathan

[Nathan Young]

Newps > wrote in message news:<govqb.129678$Fm2.107682@attbi_s04>...
> Dan Truesdell wrote:
> > the few short
> > forays into the clouds lead me to investigate an electric AI. Although
> > we were only in the bumpy stuff for a few minutes at a time,
>
> Now that the FAA has finally relented and allowed you to throw away your
> turn coordinator and get a second AI I went and talked to my local
> avionics shop about the RC Allen electric AI that I see advertised for
> about $1800. They said don't bother as 90% of them come back because
> they are so horribly built. They told me to get the reliability of a
> vacuum AI it's gonna take about $4000.

Why are the electric AI's so poor? I hear this frequently on the
newsgroup.

OTOH, one rarely hears about people complaining of TCs.

Is it the extra dimension of rotation that causes the problem? Or is
just RC Allen's design/mfg?

-Nathan

[David Megginson]

(Nathan Young) writes:

> It is probably a 1 or 2 sec update rate. That is often enough to
> detect and display heading changes of a degree or two (as long as bank
> angle is kept reasonable). The 'lag' is roughly equivalent to the
> update rate. Ie, the GPS updates every second, and is showing you
> position, heading, velocity derived from the t and t-1 epoch.

The reason I'm skeptical is that the mag compass also works fine for
holding heading in smooth air with very shallow turns: it doesn't go
to hell in a handbasket until the air gets rough, precisely the same
time the update lag in a handheld GPS could potentially also make it
difficult to use. That's why I'm interested in hearing from people
who've used it successfully in rough air, preferably at night (where
there are fewer visual cues like shadows moving over the panel).

Note that I love GPS's -- so much so, that I collect GIS data just for
fun, and have even hacked a way to get DAFIF data into a Magellan 315
from Linux.


All the best,


David

[Ray Andraka]

Try minimizing control inputs to what is necessary to keep your heading in bumpy
air rather than trying to keep the wings absolutely level. It produces an
uncomfortable ride, but the bumps do tend to average out somewhat over time as
long as you are not making big corrections for each bump. I haven't tried the
GPS only thing in really bumpy air. Then again, what is described as moderate
to severe by pilots flying aircraft with lighter wing loadings barely ruffles
the feathers of a loaded Six. It is a great instrument platform!

David Megginson wrote:

> Ray Andraka > writes:
>
> > I've found that I can fly the airplane IMC with just the HSI page on my
> > Garmin III Pilot as long as I keep the control inputs gentle. Doing this,
> > my instructor covers all the flight instruments. Update rate is a little
> > on the slow side, but as long as you keep your turns gentle it is very
> > doable.
>
> My concern is that in moderate turbulence it's much harder to keep
> control inputs gentle. On my last trip in IMC, for example, I hit a
> couple of jolts that tipped me past 20 deg bank in a fraction of a
> second. I'd like to know how well the GPS HSI page works in that
> situation (I acknowledge that the TC is also tricky when the air's
> that rough, since it has a slight lag built-in).
>
> Has anyone tried using the HSI page on a handheld GPS in moderate
> turbulence? I'd be very interested in hearing the results (especially
> if it was on a cloudy day or at night, when there were no light or
> shadow clues).
>
> All the best,
>
> David

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[Ray Andraka]

I pull mine as part of the run-up on every single flight, IFR or VFR. It is on my
run-up checklist.

Dave Butler wrote:

> Said shuttle valve is also a point of failure. You can check it on the ground
> with the engine idling. At idle, the manifold will pull more vacuum than the
> pump. I can count on the fingers of *no* hands the number of pilots I have ever
> seen perform this check routinely.
>
> At risk of beating a dead horse, get the dual-rotor pump from
> http://www.aeroadvantage.com instead.

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[Ray Andraka]

Snowbird wrote:

>
> As far as manifold-driven backup vacuum, my issue is: between us,
> DH and I have about 1000 hrs. Our collective tally is:
> AI failure (new instrument, less than 1 yr old) --- one
> DG failue (overhauled instrument, age > 4 yrs) --- one
> vacuum pump failue (about 700 hrs best guess) --- one

>
> I concur with your failures. In 1100 hrs, I've had
> 3 DG failures,
> 1 AI failure
> 1 Vacuum pump failure (and that was discovered in the runup).
>
> ...and...

>
> IIRC part of the installation (and the later AD) is to establish a
> chart of power settings for adequate operation in the plane in which
> its installed. Your club plane should have this lurking around in the
> paperwork, and it should give you a good understanding of when and
> to what degree it's likely to be helpful.

The STC requires a placard with power settings measured in a flight test in your airplane at various RPM settings.



--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[andrew m. boardman]

Snowbird > wrote:
>> [...] if you're messing with a chart or plates or anything else, let
>> go of the yoke.
>
>I gotta read this one to my (Grumman specialist) CFI he'll
>get a good belly laugh too.

FWIW, our AA5B does fine hands-off if the pitch trim is OK, even in
bouncy stuff, using one's feet to keep it vaguely straight.

Once upon a time, in very smooth air (11500' over one of the flat
states), self and copilot went for about 20 minutes thinking that the
autopilot was on when it wasn't; the plane was tracking perfectly.
That's a rather exceptional case, but the four-seat Grummans really
aren't *that* twitchy.

[andrew m. boardman]

Guy Elden Jr. > wrote:
>It's not about a comfort level for me... it's about pilot workload. There is
>a tremendous amount of work involved in flying heads down in the clouds, so
>any device that can help alleviate that load is welcome by me. It may be
>legal to fly in instrument conditions with two VORs and an ADF, but is it
>really safe if you're the only pilot in the plane, weather is forming all
>around you, and you have to hand fly the plane?

What's "safe"? I fly a fair amount of IMC in an aircraft with an old but
rock-solid COM/COM/NAV/ADF stack (plus a panel LORAN that flakes out in
precip and a NAV-11 which I'd file under "mostly adequate"), and it's
within *my* level of acceptable risk, but that's almost completely an
individual call under part 91.

That said, I do this because I've trained extensively with this sort of
setup, and (much like basic attitude flying) navigating with it
eventually became something that I could deal mostly subconsciously, with
with plenty of mental bandwith left over for thinking about planning and
weather and whatever else. I don't particularly think I'm an uberpilot,
though I do think my initial instrument instructors were *excellent*.

I'm also not against automation (I occasionally sneak into a phone booth
only to emerge as a 767 systems instructor), but there's a *lot* to be
said for training, practice, and situational awareness.

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

> >As I said before: Here in Germany, single pilot IFR is legal only with
> >an autopilot with ALT hold on board.
>
> Is this true for private flights?
>

Yes. Commercial single pilot IFR is simply forbidden. Pilatus, maker of
the PC-12, is vehemently trying to change that.

I've said it before: If you're complaining about the FAA and the rules in
the US, you haven't looked at Europe yet.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Dave Butler]

Snowbird wrote:

> IIRC part of the installation (and the later AD) is to establish a
> chart of power settings for adequate operation in the plane in which
> its installed. Your club plane should have this lurking around in the
> paperwork, and it should give you a good understanding of when and
> to what degree it's likely to be helpful.

If it's the Precise Flight STC, it had better be placarded on the panel, else
your aircraft is not in compliance with its type certificate.

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

[Dave Butler]

Nathan Young wrote:

> Most GPS engines are running faster than the display rate. GPS
> engines from 5-10 years ago operated on 1 or 2 sec position updates.
> Newer engines are more granular, with 5Hz operation being common.
> That means the display data shown is typically derived from the
> velocity/heading calculated from the time 1 and 1.2 seconds in the
> past.

What units have a 5Hz update? The only one I am aware of is the CNX80. I don't
know of any others better than 1 Hz... oh, maybe you meant 5 Hz intenally, with
a 1 Hz update of the display?

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

[Dave Butler]

Dave Butler wrote:
> Nathan Young wrote:
>
>> Most GPS engines are running faster than the display rate. GPS
>> engines from 5-10 years ago operated on 1 or 2 sec position updates.
>> Newer engines are more granular, with 5Hz operation being common. That
>> means the display data shown is typically derived from the
>> velocity/heading calculated from the time 1 and 1.2 seconds in the
>> past.
>
>
> What units have a 5Hz update? The only one I am aware of is the CNX80. I
> don't know of any others better than 1 Hz... oh, maybe you meant 5 Hz
> intenally, with a 1 Hz update of the display?

Oh, never mind. That's what you *said*. Sorry for the noise. Dave

[David Megginson]

(andrew m. boardman) writes:

> What's "safe"? I fly a fair amount of IMC in an aircraft with an
> old but rock-solid COM/COM/NAV/ADF stack (plus a panel LORAN that
> flakes out in precip and a NAV-11 which I'd file under "mostly
> adequate"), and it's within *my* level of acceptable risk, but
> that's almost completely an individual call under part 91.

Right. Personally, I think that safety flying in IMC comes mostly
from the ability to prioritize, defer, and negotiate, not from any
extra equipment in the plane.

For example, there is no reason that a complex new routing should
increase your risk of being in an accident with or without an AP or
IFR GPS -- if there is a higher risk, it's because the pilot stops
prioritizing and fixates on the rerouting task. If you have a
tendency to fixate when under stress, some day you are going to get in
over your head no matter how many toys you have on the panel.

If ATC calls when you cannot deal with them, and it's not an
instruction calling for immediate action (i.e. "bravo juliet oscar,
turn right 30 degrees NOW, traffic"), say "standby": during IFR
training my instructor insisted that I always do that when turning,
i.e. in a hold. If ATC gives you a routing that you cannot deal with
all at once, say "request initial vector" and then take your time
working out the routing before resuming own-navigation. If turbulence
is knocking the fillings out of your teeth and bringing you angry
messages from ATC about your assigned altitude, request a block
altitude assignment. These are all things you can do with about 5% of
your attention, leaving the other 95% free to fly the plane (or
monitor the autopilot, if you're using one).

Personally, I fly with a NAVCOM/NAVCOM/DME/ADF stack. I have not yet
had to do most of what I listed in the previous paragraph, but I do
often have to request an initial vector -- not because the rerouting
is too complicated (so far), but because ATC has a tendency to reroute
me direct to navaids that I don't have a hope of receiving yet (and
I'm not willing to cheat with my handheld GPS). That, I think, is the
most credible argument for eventually requiring an IFR GPS in every
IFR plane -- not that pilots will crash and die without one, but that
an IFR GPS can reduce the workload for ATC and congestion on the
frequency for other pilots.

Ironically, the published IFR low-level routes are designed to use
navaids that are close enough together that I should be able to do
own-navigation end-to-end without bothering ATC much -- if the
controllers didn't keep rerouting me two or three stages ahead, they
wouldn't end up having to vector me. I'm sure that most pilots
appreciate the reroutings, though, since they have IFR GPS's and the
reroutings might save them five or ten minutes.


All the best,


David

[David Megginson]

(andrew m. boardman) writes:

>>> [...] if you're messing with a chart or plates or anything else, let
>>> go of the yoke.
>>
>>I gotta read this one to my (Grumman specialist) CFI he'll
>>get a good belly laugh too.
>
> FWIW, our AA5B does fine hands-off if the pitch trim is OK, even in
> bouncy stuff, using one's feet to keep it vaguely straight.

And please remember, my original point was that you should let go of
the yoke in IMC when you are not looking at the attitude instruments,
not that letting go of the yoke was a way for the plane to fly itself
while you fold charts, look up plates, etc.

How long you can go not looking at the attitude instruments may vary
from a fraction of a second to several seconds, depending on the
plane, but however long it is, it's unlikely that you'll do much good
(and very likely that you'll do harm) steering the plane blind. My
problem was that I would involuntarily pull the yoke slightly to the
right every time I leaned over to look at the mag compass straight on
-- the movement takes well under a second, but now I know to release
the yoke before I do it.


All the best,


David

[Snowbird]

(andrew m. boardman) wrote in message >...
> FWIW, our AA5B does fine hands-off if the pitch trim is OK, even in
> bouncy stuff, using one's feet to keep it vaguely straight.

I don't know what to say about this.

Do you have aileron trim? Do you have the 100 hr aileron AD
or the terminating condition?

Even if we start out with the trim tabs perfectly adjusted
for the load we have at the moment (very tough, since it
would require test-flying the specific load for each trip
and tweaking the trim tabs -- but we've actually done this
for some long trips), truly full fuel, and change tanks
every half an hour, by the end of that half hour Tigger
will be pulling noticably to the left or right, and if
we take our hand off the yoke, he will immediately start
a bank in one or the other direction.

He becomes noticably left-wing heavy in rain, to the extent
that if I'm flying under the hood I can tell immediately when
I enter and exit IMC just by the feel of the yoke.

The pitch will change depending on what my daughter is doing.
She can start a desire to climb or descend (and the need to
adjust trim) by transitioning from reading a book to playing
with her dolls -- this is when she's strapped into her booster
seat, let's not discuss precise flying if we let her move about.
This is a wonderful tool for a CFI who can make one fight to
stay on glideslope just by subtle shifts in weight distribution
in his seat (just looking for traffic of course). Set the pitch
trim to be stable in bouncy air, isn't going to happen.

Tigger's rigging has been checked and adjusted to within correct
tolerances. I don't think Tigger is unusual -- our CFI is Mike
LeTrello, head of the AYA Pilot Proficiency Program and if anyone
has flown in a lot of different Grummans and would recognize
something unusual, he'd be the guy.

> Once upon a time, in very smooth air (11500' over one of the flat
> states), self and copilot went for about 20 minutes thinking that the
> autopilot was on when it wasn't; the plane was tracking perfectly.

I have flown in smooth air and have never encountered anything
remotely like this. If our autopilot weren't engaged, we'd know
right away.

I was reading the first part and thinking maybe you're just a
stud-muffin ace pilot who doesn't notice the constant slight
adjustments you're making and I'm a putz, but the above is just
totally foreign to our experience.

You're welcome to come fly Tigger and generalize about 4 place
Grummans after you do.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Snowbird]

David Megginson > wrote in message >...
> And please remember, my original point was that you should let go of
> the yoke in IMC when you are not looking at the attitude instruments

And my original point is that this is not a "one size fits all"
solution to lack of autopilot. There are planes where this will
get you into trouble.

> My
> problem was that I would involuntarily pull the yoke slightly to the
> right every time I leaned over to look at the mag compass straight on
> -- the movement takes well under a second, but now I know to release
> the yoke before I do it.

If I released the yoke for small tasks like this, Andrew's
disparate AA5B experience notwithstanding, my flying would definately
suffer. In fact it used to suffer and I have the scabs from remedial
CFI beating to prove it *g*.

With practice, one learns to compensate and *not* pull the yoke
while performing other tasks. You move your eyes or position,
scan to be sure you're compensating correctly, then go back to
task.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Snowbird]

David Megginson > wrote in message >...

> Right. Personally, I think that safety flying in IMC comes mostly
> from the ability to prioritize, defer, and negotiate, not from any
> extra equipment in the plane.

At a fundamental level, this is correct. No amount of fancy
gear can compensate for fundamental flying skills (or the lack
thereof) and for pilot judgement.

However, other things being equal, I don't think there can be
any doubt that extra equipment adds to safety. I personally
would not care to argue that a SE plane flown by a proficient
pilot is as safe or safer than a ME plane flown by a proficient
pilot -- how can it be, when the extra engine/alternator/vacuum
pump provide levels of redundancy and additional options after
a failure which most SE planes lack.

You?

The same is fundamentally true of any equipment which adds
redundancy or options.

> For example, there is no reason that a complex new routing should
> increase your risk of being in an accident with or without an AP or
> IFR GPS -- if there is a higher risk, it's because the pilot stops
> prioritizing and fixates on the rerouting task.

This is fundamentally false. You appear to be focusing only
on one aspect of the issue.

If there is a higher *immediate* risk, it is because the pilot
stops flying the plane to fixate on the immediate task.

But that's far from the only risk. Rerouting can become part
of an accident chain, if the ramefications of the rerouting aren't
completely understood, including its effect on fuel status, enroute
weather, and destination weather.

I appreciate that there are pilots here who feel that they fly so
well that they have ample excess brain power and time to get
and process wx updates, recalculate their ETAs and fuel, and so
forth and so on. However, I don't think it's arguable that the
same pilots would have MORE brain capacity to devote to these
issues if they were able to enlist "George" while they transcribed
their wx and gave a little extra attention to an enroute chart.
Maybe most of the time, that extra capacity isn't needed, but maybe
sometime the particular parameters and conditions of the flight
will require more.

I feel there is a reason why a number of experienced and skilled
pilots feel an autopilot adds appreciably to the safety of single
pilot IFR ops, and it's not that they're incapable of controlling
the airplane at a near-automatic level whilest talking to ATC.

I suppose it's possible that their cranial capacity is simply more
limited than those who feel to the contrary, but this strikes me
as a hubristic assumption. YMMV.

> I'm sure that most pilots
> appreciate the reroutings, though, since they have IFR GPS's and the
> reroutings might save them five or ten minutes.

We have yet to receive a significant rerouting which *saved* us
appreciable time. FWIW.

Sydney

[Andrew Gideon]

David Megginson wrote:

> The reason I'm skeptical is that the mag compass also works fine for
> holding heading in smooth air with very shallow turns: it doesn't go
> to hell in a handbasket until the air gets rough, precisely the same
> time the update lag in a handheld GPS could potentially also make it
> difficult to use. That's why I'm interested in hearing from people
> who've used it successfully in rough air, preferably at night (where
> there are fewer visual cues like shadows moving over the panel).

And that's why I'm looking for a device that acts - effectively - as a
backup AI.

I saw a couple of devices at the Expo. Both were "boxes" that plugged into
different "computers". One was a large box that plugged into what I think
was and Ipaq, and one was a small box that plugged into a "Cheeta" portable
MFD device.

I really liked the Cheeta, but I think it was the most expensive of the
solutions I saw.

Anyone have other thoughts about this?

What was the price of a panel-mounted electric AI? 4K? I wonder if I could
get the club to consider such an investment on our aircraft.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Roy Smith wrote:

> Given that I can buy a Garmin eTrex for $100, I have to assume the basic
> GPS sensor engine is pretty cheap. The obvious next step would be a GPS
> in each wingtip and one in the tail and trying to derive pitch, bank,
> and heading from those three 3D data points.

There are "electronic gyros". I saw at least two examples at the Expo.

- Andrew

[Tom S.]

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
...
> (andrew m. boardman) writes:
>
> > What's "safe"? I fly a fair amount of IMC in an aircraft with an
> > old but rock-solid COM/COM/NAV/ADF stack (plus a panel LORAN that
> > flakes out in precip and a NAV-11 which I'd file under "mostly
> > adequate"), and it's within *my* level of acceptable risk, but
> > that's almost completely an individual call under part 91.
>
> Right. Personally, I think that safety flying in IMC comes mostly
> from the ability to prioritize, defer, and negotiate, not from any
> extra equipment in the plane.

Neither trait can stand on its own as "adequate".

[Tom S.]

"Snowbird" > wrote in message
om...
> With practice, one learns to compensate and *not* pull the yoke
> while performing other tasks. You move your eyes or position,
> scan to be sure you're compensating correctly, then go back to
> task.

Also, learn to handle the yoke without using a death grip. It may require a
bit more than fingertip pressure to handle the yoke in turbulence, but
"white knuckles" only makes the sensations worse.

[Dan Luke]

"Snowbird" wrote:
> hubristic

Saving that one.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
Snowbird > wrote:
>
>At a fundamental level, this is correct. No amount of fancy
>gear can compensate for fundamental flying skills (or the lack
>thereof) and for pilot judgement.

Oh come on, a 777 can do Cat IIIb autoland if I know how to push
the buttons, even if I couldn't maintain heading or altitude without
the autopilot. A GPS with "nearest" has rescued plenty of pilots
from bad judgement or poor pilotage.

This whole thread is nuts. There are many levels of safety, and
people have to choose between them all the time. Why can't people
who have decided not to install an autopilot just admit that they
have chosen a slightly lower level of safety? Here: I will admit
that I have chosen not to install a GPS and as a result I am less
safe than I would be with a GPS. Go ahead and insult my navigation
skills! It doesn't matter if I could draw a 3-meter resolution map
of the US from memory, however good (or bad) I am, the GPS would
augment that.

If inflating a tire cost $12000 I bet we'd have people here arguing
that they were just as safe with good landing technique on a flat tire.

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

[Teacherjh]

>>
Why can't people
who have decided not to install an autopilot just admit that they
have chosen a slightly lower level of safety?
<<

Probably for the same reason that those who have one but don't use it won't
admit they've "chosen a lower level of safety", and those who insist on flying
themselves rather than having a professional pilot co-pilot team fly them
around in a part 135 aircraft are "choosing a lower level of safety".

There are autopilots in all the club aircraft I fly. I never use them. (ok, I
tried playing around with one once; it just didn't feel like I was flying an
airplane any more).

I much prefer to be a pilot than a passenger, I much prefer to have my hand on
the yoke and my feet on the pedals. That's the whole point, isn't it?

Jose

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

[andrew m. boardman]

Snowbird > wrote:
(andrew m. boardman) wrote in message
>...
>> FWIW, our AA5B does fine hands-off if the pitch trim is OK, even in
>> bouncy stuff, using one's feet to keep it vaguely straight.
>
>I don't know what to say about this.
>
>Do you have aileron trim? Do you have the 100 hr aileron AD
>or the terminating condition?

No and yes; we're happy to deal with the AD considering all the horror
stories I've heard about the aileronectomy.

>He becomes noticably left-wing heavy in rain, to the extent
>that if I'm flying under the hood I can tell immediately when
>I enter and exit IMC just by the feel of the yoke.

Ours too, although not in all IMC; there seems to be a critical level of
moisture that causes it. (You've probably heard all the same theories I
have about *why*, I just wish I could make it go away.) The above comment
about driving with the feet does definitely *not* apply when it's doing
this. (It's really also less active than "driving with the feet"; more
like "figuring out how much rudder pressure I need to compensate for the
heavy wing so I can hold approximate heading in uncoordinated flight long
enough to go deal with whatever I need to deal with.)

>> Once upon a time, in very smooth air (11500' over one of the flat
>> states), self and copilot went for about 20 minutes thinking that the
>> autopilot was on when it wasn't; the plane was tracking perfectly.
>
>I have flown in smooth air and have never encountered anything
>remotely like this. If our autopilot weren't engaged, we'd know
>right away.

All I can say is it really happened! We were playing with all of the
electronics on the delivery flight, and decided to see how the Century I
did with course tracking. I'd read 2^n pieces of advice about how they
don't work worth beans unless they start out on course and on heading, so
I took some time getting everything perfectly dialed in and on the beam
and then settled back to watch, but never actually switched it on. I
*was* periodically tweaking the pitch trim to hold approximate
altititude. The plane eventually went into a very gradual right bank,
and we waited a bit for enough of a CDI deviation for the C-1 to kick in
with a course correction, and only twigged to what was really going on
after we were 20 degrees off and getting (slowly) worse. The air was
smooth as glass, and the two pilots on board were inert if not
somnolescent.

>I was reading the first part and thinking maybe you're just a
>stud-muffin ace pilot...

No worries there!

>...who doesn't notice the constant slight adjustments you're making and
>I'm a putz, but the above is just totally foreign to our experience.

Hmm. I've flown a few four-seat Grummans (though I'm *far* from being
Mike LeTrello), and while the experience related above is indeed so far a
unique one, I've never felt like I couldn't let go of the controls for a
bit for some vaguely-straight-and-level. Maybe I've just got looser
tolerances for what I'm willing to recover from after I finish fishing
around in the back seat?

>You're welcome to come fly Tigger and generalize about 4 place
>Grummans after you do.

Thanks! And vice-versa, too. Might even be at Baraboo...

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

> that an IFR flight
> plan must be airways only. Perhaps it is similar in Germany? Can you
> fly IFR more or less anywhere (like you can in the UK)?
>

You file airways, but sometimes you get direct.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[David Megginson]

(Snowbird) writes:

>> And please remember, my original point was that you should let go
>> of the yoke in IMC when you are not looking at the attitude
>> instruments
>
> And my original point is that this is not a "one size fits all"
> solution to lack of autopilot. There are planes where this will get
> you into trouble.

When you are not looking at the attitude instruments in IMC, in any
plane, how do you know which way to move the yoke? Or are these
planes where you have to hold constant pressure on the yoke against an
out-of-trim condition?


All the best,


David

[David Megginson]

"Tom S." > writes:

> Also, learn to handle the yoke without using a death grip. It may
> require a bit more than fingertip pressure to handle the yoke in
> turbulence, but "white knuckles" only makes the sensations worse.

Right -- thumb and forefinger only for me, with elbow on the armrest
(actually, I normally use only thumb *or* forefinger).


All the best,


David

[David Megginson]

(Snowbird) writes:

> However, other things being equal, I don't think there can be any
> doubt that extra equipment adds to safety. I personally would not
> care to argue that a SE plane flown by a proficient pilot is as safe
> or safer than a ME plane flown by a proficient pilot -- how can it
> be, when the extra engine/alternator/vacuum pump provide levels of
> redundancy and additional options after a failure which most SE
> planes lack.

Do you know where to find stats showing the differences in accident
rates between single-pilot+single-engine IFR and
single-pilot+multi-engine IFR?

In theory, it sounds like your statement should be right, but then, in
theory, spin training should reduce the stall/spin rate (which it
didn't, in Canada), and airbags should bring down the fatality rates
in car accidents. We have to look at the actual results to see what
works.

I'd be willing to bet money that single-pilot/multi-pilot is a much
more sigificant risk determinant than single-engine/multi-engine; if
you throw in a dispatcher and operations manual, even more so.


All the best,


David

[David Megginson]

(Ben Jackson) writes:

> This whole thread is nuts. There are many levels of safety, and
> people have to choose between them all the time. Why can't people
> who have decided not to install an autopilot just admit that they
> have chosen a slightly lower level of safety?

That's not a fair assessment of the thread. A couple of extreme
positions crept in -- (a) an autopilot does no good, (b) IFR without
an autopilot is unacceptably dangerous -- but most of the postings in
this thread are exploring the ground in the middle. I mentioned right
at the start that I would love a wing-leveller some day, just to have
a panic button available if I ever get severe vertigo.

The hard part is figuring out how big the risk is, and we simply don't
have the stats available to do that. The people who *do* have the
stats -- insurance companies -- do not give a discount for private IFR
pilots flying small planes with an autopilot (as far as I've seen), so
they must figure it's too small a risk difference to affect the amount
of claims they pay out.

The question is not whether an A/P provides additional safety, but how
much additional safety it provides. For example, does it provide more
additional safety than wearing your shoulder belt? Almost certainly
not. Does it provide more additional safety than carrying a gun on
board? Probably (unless you're flying in polar bear country). Does
it provide more additional safety than wearing a flame-retardant suit
or a full survival suit? I don't know.

Sometimes things that look good on paper don't work out in real life.
For example, as I mentioned in a previous posting, the U.S. abandoned
spin training for the PPL not long after WWII (I think), while Canada
stubbornly kept spin training right up until the 1990s, assuming it
was saving lives. Unfortunately, when Transport Canada looked at the
numbers in the 1990's, Canadian pilots (*all* of whom had spin
training) had a slightly higher stall/spin fatality rate than
U.S. pilots (most of whom had no spin training). Go figure --
obviously, risk-management is not a simple, incremental problem
(i.e. autopilot: +2, IFR GPS: +1, low ceiling: -2, etc.).

Still, I am willing to buy a wing-leveller on faith some day, even if
I cannot prove that it will make a significant difference in my flying
safety.


All the best,


David

[Roy Smith]

David Megginson > wrote:
> The hard part is figuring out how big the risk is, and we simply don't
> have the stats available to do that. The people who *do* have the
> stats -- insurance companies -- do not give a discount for private IFR
> pilots flying small planes with an autopilot (as far as I've seen), so
> they must figure it's too small a risk difference to affect the amount
> of claims they pay out.

Another possibility is that the whole risk pool is just too small to
come up with any statistics meaningful enough to sub-divide the pool and
offer different rates.

I think there's no doubt that if you take two equally skilled pilots and
put them in otherwise equal airplane and flight conditions but give one
an AP (with appropriate training) and make the other hand-fly 100% of
the time, the one with the AP will have a lower workload, which
translates directly into higher reserve of ability to handle the
unexpected which in turn translates into a safer flight.

On the other hand, for all I know, the guy with the AP in his plane
will, over the long run, tend to get complacent and dependant on the AP,
letting his hand-flying skills erode. This leads to a decrease in
safety.

Which is the stronger factor? I have no clue, and I suspect the
insurance companies don't either.

[David Megginson]

Roy Smith > writes:

> I think there's no doubt that if you take two equally skilled pilots
> and put them in otherwise equal airplane and flight conditions but
> give one an AP (with appropriate training) and make the other
> hand-fly 100% of the time, the one with the AP will have a lower
> workload, which translates directly into higher reserve of ability
> to handle the unexpected which in turn translates into a safer
> flight.
>
> On the other hand, for all I know, the guy with the AP in his plane
> will, over the long run, tend to get complacent and dependant on the AP,
> letting his hand-flying skills erode. This leads to a decrease in
> safety.
>
> Which is the stronger factor? I have no clue, and I suspect the
> insurance companies don't either.

But they do have better statistics about accidents than we can get
publicly. They know a lot about their individual policy holders, both
the ones who get in accidents and the ones who don't.

To help everyone in this discussion avoid jumping to absolutes (I'm
not accusing you of that, by the way), here's a different way to
approach the problem. Let's say you have a basic plane like mine -- a
125 kt, 160 hp, fixed-gear Warrior II with dual NAVCOM, DME, and ADF
-- that you fly a few hours each month in actual IMC and the rest in
VMC or marginal VMC (filed IFR, in that case).

You decide that you can afford to install *one* new permanent system
costing from USD 4K to USD 10K this year, and possibly one in each
following year (but not for certain). Arrange the following list in
the order that *you* think would make your IFR flying safest, putting
the highest priority item at the top. If you want, you can assume
that you already have some kind of backup vacuum system. These are
currently in alphabetical order:

Electric AI (backup)
Engine monitor (i.e. EDM 700)
HSI (slaved)
IFR GPS (non-moving-map, at this price)
Stormscope (or Strikefinder)
TPAS
Wing leveller (or other general single-axis AP)

For some people, there will come a point in the list where it makes
more safety sense each year to spend the money on additional
maintenance, inspections, and proactive replacement of typical failure
items like the alternator or vacuum pump (or even the navcom radios);
others will likely run down the full list and want to add more at the
end.

I'll post my own list shortly, but I will mention in advance that
neither the IFR GPS nor the wing leveller will be at the bottom.


All the best,


David

[Snowbird]

(Ben Jackson) wrote in message news:<CIXqb.140965$Tr4.368294@attbi_s03>...
> In article >,
> Snowbird > wrote:
> >At a fundamental level, this is correct. No amount of fancy
> >gear can compensate for fundamental flying skills (or the lack
> >thereof) and for pilot judgement.

> Oh come on, a 777 can do Cat IIIb autoland if I know how to push
> the buttons, even if I couldn't maintain heading or altitude without
> the autopilot. A GPS with "nearest" has rescued plenty of pilots
> from bad judgement or poor pilotage.

Ben, I hope it's unintentional, but the way you cut my post
(with this the only excerpt included) superficially looks as
though you are arguing against the position (I hope) it's
clear I hold. In general, I agree with what you write below.

However, I don't think your examples above obviate my point:
if the Cat IIIb autopilot fritzes and your fundamental flying
skills suck, you're in doo doo. If the situation at hand falls
outside the parameters where a Cat IIIb autopilot is helpful
(the Arkansas accident comes to mind) the plane is in doo doo.
Likewise, if a pilot's judgement or skills didn't suck, the GPS
wouldn't have to save him and if the situation falls outside the
parameters where the GPS usefully contributes, it *won't* save
him. At the most fundamental level, and despite what aerospace
industry might like us to believe, there is still no substitute
for piloting skill and piloting judgement.

> This whole thread is nuts. There are many levels of safety, and
> people have to choose between them all the time.

Exactly.

> Why can't people
> who have decided not to install an autopilot just admit that they
> have chosen a slightly lower level of safety?

Because they don't believe it. Why don't they believe it?
Wrong person to ask. As I hope was clear from previous posts.

> It doesn't matter if I could draw a 3-meter resolution map
> of the US from memory, however good (or bad) I am, the GPS would
> augment that.

Exactly.

> If inflating a tire cost $12000 I bet we'd have people here arguing
> that they were just as safe with good landing technique on a flat tire.

*chuckle*
Sydney

[Bob Noel]

In article >, David Megginson
> wrote:

> You decide that you can afford to install *one* new permanent system
> costing from USD 4K to USD 10K this year, and possibly one in each
> following year (but not for certain). Arrange the following list in
> the order that *you* think would make your IFR flying safest, putting
> the highest priority item at the top. If you want, you can assume
> that you already have some kind of backup vacuum system. These are
> currently in alphabetical order:
>
> Electric AI (backup)
> Engine monitor (i.e. EDM 700)
> HSI (slaved)
> IFR GPS (non-moving-map, at this price)
> Stormscope (or Strikefinder)
> TPAS
> Wing leveller (or other general single-axis AP)

my order of preference:

Stormscope (or Strikefinder) - handflying or not, thunderstorms are bad
Single-axis autopilot - reduce workload
HSI - reduce workload
Electric AI - redundancy
Engine monitor - gotta keep an eye on the engine
IFR GPS - yeah, whatever
TPAS - is this a poor man's TCAS?

--
Bob Noel

[David Megginson]

Bob Noel > writes:

> my order of preference:
>
> Stormscope (or Strikefinder) - handflying or not, thunderstorms are bad
> Single-axis autopilot - reduce workload
> HSI - reduce workload
> Electric AI - redundancy
> Engine monitor - gotta keep an eye on the engine
> IFR GPS - yeah, whatever
> TPAS - is this a poor man's TCAS?

That's pretty close to my safety shopping list for future enhancements
to my IFR panel:

1. Stormscope (or Strikefinder)
2. Engine monitor
3. Single-axis autopilot
4. Electric AI
5. TPAS
6. IFR GPS
7. slaved HSI

For me, the Stormscope is the most obvious safety item -- there's
always that lingering chance of stumbling into unforecast CB in IMC,
and if that happens, you're in the hands of god. Right now, I don't
fly in IMC if there's any CB forecast in the TAFs or GFA anywhere near
my route, but I recognize that even that may be too large a risk. On
the downside, a Stormscope can encourage a pilot to go flying on days
when it's really better to stay on the ground (i.e. an approaching
squall line).

Since I fly single-engine IFR, the engine monitor comes next. If I
were flying a twin, it would be much further down the list, but from
what I have heard, modern engine monitors (properly used) can detect
some impending failures far enough in advance to give me a shot at a
precautionary landing. If that's true, it's a huge safety benefit,
flying single-engine in IMC. Of course, most forced landings happen
because people run out of gas, not because the engine fails.

All of the autopilot fans should be relieved to see that I consider
the AP the next most important item from a strict safety perspective,
for obvious reasons -- it gives me a panic button to hit in case of
severe vertigo and/or spatial-disorientation. In fact, it's very
close to the engine monitor, and the two could easily trade places.

The AI is next strictly from a safety perspective, in case of vacuum
failure: I have trouble thinking of situations where an IFR GPS would
mean life or death, but in real life, I consider convenience as well
as safety so I'd probably buy the IFR GPS first to open up more
approaches and routings to me.

The TPAS is a marginal safety item for me, since I'm always in radar
coverage anyway -- it would be much more significant if I did any IFR
flying in northern Canada, where most low-level IFR happens in class G
outside of radar coverage.

The IFR GPS and HSI are not direct safety items -- properly used, they
can reduce workload, providing an indirect safety benefit (the same
way that a healthy breakfast and moderate exercise every day provide
an indirect safety benefit). Unlike the other items, though, they do
not directly help me to avoid accidents, though they can make
flying much more pleasant.


All the best,


David

[Dan Luke]

"Bob Noel" wrote:

> IFR GPS - yeah, whatever

Huh? I'd have to put that at the top of the list unless I flew in the
mountain west where IMC flying is rare or impossible in such an
airplane.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Greg Goodknight]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "Bob Noel" wrote:
>
> > IFR GPS - yeah, whatever
>
> Huh? I'd have to put that at the top of the list unless I flew in the
> mountain west where IMC flying is rare or impossible in such an
> airplane.
> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM

GPS is something I'd like to have since many airports only have a GPS
approach, and at my home airport (O17) the GPS approach has an MEA that's
272 above the tdze, vs. 1128 for the VOR. A greater chance for successfully
landing at the intended airport is a powerful incentive.

However, to my mind safety is a different issue and the reality may be that
GPS's do not actually increase safety, and some or all current GPS's could
actually decrease safety over traditional land based navaids. One particular
fatal accident that sticks in my mind as probably GPS related is this SR 20
inbound to RHV, which went haywire after passing the FAF:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20030206X00175&key=1

I get most of the safety benefits (accurate ground track and speed,
situational awareness, nearest airport, ETA) of an IFR GPS by using a
handheld VFR "only" Garmin GPS 92, with a bonus of it being the only working
NAV device on the airplane if I have a failure of the aircraft electrical
system. In that emergency, the '92 is immediately blessed as an IFR device
and I'll be happy to use it and will wish I had a 196, but I'll live with
that small decrease of the margin of safety for now.

To my mind, the huge cost of installation and software maintenance of
currently available IFR GPS units is not justified by the very few times
that it would save me the inconvenience of landing 30 miles away at the
nearest civilian runway served by an ILS and rent a car or pester a friend
to come pick me up. Perhaps when some manufacturer decides to support the
raw FAA Digital Database (FAA/NACO claims availability in December), I'll
think about it again.

-Greg

[Roger Halstead]

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 15:25:00 GMT, David Megginson
> wrote:

>Roy Smith > writes:
>

<snip>
>
My priorities would be:

1. Electric AI (backup)
Major safety item if you spend much time in the clouds.

2. Stormscope (or Strikefinder)
Very close to #1 in importance.

3. Wing leveller (or other general single-axis AP)
But I think you can get a nice one that will slave to your
nav radios and DG "with" altitude hold for 10 grand.

4. Engine monitor (i.e. EDM 700)
5. HSI (slaved)
6. IFR GPS (non-moving-map, at this price)

I had to think a bit on the last three.
I consider the engine monitor a safety device.
The HSI is kinda nice, but not a real necessity.
IFR GPS without a moving map? I'll stick with my old VFR hand held
which does have the moving map for situational awareness
I currently have RNAV and can fly direct without having GPS.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
> TPAS

>
>For some people, there will come a point in the list where it makes
>more safety sense each year to spend the money on additional
>maintenance, inspections, and proactive replacement of typical failure
>items like the alternator or vacuum pump (or even the navcom radios);
>others will likely run down the full list and want to add more at the
>end.
>
>I'll post my own list shortly, but I will mention in advance that
>neither the IFR GPS nor the wing leveller will be at the bottom.
>
>
>All the best,
>
>
>David

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article >, David Megginson
> > wrote:
>
>
>>You decide that you can afford to install *one* new permanent system
>>costing from USD 4K to USD 10K this year, and possibly one in each
>>following year (but not for certain). Arrange the following list in
>>the order that *you* think would make your IFR flying safest, putting
>>the highest priority item at the top. If you want, you can assume
>>that you already have some kind of backup vacuum system. These are
>>currently in alphabetical order:
>>
>> Electric AI (backup)
>> Engine monitor (i.e. EDM 700)
>> HSI (slaved)
>> IFR GPS (non-moving-map, at this price)
>> Stormscope (or Strikefinder)
>> TPAS
>> Wing leveller (or other general single-axis AP)
>
>
> my order of preference:
>
> Stormscope (or Strikefinder) - handflying or not, thunderstorms are bad
> Single-axis autopilot - reduce workload
> HSI - reduce workload
> Electric AI - redundancy
> Engine monitor - gotta keep an eye on the engine
> IFR GPS - yeah, whatever
> TPAS - is this a poor man's TCAS?
>

I'm basically in agreement with your list. I owned a Skylane for
several years that was equipped with a Strikerfinder and portable GPS
(not IFR certified), but no autopilot. I'd modify your list as follows:

Stormscope (or Strikefinder) - handflying or not, thunderstorms are bad
HSI - reduce workload
Electric AI - redundancy
Engine monitor - gotta keep an eye on the engine
IFR GPS - yeah, whatever
Single-axis autopilot - reduce workload
TPAS - is this a poor man's TCAS?

I only had a couple of instances where an autopilot would have been
handy, however, it was never missed all that much. I flew in the
northeast where things are fairly busy and about the only time I wished
for an AP was when NY center gave me a complete route amendment before
I'd even reached cruising altitude...


Matt

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

> "Bob Noel" wrote:
>
> > IFR GPS - yeah, whatever
>
> Huh? I'd have to put that at the top of the list unless I flew in the
> mountain west where IMC flying is rare or impossible in such an
> airplane.

My panel is enough to fly IFR to most of the airports around
here (KBED). Until recently, it wouldn't provide any operational
advantage at all - especially a non-moving map model.

--
Bob Noel

[Snowbird]

David Megginson > wrote in message >...

> You decide that you can afford to install *one* new permanent system
> costing from USD 4K to USD 10K this year, and possibly one in each
> following year (but not for certain). Arrange the following list in
> the order that *you* think would make your IFR flying safest, putting
> the highest priority item at the top. If you want, you can assume
> that you already have some kind of backup vacuum system. These are
> currently in alphabetical order:
>
> Electric AI (backup)
> Engine monitor (i.e. EDM 700)
> HSI (slaved)
> IFR GPS (non-moving-map, at this price)
> Stormscope (or Strikefinder)
> TPAS
> Wing leveller (or other general single-axis AP)

FWIW, and considering as much as I can from the standpoint of
*safety*, not utility:
(handheld GPS, not mentioned, just inserted from my priorities.
I would not fly IMC in a SE plane with 1 alternator without
it. my personal view based on experience and whattodoofing.)
*wing leveller
*stormscope
*electric AI
*rather put the money elsewhere

This may be skewed by the fact that I've never flown with
an HSI or heard first-hand from someone who liked TPAS. It's
also skewed by the fact that we get some in cockpit wx from
CBAV and are consciously conservative about IMC near tstorms.

We have both an IFR GPS and a four-cylinder engine monitor
and while both of them are indeed very handy and helpful,
I don't personally feel they do much to improve safety in flight.

The engine monitor is helpful when I have a rough mag drop
I can't burn off. L/R tells me top or bottom, the engine
monitor tells me exactly which plug. It warns me of impending
problems sometimes. But in flight if the engine's running rough
it's pretty low on the priority list to stick my head in the
cockpit and scrutinize the engine monitor.

We love our IFR GPS. It gives us a huge amount of utility.
Bang for the buck, it's the most cost-effective nav. equipment
in the plane. But for safety, I don't see it as giving much
that a handheld GPS (esp. with an installed external antenna
and power feed) doesn't provide.

For utility, this is strictly a matter of personal
flight patterns. We fly a lot to small airports where the
choice is GPS or NDB, and we also fly a lot in a region with
decent radar coverage at our altitudes and low enough
traffic that we can be cleared direct.

If we flew a lot out west where we'd have to be on airways
'cuz there's no radar, or if we mostly flew into airports
served by VOR and LOC approaches, AND if we already had
a solid ADF and DME, the IFR GPS wouldn't add as much.

I suppose it could be argued that flying a GPS approach is
significantly safer than an NDB approach flown by God's Gift
to Instrument Flight but I ain't goin' there *g*. I do
have my limits!

BTW, you can certainly get a moving-map IFR GPS installed and
certified within the budget you mention. It won't be the
latest and greatest 430 or 530 unit. It will be an early-generation
IFR GPS slaved to a simple moving map unit or a 2nd/3rd generation
IFR GPS which includes a basic moving map. My CFI just an UPSAT
model installed in his Cheetah for ~4-5K -- hard to tell exactly
as he had other work done at the same time such as installing a
2nd glideslope receiver.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
Roger Halstead > wrote:
>I consider the engine monitor a safety device.

I'd consider it an investment. It's cheap to install (compared to
the other things in the list). If it allows you to do preventative
maintenance on your own terms, or identifies a problem cylinder, bad
baffling, or other engine life issues it will start earning its keep.

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

[Dan Luke]

"Bob Noel" wrote:
> My panel is enough to fly IFR to most of the airports around
> here (KBED). Until recently, it wouldn't provide any operational
> advantage at all - especially a non-moving map model.

I would have been unable to complete two recent Angel Flights without an
IFR GPS. I don't know how it is in the Northeast, but down here
(Alabama), I'd be crippled without it. Mine's not a moving map model,
but that's not much of a factor in its utility since I have a moving map
portable on the yoke.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"Greg Goodknight" wrote:
> GPS is something I'd like to have since many airports only have
> a GPS approach, and at my home airport (O17) the GPS
> approach has an MEA that's 272 above the tdze, vs. 1128
> for the VOR. A greater chance for successfully
> landing at the intended airport is a powerful incentive.

Exactly why I'd put it #1.

> However, to my mind safety is a different issue and the reality may be
> that GPS's do not actually increase safety, and some or all current
> GPS's could actually decrease safety over traditional land based
> navaids. One particular fatal accident that sticks in my mind as
> probably GPS related is this SR 20 inbound to RHV, which went
> haywire after passing the FAF:
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20030206X00175&key=1

Well, no approach or equipment is "pilot proof." To conclude from this
that GPS's do not actually increase safety is a bit of a stretch, don't
you think? It was a GPS approach, so of course it was "GPS related" but
it sounds to me like the pilot became distracted while hand flying the
approach.

> I get most of the safety benefits (accurate ground track and speed,
> situational awareness, nearest airport, ETA) of an IFR GPS by
> using a handheld VFR "only" Garmin GPS 92, with a bonus of it
> being the only working NAV device on the airplane if I have a
> failure of the aircraft electrical system.

Same here. I will not fly IFR without my 295.

> To my mind, the huge cost of installation and software maintenance of
> currently available IFR GPS units is not justified by the very few
times
> that it would save me the inconvenience of landing 30 miles away at
the
> nearest civilian runway served by an ILS and rent a car or pester a
friend
> to come pick me up.

That's where we disagree -- except about the fact that the cost is huge!
Recent experience has taught me that a certified GPS is an absolute must
nowadays.

> Perhaps when some manufacturer decides to support the
> raw FAA Digital Database (FAA/NACO claims availability
> in December), I'll think about it again.

Not familiar. What's that going to do for us?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Thomas Borchert]

Snowbird,

> heard first-hand from someone who liked TPAS.
>

you just did (Monroy ATD). Wouldn't fly without it anymore.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Andrew Gideon]

Dan Luke wrote:

> I would have been unable to complete two recent Angel Flights without an
> IFR GPS. I don't know how it is in the Northeast, but down here
> (Alabama), I'd be crippled without it. Mine's not a moving map model,
> but that's not much of a factor in its utility since I have a moving map
> portable on the yoke.

What about the flights/GPS made the two flights possible? Airports with
nothing but GPS approaches?

I guess I'm spoiled. I *love* flying with an IFR GPS, and it was a part of
my IFR training. But my "home" airport has a localizer approach, so the
extra couple of hundred feet of a GPS approach can seem very limiting.
Hell, I even get annoyed with the extra couple of hundred feet I've lost by
not having a glideslope.

Last week, for example, I canceled a "for fun" flight because the ceilings
were too low for the GPS approach at the airport to which I'd have to
return. Had it been at my home airport (and had they not closed the runway
with the localizer for maintenance), I'd have gone and had some nice actual
time.

[Of course, we all expect the ceiling to go up as soon as the cancel
decision is made. This time, it went down. Nice feeling, in a weird way.]

I think if I'd the choice, I'd put something other than the IFR GPS at the
top of my list. It would probably be either the AI backup or a weather
device. I'd prefer something more "strategic" than a strikefinder, though.
That still permits...surprises of an unfortunate sort.

But I have to admit: most of my flights are for fun of one sort or another.
So I can usually choose a destination with the type of approach I want. I
very rarely "need" to be flying anywhere. If I were doing something (ie.
Angel Flights) which dictated airports, an IFR GPS might be a bigger deal.

- Andrew

[Teacherjh]

>>
> Perhaps when some manufacturer decides to support the
> raw FAA Digital Database (FAA/NACO claims availability
> in December), I'll think about it again.

Not familiar. What's that going to do for us?
<<

I believe it would free us from paying hundreds of dollars for a subscription
to data we've already paid for in taxes.

Jose

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

[Doug]

I think everyone is going to have a different priority. (There are 7!
solutions). Mine would be:

Engine Monitor (though it doesn't have to be an all cylinder one)
IFR GPS (very useful VFR and enroute IFR, I use the VOR/GS for most
approaches)
AutoPilot (all electric, covers me for vacuum failure that way)
Stormscope
Electric AI
HSI
TPAS


Bob Noel > wrote in message >...
> In article >, David Megginson
> > wrote:
>
> > You decide that you can afford to install *one* new permanent system
> > costing from USD 4K to USD 10K this year, and possibly one in each
> > following year (but not for certain). Arrange the following list in
> > the order that *you* think would make your IFR flying safest, putting
> > the highest priority item at the top. If you want, you can assume
> > that you already have some kind of backup vacuum system. These are
> > currently in alphabetical order:
> >
> > Electric AI (backup)
> > Engine monitor (i.e. EDM 700)
> > HSI (slaved)
> > IFR GPS (non-moving-map, at this price)
> > Stormscope (or Strikefinder)
> > TPAS
> > Wing leveller (or other general single-axis AP)
>
> my order of preference:
>
> Stormscope (or Strikefinder) - handflying or not, thunderstorms are bad
> Single-axis autopilot - reduce workload
> HSI - reduce workload
> Electric AI - redundancy
> Engine monitor - gotta keep an eye on the engine
> IFR GPS - yeah, whatever
> TPAS - is this a poor man's TCAS?

[David Megginson]

"Dan Luke" > writes:

> I would have been unable to complete two recent Angel Flights
> without an IFR GPS. I don't know how it is in the Northeast, but
> down here (Alabama), I'd be crippled without it. Mine's not a moving
> map model, but that's not much of a factor in its utility since I
> have a moving map portable on the yoke.

So far, most of the NDB approaches at Canadian airports seem to be
holding up, so I'm OK, but I imagine that five or ten years from now
I'll start having trouble getting into small airports in IMC without
an IFR GPS (especially when the current NDBs exist only for the
approach, rather than LF/MF airways).


All the best,


David

[Dan Luke]

"Andrew Gideon" wrote:
> > I would have been unable to complete two recent Angel Flights
> > without an> IFR GPS.

> What about the flights/GPS made the two flights possible? Airports
> with nothing but GPS approaches?

At the first one, the ceiling was below the MDA for the VOR-A approach
but ok for the straight in RNAV. At the second one the NDB is gone and
only GPS approaches serve the airport.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Snowbird]

Andrew Gideon > wrote in message e.com>...
<most of the main point snipped>
> I think if I'd the choice, I'd put something other than the IFR GPS at the
> top of my list. It would probably be either the AI backup or a weather
> device. I'd prefer something more "strategic" than a strikefinder, though.
> That still permits...surprises of an unfortunate sort.

Andrew

Could you expand a bit upon this? What sort of surprises do you
feel sferics allow and in what circs?

What would you prefer for GA wx avoidance?

Thanks,
Sydney

[Snowbird]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in message >...
> > heard first-hand from someone who liked TPAS.

> you just did (Monroy ATD). Wouldn't fly without it anymore.

I'm sorry, I guess I should have chosen my language more
precisely. I've heard from several folks on the newsgroups
who really like it. What I meant by "first hand" was someone
I know personally and can chat with face to face or better yet
fly with, who flies in an area I'm familiar with, in order to
get a better idea what it could do for me.

Self centered git I guess ;}

But, given the limitations of this media and the fact that IIRC
you fly in a different country -- would you mind expanding a
bit upon what you like about TPAS and in what circs you find
it "don't leave home w/out it" useful?

Thanks!
Sydney

[Greg Goodknight]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "Greg Goodknight" wrote:
> > GPS is something I'd like to have since many airports only have
> > a GPS approach, and at my home airport (O17) the GPS
> > approach has an MEA that's 272 above the tdze, vs. 1128
> > for the VOR. A greater chance for successfully
> > landing at the intended airport is a powerful incentive.
>
> Exactly why I'd put it #1.
>
> > However, to my mind safety is a different issue and the reality may be
> > that GPS's do not actually increase safety, and some or all current
> > GPS's could actually decrease safety over traditional land based
> > navaids. One particular fatal accident that sticks in my mind as
> > probably GPS related is this SR 20 inbound to RHV, which went
> > haywire after passing the FAF:
> > http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20030206X00175&key=1
>
> Well, no approach or equipment is "pilot proof." To conclude from this
> that GPS's do not actually increase safety is a bit of a stretch, don't
> you think? It was a GPS approach, so of course it was "GPS related" but
> it sounds to me like the pilot became distracted while hand flying the
> approach.

I think it not a stretch at all to conclude the pilot was probably
distracted by the GPS. Pressed some button he shouldn't have after passing
the FAF (final approach fix), maybe. Maybe a power glitch, who knows. He
certainly wasn't focused on the directional gyro.

Just came from the airport here and mentioned this conversation with my
favorite CFII and Meridian charter operator. He doesn't think IFR GPSs add
any safety either, just utility. In fact they can be dangerous if the pilot
i fiddling with the unit and loses track of what is important. Like
altitude.

VOR/ILS/LOC may be crude but what they lack in utility they make up for (in
safety) by being a very robust technology with a very simple user interface
and an instantaneous reboot time ;)


>
> > I get most of the safety benefits (accurate ground track and speed,
> > situational awareness, nearest airport, ETA) of an IFR GPS by
> > using a handheld VFR "only" Garmin GPS 92, with a bonus of it
> > being the only working NAV device on the airplane if I have a
> > failure of the aircraft electrical system.
>
> Same here. I will not fly IFR without my 295.
>
> > To my mind, the huge cost of installation and software maintenance of
> > currently available IFR GPS units is not justified by the very few
> times
> > that it would save me the inconvenience of landing 30 miles away at
> the
> > nearest civilian runway served by an ILS and rent a car or pester a
> friend
> > to come pick me up.
>
> That's where we disagree -- except about the fact that the cost is huge!
> Recent experience has taught me that a certified GPS is an absolute must
> nowadays.
>
> > Perhaps when some manufacturer decides to support the
> > raw FAA Digital Database (FAA/NACO claims availability
> > in December), I'll think about it again.
>
> Not familiar. What's that going to do for us?

Decrease the cash flow from you to Jeppessen. The Jepp prices dropped to the
current level when the FAA announced the project. Now it's being delivered.
I'm not buying a GPS that requires me to buy FAA data at a high price from a
third or fourth party.

-Greg

> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM
>
>

[Andrew Gideon]

Snowbird wrote:

> Could you expand a bit upon this? What sort of surprises do you
> feel sferics allow and in what circs?
>
> What would you prefer for GA wx avoidance?

A strikefinder, as I understand it, tells where lightning is. I prefer to
know where it's going to be.

As far as surprises: the first strike has to be somewhere. There's nothing
but "big sky" which says that it'll be 200 miles out (the limit of the
strikefinder in a plane I fly) instead of 200 feet out.

What would I prefer? I don't really know what's available. RADAR would be
nice.

- Andrew

[Teacherjh]

>>
A strikefinder, as I understand it, tells where lightning is. I prefer to
know where it's going to be. [...] the first strike has to be somewhere.
<<

One infers where it's going to be from where it's been. I suspect (but don't
know since I haven't used it) that a strikefinder also shows the little sparks
that aren't full lightning strokes which may occur before a storm fully
develops. So, you would get some advance warning. But the only device that
tells the future is transparant and spherical.

>>
What would I prefer? I don't really know what's available. RADAR would be
nice.
<<

Radar only shows rain (and such), not turbulence. You can get heavy rain in
smooth air, and wing-wrenching turbulence in clear air. Radar is good info,
but again requires interpretation and active management (you need to tilt up
and down to see stuff above and below).

Jose


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

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
> Snowbird wrote:
>
>
>>Could you expand a bit upon this? What sort of surprises do you
>>feel sferics allow and in what circs?
>>
>>What would you prefer for GA wx avoidance?
>
>
> A strikefinder, as I understand it, tells where lightning is. I prefer to
> know where it's going to be.

I don't know of any clairvoyant avionics at present. :-) Lightning is
lonely and tends to stay with friends. So, if you see one strike,
you'll likely see others very near by.


> As far as surprises: the first strike has to be somewhere. There's nothing
> but "big sky" which says that it'll be 200 miles out (the limit of the
> strikefinder in a plane I fly) instead of 200 feet out.

True, but using your eyes and center radar can give you a clue where the
activity is likely to begin. No guarantees though.


> What would I prefer? I don't really know what's available. RADAR would be
> nice.

I'd prefer both sferics and radar, but given the need for a pod on a
single and the cost, I think a Strikefinder or Stormscope is an
excellent investment. I flew with a Strikefinder for many years and
found it very helpful in avoiding thunderstorms. I personally would
rather fly in heavy rain than in heavy turbulence, and lightning tends
to correlate well with turbulence.


Matt

[Tom S.]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "Bob Noel" wrote:
>
> > IFR GPS - yeah, whatever
>
> Huh? I'd have to put that at the top of the list unless I flew in the
> mountain west where IMC flying is rare or impossible in such an
> airplane.

Out west you might not be in IMC, but "on top", where the peaks poke through
the cloud tops, is quite common.

Imagine letting down through those conditions.

[Andrew Gideon]

Matthew S. Whiting wrote:

> I don't know of any clairvoyant avionics at present. :-)

Huh. Damned FAA.

[...]
>> As far as surprises: the first strike has to be somewhere. There's
>> nothing but "big sky" which says that it'll be 200 miles out (the limit
>> of the strikefinder in a plane I fly) instead of 200 feet out.
>
> True, but using your eyes and center radar can give you a clue where the
> activity is likely to begin. No guarantees though.

In IMC, how useful are eyes? This is not a rhetorical question, BTW. *Is*
there something for which we should be looking?

>
>> What would I prefer? I don't really know what's available. RADAR would
>> be nice.
>
> I'd prefer both sferics and radar, but given the need for a pod on a
> single and the cost, I think a Strikefinder or Stormscope is an
> excellent investment.

Ah. I was actually thinking of something like NEXRAD downloads. I think
the type of RADAR you mean will be...a while in coming for me.

> I flew with a Strikefinder for many years and
> found it very helpful in avoiding thunderstorms. I personally would
> rather fly in heavy rain than in heavy turbulence, and lightning tends
> to correlate well with turbulence.

Yes, well, nowadays I associate rain with icing. But that's temporary; I'll
get over it in a few months. Of course, that too is temporary.

- Andrew

[Dave Butler]

> To help everyone in this discussion avoid jumping to absolutes (I'm
> not accusing you of that, by the way), here's a different way to
> approach the problem. Let's say you have a basic plane like mine -- a
> 125 kt, 160 hp, fixed-gear Warrior II with dual NAVCOM, DME, and ADF
> -- that you fly a few hours each month in actual IMC and the rest in
> VMC or marginal VMC (filed IFR, in that case).

I think given the class of airplane, you really need to consider trading up to a
more capable airplane before installing some of the items on the list. You'll
end up with way more money invested in your upgrades than you can recoup on
resale for this kind of airplane. Besides, you'll find it's less expensive to
let someone else install this stuff. Buy an airplane with the equipment you want
already installed, to the extent possible. But OK, I'll accept your premise
anyway, and comment on your list

>
> You decide that you can afford to install *one* new permanent system
> costing from USD 4K to USD 10K this year, and possibly one in each
> following year (but not for certain). Arrange the following list in
> the order that *you* think would make your IFR flying safest, putting
> the highest priority item at the top. If you want, you can assume
> that you already have some kind of backup vacuum system. These are
> currently in alphabetical order:
>
> Electric AI (backup)

Go with the dual-rotor vacuum pump from http://www.aeroadvantage.com instead.
There just isn't a quality electric AI on the market that's in the price range
of what you'd want in a piston single. They are either way too expensive, or
they just don't work very well. Apologies if everyone is getting tired of me
pushing this dual-rotor pump, I've posted about it several times. I just think
it's a great price performer and gives a lot of redundancy for the money.

> Engine monitor (i.e. EDM 700)

Nice to have, but not a necessity in this class of airplane. Get one when you
move up to a big-displacement six.

> HSI (slaved)

Nice to have, but too expensive to put in this class of airplane.

> IFR GPS (non-moving-map, at this price)

Yes. I might even spring for the moving map. Garmin 430 is still the sweet spot
in this market, IMO, for this class of airplane.

> Stormscope (or Strikefinder)

Very useful if you're doing summer cross countries, at least in the middle
atlantic states where I fly most. Adds a lot of capability to the airplane, IMO.
Marginal whether you want to move up to more of a travelling airplane first,
rather than put this money into a basic IFR trainer.

> TPAS

I think the mode-S transponder with the Garmin 430 might be justifiable in this
airplane, especially if you're getting the 430 anyway, and have to replace the
transponder for some reason.

> Wing leveller (or other general single-axis AP)

Yes, useful. Consider getting one that's independent of vacuum.

Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

Dave

[David Megginson]

Dave Butler > writes:

> I think given the class of airplane, you really need to consider
> trading up to a more capable airplane before installing some of the
> items on the list.

Yes, I agree -- the point of the exercise was just to get away from
absolute arguments about autopilots, IFR GPS, etc., and see how people
actually prioritize safety equipment on airplanes.

In real life, I may have to move up to an Archer or even a Six in a
few years anyway as my family grows, so I'll probably look for most of
what I need already installed in that. I may install a few of the
things near the top of my own list, but I'm waiting to prove to myself
that they're necessary. The Stormscope (probably used) and
wing-leveller (new) are the most likely candidates; an IFR GPS would
slip in only if I had to start cancelling trips or diverting to
alternates because of a lack of non-GPS approaches.

> Go with the dual-rotor vacuum pump from http://www.aeroadvantage.com
> instead. There just isn't a quality electric AI on the market that's
> in the price range of what you'd want in a piston single.

I planned to do that when my previous pump failed in September, but
AeroAdvantage was quoting a shipping date more a month away and
talking as if it could be much longer -- I didn't want my plane to end
up grounded for most of the fall.

>> Wing leveller (or other general single-axis AP)
>
> Yes, useful. Consider getting one that's independent of vacuum.

If I do this, I'll put in a new STEC 20, unless something better comes
along in the low price range before then.


All the best,


David

[Gig Giacona]

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Snowbird" > wrote in message
> om...
> > With practice, one learns to compensate and *not* pull the yoke
> > while performing other tasks. You move your eyes or position,
> > scan to be sure you're compensating correctly, then go back to
> > task.
>
> Also, learn to handle the yoke without using a death grip. It may require
a
> bit more than fingertip pressure to handle the yoke in turbulence, but
> "white knuckles" only makes the sensations worse.
>
>

Go get a few hours in a Robinson R22. You will learn how to lightly grip the
stick.

[Dave Butler]

David Megginson wrote:
> Dave Butler > writes:

>>Go with the dual-rotor vacuum pump from http://www.aeroadvantage.com
>>instead. There just isn't a quality electric AI on the market that's
>>in the price range of what you'd want in a piston single.
>
>
> I planned to do that when my previous pump failed in September, but
> AeroAdvantage was quoting a shipping date more a month away and
> talking as if it could be much longer -- I didn't want my plane to end
> up grounded for most of the fall.

Quite so. You probably need to think of it as an upgrade and just replace the
pump preemptively while your old pump is still working. That way you have a
working pump to keep around as a spare. When I got mine a few weeks ago they
were quoting 3 weeks delivery.

Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

Regards,

Dave

[Michael]

David Megginson > wrote
> But they do have better statistics about accidents than we can get
> publicly. They know a lot about their individual policy holders, both
> the ones who get in accidents and the ones who don't.

Yep. Therefore, the things that do (and don't) get you lower rates
are telling.

There are two PA-30's on my home field now. I own one of them. Both
are insured. I pay about 35% of what the other guy is paying for the
same coverage. There are reasons.

My PA-30 has Stormscope, autopilot, and backup AI. His has none of
these things. However, the insurance companies don't care. They
don't even ask. Further, I agree with their logic. I do not believe
any of these items is a significant safety advantage. However, each
provides a utility advantage.

Backup AI - unlike most people here, I've had an AI failure in night
IMC, on the climbout, during a reroute. No big deal flying partial
panel. Also no big deal flying the AI on the passenger side. But
having the extra AI meant I was legally able to complete my flight,
rather than calling it off and coming home.

Autopilot - great workload reducer for those long days in the cockpit.
Spending 10 hours in the seat without it means being worn down to the
bone by about the ninth hour. If the last two hours of the flight are
going to be night-IMC with bad weather and a circling approach, I'll
bag it and stay the night somewhere. But my new MO is to have the A/P
fly the boring enroute segments in good weather, while I listen to
tunes, watch the scenery, eat a sandwich, and save the hand flying for
the bad weather. Then I hand fly the last couple of hours, fresh as a
daisy.

Stormscope - means I can launch into areas of scattered T-storms and
go around the cells. As I've gained experience with it and learned
the fine points of interpretation, I've discovered that it can be used
as a predictive device (contrary to some opinions expressed here).
I've completed many flights with it that would otherwise be no-go.
RADAR would be nice, but it's about 5% more capability at ten times
the cost.

On the other hand, there are things the insurer does want to know. In
addition to the usual (total time, multi time, make and model time)
they're starting to really pay attention to recurrent training.
Nobody (including me) is covered in my airplane unless, within the
past 12 months, he has had an IPC which includes single engine ops -
in make and model. Just being legally curent for IFR no longer cuts
it, and neither does an IPC in a simpler airplane. I can get a policy
without this restriction - for $1300/year more.

The implication is clear. Rather than spending your time and money on
gadgets, go for high quality recurrent training. It will make far
more difference than any gadget.

> Electric AI (backup)

There is no electric AI out there that is reasonably reliable at a
reasonable price. RC Allen is junk. Further, for what you pay for
that backup, you can take recurrent training in partial panel
operations every three months. If you keep your partial panel skills
honed to a fine edge, I assure you that loss of an AI will be no big
deal, especially in a Warrior.

Then there's the issue of the vacuum pumps. Vacuum pumps are
extremely reliable, last longer than the engine, and fail gracefully
with plenty of warning. Of course I mean wet pumps. Dry pumps are
unmitigated junk. They fail catastrophically, with no warning, on a
regular basis - if you need one, you really need two. Also, since
they have an infant mortality rate, prophylactic replacement is really
not a solution. The solution is replacing the dry pump with wet.
There are wet pumps made for most engines, especially the O-320.

> Engine monitor (i.e. EDM 700)

Engine monitors are great for maintenance - they immediately tell you
which jug is bad. Problem is, you can't do anything about it in the
air anyway, and you're going to know that SOMETHING is wrong without
one. They're great for efficiency - with one of those and GAMI's you
can run lean of peak and save on fuel. Of course it will take
hundreds of hours to make up the costs of the equipment and
installation. Frankly, I'm not too impressed by an engine monitor as
a safety item.

> HSI (slaved)

Nice to have. Not particularly important unless your scan is poor or
things happen very, very fast.

> IFR GPS (non-moving-map, at this price)

In 3+ years of flying IFR regularly, not having one forced me to
divert to a nearby airport and complete the remaining 11 miles of the
trip VFR - ONCE. Other than that, a VFR unit is dramatically cheaper,
has a better user interface, and, given the electrical systems of the
airplanes we're talking about, far more reliable. Yes, more reliable
- because it will run off backup battery power. Sure, you could do
that for an IFR GPS - if the FAA would let you. They won't.

Michael

[John R. Copeland]

Too many good points to comment on all of them, Michael.
But I'll add this about the slaved HSI...
If it also includes an ADF pointer, you'd wonder why anyone
would ever complain about NDB approaches.
You just make the raspberry-colored RMI arrow line up with
the Final Approach Course on the HSI, and then keep it there.

(I'm sure some RMI pointers aren't raspberry, but mine is.)

(I know....."Who cares about ADF?" Well, I kept mine.)
---JRC---

"Michael" > wrote in message =
om...
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> > HSI (slaved)
>=20
> Nice to have. Not particularly important unless your scan is poor or
> things happen very, very fast.
>=20
> Michael

[Tom S.]

"John R. Copeland" > wrote in message
...
Too many good points to comment on all of them, Michael.
But I'll add this about the slaved HSI...
If it also includes an ADF pointer, you'd wonder why anyone
would ever complain about NDB approaches.
You just make the raspberry-colored RMI arrow line up with
the Final Approach Course on the HSI, and then keep it there.

(I'm sure some RMI pointers aren't raspberry, but mine is.)

Lime green!

(I know....."Who cares about ADF?" Well, I kept mine.)
---JRC---

Some places, some backwaters, that's all there is.

[John R. Copeland]

"Tom S." > wrote in message =
...
>=20
> "John R. Copeland" > wrote in message
> ...
> Too many good points to comment on all of them, Michael.
> But I'll add this about the slaved HSI...
> If it also includes an ADF pointer, you'd wonder why anyone
> would ever complain about NDB approaches.
> You just make the raspberry-colored RMI arrow line up with
> the Final Approach Course on the HSI, and then keep it there.
>=20
> (I'm sure some RMI pointers aren't raspberry, but mine is.)
>=20
> Lime green!
>=20
> (I know....."Who cares about ADF?" Well, I kept mine.)
> ---JRC---
>=20
> Some places, some backwaters, that's all there is.
>=20
>=20

Besides, the ADF can point to thunderstorms!
How cool is that? :-)
---JRC---

[Bill Padley]

Hi there

For those thinking of TCAS,
I just took delivery of the first UK import of Surecheck trafficscope
VRX..the successor to TPAS...much nicer ....
maybe worth considering instead of TPAS on your shopping list! -its out in
the USA already

http://surecheck.net/five/avionics/vrx/

Bill Padley
London


"John R. Copeland" > wrote in message
...

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> "John R. Copeland" > wrote in message
> ...
> Too many good points to comment on all of them, Michael.
> But I'll add this about the slaved HSI...
> If it also includes an ADF pointer, you'd wonder why anyone
> would ever complain about NDB approaches.
> You just make the raspberry-colored RMI arrow line up with
> the Final Approach Course on the HSI, and then keep it there.
>
> (I'm sure some RMI pointers aren't raspberry, but mine is.)
>
> Lime green!
>
> (I know....."Who cares about ADF?" Well, I kept mine.)
> ---JRC---
>
> Some places, some backwaters, that's all there is.
>
>

Besides, the ADF can point to thunderstorms!
How cool is that? :-)
---JRC---

[Snowbird]

"Bill Padley" > wrote in message >...

> For those thinking of TCAS,
> I just took delivery of the first UK import of Surecheck trafficscope
> VRX..the successor to TPAS...much nicer ....
> maybe worth considering instead of TPAS on your shopping list! -its out in
> the USA already
>
> http://surecheck.net/five/avionics/vrx/

Interesting, but I wish the web site had more details about
how it works. For example, how does the built-in-altimeter work?
How does it cope with pressure changes? How does it develop
distance and altitude information on other aircraft? Does
it develop range, too?

I hope you'll put in a pirep as you get more used to it.

What concerns me is, when I most want "extra eyes" watching
for me is w/in a few miles of an airport. Yet there can be
5 planes in the vicinity of our airport, heck within 1.5 miles,
and none of them a threat to me. I'm afraid when I most need
such a device it would be nothing but a continuous cry of
"Wolf! Wolf!"

Cheers,
Sydney

[Eric Ulmer]

"Guy Elden Jr." > wrote in message >...
> Just got back from a good proficiency practice flight. This was the first
> time I'd flown single pilot IFR at night with conditions that could
> potentially deteriorate to actual instrument. (cloudy, rain developing as
> the flight progressed, visibility dropping somewhat)
>
....
>
> So to sum up: I had 1 VOR, 1 COM, and no backups in the plane for this trip.
> And the COM was flaky toward the end. Methinks this plane is about to be
> decommissioned from the flight line, because the owner refuses to put any
> more money into it. It also just came out of 100 hour, so should (in theory)
> be at its best operating capacity. I know I won't be trying any more trips
> at night or IFR in it anytime soon, but I'm glad I had the chance to push
> the boundaries a bit with the bare minimums for night IFR flight.

Given that you suspected the flight might turn into actual, did you
examine the
VOR checks done by other pilots in the last 30 days? I'd suspect if
the owner was an aircraft slumlord, that they weren't done... I got
bit by this once (second IFR solo flight after getting ticket), I
rented a plane where the VOR check was done, but only on one radio,
the other radio was off by about 13' and determining location by
station cross-reference put me into a confusing quandry where my time
based location wasn't matching the VOR cross reference location. Of
course I didn't realize that the second radio was bum or which VOR was
actually checked because it just said VOR check good +1', so It took
me another 20 minutes of sweating in hard actual to sluth out which
one was bad. I had to wait until an NDB passage to eliminate the bad
one. This was all over territory
which was outside ATC radar coverage, and when I did come into
coverage I was barked at because I had reported my position in the
wrong location (30 miles wrong). I informed them of electronics
problems and asked them to keep an eye on me. To compound my stress
levels, ATC later in the flight kept calling me asking my altitude and
telling me I was in a steep decent. This was due to a fresh and
faulty encoder install two days prior to me renting this plane.. No
idea why it kept doing that, but it sure freaked me out. Constantly
running through my mind were all the failure modes, blocked static,
failing gyros, etc etc.... I think I lost 40 pounds of weight and all
in perspiration on that trip. This stress could have all been avoided
if the log clearly stated which VOR was checked, and if the second one
wasn't checked I could have checked it myself before departing. (More
importantly, I should have realized that the entry was incorrect or
incomplete) The VOR problem combined with the fear of diving into the
ground due to some instrumentation failure were over the top
stressfull. The encoder by itself wouldn't have been so bad, but I
was already doubting the aircraft's quality before that happened due
to the VOR issue, so I started assuming everything was going to hell
in a handbasket... I learned more about troubleshooting problems on
that one trip than 90 hours of classroom lecture could ever be taught.

[Snowbird]

(Eric Ulmer) wrote in message >...

> Given that you suspected the flight might turn into actual, did you
> examine the
> VOR checks done by other pilots in the last 30 days?

Good advice from the legal perspective...

> rented a plane where the VOR check was done, but only on one radio,
> the other radio was off by about 13' and determining location by
> station cross-reference put me into a confusing quandry where my time
> based location wasn't matching the VOR cross reference location.

Would it have been possible for you to check both OBS against
each other, either on the ground or once airborne? I also like
to turn 10 degrees each way and be sure I get full deflection.

A VOR check sometime in the last 30 days may be legally comforting,
but perhaps not as useful as knowing that both OBS are working
correctly for *this flight*.

I have had it happen that I did a VOT check on Weds, and on
Sun. discovered that the #2 OBS required 20 degrees to get a
full scale deflection. Something had frotzed.

Even when there isn't an authorized VOR checkpoint one can
often pick up a radial somewhere on the airport, or track
the localizer on takeoff or something.

It sounds like a nervewracking trip for you.

Sydney

[Ron Natalie]

"Snowbird" > wrote in message om...

> Even when there isn't an authorized VOR checkpoint one can
> often pick up a radial somewhere on the airport, or track
> the localizer on takeoff or something.

Tracking the localizer won't tell you anything about VOR errors.

[John R. Copeland]

"Snowbird" > wrote in message =
om...
> "Bill Padley" > wrote in message =
>...
>=20
> > For those thinking of TCAS,
> > I just took delivery of the first UK import of Surecheck =
trafficscope
> > VRX..the successor to TPAS...much nicer ....
> > maybe worth considering instead of TPAS on your shopping list! -its =
out in
> > the USA already
> >=20
> > http://surecheck.net/five/avionics/vrx/
>=20
> Interesting, but I wish the web site had more details about
> how it works. For example, how does the built-in-altimeter work?
> How does it cope with pressure changes? How does it develop
> distance and altitude information on other aircraft? Does
> it develop range, too?
>=20
> I hope you'll put in a pirep as you get more used to it.
>=20
> What concerns me is, when I most want "extra eyes" watching
> for me is w/in a few miles of an airport. Yet there can be
> 5 planes in the vicinity of our airport, heck within 1.5 miles,=20
> and none of them a threat to me. I'm afraid when I most need
> such a device it would be nothing but a continuous cry of=20
> "Wolf! Wolf!"
>=20
> Cheers,
> Sydney

Sydney:
Regarding "Wolf! Wolf!", I'm on my third iteration of Ryan TCAD.
It scares me now to think of flying into busy areas without it.

I find that my Ryan 9900BX is selective enough about its advisories.
The TCAD does some simple vector prediction to calculate threats.
It doesn't rely solely on proximity.
And if you don't like the factory settings for your protected airspace =
volume,
you can change them.
Also, the TCAD has separate modes for approaches and departures,
both of which further reduce nuisance alarms near airports,
by focusing more on the airspace you're entering than what you're =
vacating.
---JRC---

[David Megginson]

(Eric Ulmer) writes:

> This stress could have all been avoided if the log clearly stated
> which VOR was checked, and if the second one wasn't checked I could
> have checked it myself before departing.

It might be worth checking every navigation radio before every IFR
flight, if you are lucky enough to have facilities within range -- for
me it's just part of the IFR preflight (including a test of the ADF
during taxi to make sure the needle is tracking when I turn), even
though I own my plane and am very familiar with it.

Out of interest, I've never seen a log entry in Canada for a pilot VOR
check (either in my own plane's journey log, or in the journey logs of
any rentals) -- the only time there's an entry is after equipment has
been installed or reinstalled. We have to do the checks, but I don't
think we have to log them -- is that right, or are a lot of us just
ignorant of the regs?


All the best,


David

[Greg]

.... and for flying I have
> a green LED on my mike boom that I can activate with my lip or keep on with
> a switch.


Where did you get that and what is it called? That sounds great!
Also someone used to make a light on a lanyard that could be worn
around your neck...anyone know where you can still buy these?

[John R. Copeland]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message =
m...
>=20
> "Snowbird" > wrote in message =
om...
>=20
> > Even when there isn't an authorized VOR checkpoint one can
> > often pick up a radial somewhere on the airport, or track
> > the localizer on takeoff or something.
>=20
> Tracking the localizer won't tell you anything about VOR errors.
>=20
>=20

It could, if the VOR happened to be on the airport.
---JRC---

[Thomas Borchert]

Snowbird,

Sorry for the delay in answering.

> would you mind expanding a
> bit upon what you like about TPAS and in what circs you find
> it "don't leave home w/out it" useful?
>

Yes, I fly in Europe. Well, when the owner of the aircraft I fly (a
Tobago) first suggested we get one, I thought: "Who needs this?" After
having flown with it for a year I would say it is extremely cheap
insurance, for somewhere between 600 and 1200 $. It gives you an extra
warning to look outside and scan for traffic - which is very useful if
your plane has a lot of gagdets like our Garmin 430.

As you know, it will only say that something is out there somewhere
(lately, also at which altitude), but no direction to look at. That, we
found, is no problem at all - at least not a problem worth investing
another 10k $ or so, which is the price of azimuth-capable systems. You
just look outside and normally find the traffic real soon - if it is
yet close enough for visual ID.

As you also know, it will not alert to gliders or other traffic without
a transponder. The fact that the transponder has to be interrogated is
not a problem here - Europe has either radar coverage or enough
airliners overhead with TCAS triggering transponders. Gliders and
#*?\&% idiots with their transponder switched off are a problem. So you
still have to scan for traffic. But the unit wakes you up.

As for overload in high traffic areas: With the unit we have, you can
set it to only voice alert really close traffic. That works quite well.
And in a busy traffic pattern, I normally switch the voice alert off.
Does that make the unit not worth having? Of course not!

So, basically, it is a great and cost-efficient tool - and it has made
me look outside a lot at times when I had become complacent about
traffic scanning. Did it actually prevent me from hitting someone?
Well, the big-sky-principle still holds, but it is nicer to know if
someone is out there.

Yes, as Thierry mentions elsewhere, we liked the unit so much that we
decided to offer it in our little pilot shop here. But I was less than
convinced before I actually flew with the unit.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Snowbird]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message >...
> "Snowbird" > wrote in message om...
>
> > Even when there isn't an authorized VOR checkpoint one can
> > often pick up a radial somewhere on the airport, or track
> > the localizer on takeoff or something.
>
> Tracking the localizer won't tell you anything about VOR errors.

Depends upon the source of the error. It is true it will
not tell you whether the OBS is aligned within 4 degrees
(or indeed 13 or any number)

It wil give information about other NAV/OBS errors.

When my OBS have failed to give full-scale deflection at the
appropriate deviation, this occurs with both localizer and
VOR. If there's a problem with the splitter, it's evident.
If one NAV radio isn't receiving properly, it's evident.

Regards,
Sydney

[Snowbird]

"John R. Copeland" > wrote in message >...

> > Tracking the localizer won't tell you anything about VOR errors.

> It could, if the VOR happened to be on the airport.

I did mean localizer, not VOR. But I wasn't specific or clear
enough about what I meant. See other post.

Regards,
Sydney

[Stan Gosnell]

(Greg) wrote in
om:

> ... and for flying I have
>> a green LED on my mike boom that I can activate with my lip or keep
>> on with a switch.
>
>
> Where did you get that and what is it called? That sounds great!
> Also someone used to make a light on a lanyard that could be worn
> around your neck...anyone know where you can still buy these?
>

I bought it in parts at Radio Shack and KMart. All it takes is an LED (get
the highest output numbers you can find, and a narrow focus. I have a
clear lens, green light, but you can get these from Mouser & other places),
a microswitch, a mini slide switch, some wire, and a battery holder. I use
2 AAA batteries mounted with Velcro on top of my headset. I discovered the
need for 2 switches when I tried to file 3 IFR plans in the air at night.
The microswitch activates the light using my lip, when I want momentary
light without using my hands - sometimes essential in a helicopter. The
slide switch keeps the light on without having to use my lip while I'm
talking and reading. The whole thing is held together with moldable epoxy,
which fits over my mike, and held securely with small tie-wraps. Not
beautiful, but it has been working for me for several years. Green is the
best color, IME, because the human eye is most sensitive to green. That's
why NVG images are green. You can see more with less light output.

Wings Aviation in Dothan, AL used to sell liplights, maybe still does, but
all they had when I checked were designed to fit military mikes.

Sporting goods stores sell LED lights that you can wear around your neck,
but you may have to provide your own lanyard. I also have a small green LED
light that I bought at Auto Zone (!!) for a couple of dollars, which I have
attached to my survival vest. Comes in handy for quick looks sometimes.
I've gone almost exclusively to LED lights now. I have a white LED
flashlight with 5 LED's, very bright, that works very well for preflights.
Checking yellow oil in sightglasses under a yellow light can be difficult,
but the white LED shows the level very well, even in sunlight. I have one
flashlight with an incandescent bulb, stuck in my flight bag, just to
satisfy FAA regs, but I never use it.

--
Regards,

Stan

[EDR]

In article >, Greg
> wrote:

> Where did you get that and what is it called? That sounds great!
> Also someone used to make a light on a lanyard that could be worn
> around your neck...anyone know where you can still buy these?

www.campmor.com
CMG Infinity Light $12.95

[Thierry]

Hi All,

Have a look at http://www.proxalert.com

The new R5 compares to the Ryan 8800 silver but in the 1000 USD range.
Terry

(Snowbird) wrote in message >...
> "Bill Padley" > wrote in message >...
>
> > For those thinking of TCAS,
> > I just took delivery of the first UK import of Surecheck trafficscope
> > VRX..the successor to TPAS...much nicer ....
> > maybe worth considering instead of TPAS on your shopping list! -its out in
> > the USA already
> >
> > http://surecheck.net/five/avionics/vrx/
>
> Interesting, but I wish the web site had more details about
> how it works. For example, how does the built-in-altimeter work?
> How does it cope with pressure changes? How does it develop
> distance and altitude information on other aircraft? Does
> it develop range, too?
>
> I hope you'll put in a pirep as you get more used to it.
>
> What concerns me is, when I most want "extra eyes" watching
> for me is w/in a few miles of an airport. Yet there can be
> 5 planes in the vicinity of our airport, heck within 1.5 miles,
> and none of them a threat to me. I'm afraid when I most need
> such a device it would be nothing but a continuous cry of
> "Wolf! Wolf!"
>
> Cheers,
> Sydney