IR written Primary/Secondary instrument questions

[Jeremy]

I'm studying for my written and having an awful time with the
questions dealing with primary/secondary instruments for
pitch/bank/power during various phases of flight. The distinctions
appear to be senseless hair splitting, and I'm getting them mostly
wrong in the practice tests. Some of this is due to my study
materials explaining which is the right answer, but not really *why*.
Is there any way to logically learn this in a way I have a prayer of
remembering, or do I just have to memorize the matrix?

Thanks,
Jeremy

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
(Jeremy) wrote:

> I'm studying for my written and having an awful time with the
> questions dealing with primary/secondary instruments for
> pitch/bank/power during various phases of flight. The distinctions
> appear to be senseless hair splitting, and I'm getting them mostly
> wrong in the practice tests. Some of this is due to my study
> materials explaining which is the right answer, but not really *why*.
> Is there any way to logically learn this in a way I have a prayer of
> remembering, or do I just have to memorize the matrix?
>
> Thanks,
> Jeremy

Memorize the matrix and move on. The important thing is to understand
what data each instrument is giving you, how the various instruments
inter-relate, and what to expect to see on each one for a given control
change.

At least that's my personal opinion. I'm sure you will get responses
which say that primary/secondary is the only way to fly. They're no
more right or wrong than I am.

The ultimate goal is to keep the dirty side down and find the runway.
If primary/secondary helps you achieve that goal, it's a useful tool.
If not, then don't get hung up on it.

[Bob Gardner]

I'll try. The primary instrument is the needle/indicator that you don't want
to move. For example, using P/S in a level turn, you don't want the
altimeter needle to move...it is primary pitch; you want to maintain a
standard rate turn, with the indicator not moving from the index, so the
turn coordinator is primary bank. The airspeed indicator is primary pitch
only when in a constant-speed situation (climb/descent). The attitude
indicator is primary ONLY when transitioning from one stable situation to
another...for example, to enter a constant speed climb from level flight you
initially establish pitch attitude by reference to the attitude indicator,
but once you are in the climb the airspeed becomes primary pitch. To level
off it is back to the A/I until the altimeter needle stops moving, at which
time the altimeter becomes primary pitch again.

The FAA loves primary/secondary. Hardly anyone else does, and your
instructor should teach you to meld both systems together.

Bob Gardner


I've got a dandy table on page 2-11 of THE COMPLETE ADVANCED PILOT.

Bob Gardner

"Jeremy" > wrote in message
om...
> I'm studying for my written and having an awful time with the
> questions dealing with primary/secondary instruments for
> pitch/bank/power during various phases of flight. The distinctions
> appear to be senseless hair splitting, and I'm getting them mostly
> wrong in the practice tests. Some of this is due to my study
> materials explaining which is the right answer, but not really *why*.
> Is there any way to logically learn this in a way I have a prayer of
> remembering, or do I just have to memorize the matrix?
>
> Thanks,
> Jeremy

[Teacherjh]

>I'm[...] having an awful time with the
>questions dealing with primary/secondary instruments for
>pitch/bank/power during various phases of flight. The distinctions
>appear to be senseless hair splitting...

In saying X is primary for Y, try thinking just WHY you are controlling Y in
that phase of flight. For example, in level flight, why are you controlling
pitch? The object of level flight is to maintain a constant altitude, so
although pitch deviations will turn into altitude and airspeed deviations, it
is constant altitude you are attempting to maintain. So, the altimiter would
be "primary" for pitch.

In a climb, you are likely to want a constant airspeed and rate of climb. The
altitude will be changing (it better be!), and the VSI lags, so it's hard to
use either as a primary instrument. Airpseed responds right away to pitch
deviations, so it's primary. Hold airspeed steady (once you know what it
should be) and your climb will be fine.

Entering a climb, what would you do? You could use the airspeed as a primary
pitch instrument, but you are not (yet) trying to hold a steady airspeed. The
attitude indicator is primary, because it gives a direct and rapid readout of
the pitch attitude you want. The desired result of your control input when
entering a climb is a certain pitch attitude. The attitude indicator gives you
that directly. Your airspeed bleeds off and your altitude begins to
increase...

Once you are climbing, the desired result is a constant airspeed (while you
climb, supported by the altimiter).

Leveling off is like entering a climb, in reverse. Set the desired (level)
pitch attitude, and when things settle in...

(and you are no longer climbing or accelerating) hold a constant altitude.

Does this help? You still need the supporting instruments (for example, in a
climb, check the altimeter to ensure that you are in fact climbing!) but the
instrument that gives you the most direct reading of the most immediate desired
result of a control input is what you use as a primary instrument.

Try that thinking on the other areas of flight control and see if it doesn't
help you understand.

Jose

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

[Jeff]

Jeremy
I had the same problem also, I would get them wrong on the tests untill
stopped thinking about the answers and thought about how I actually fly.
picture what they are asking, then what you really do when flying and you
will probably get it right.


Jeremy wrote:

> I'm studying for my written and having an awful time with the
> questions dealing with primary/secondary instruments for
> pitch/bank/power during various phases of flight. The distinctions
> appear to be senseless hair splitting, and I'm getting them mostly
> wrong in the practice tests. Some of this is due to my study
> materials explaining which is the right answer, but not really *why*.
> Is there any way to logically learn this in a way I have a prayer of
> remembering, or do I just have to memorize the matrix?
>
> Thanks,
> Jeremy

[Peter R.]

Bob Gardner ) wrote:

> I'll try. The primary instrument is the needle/indicator that you don't
> want to move.
<snip>

Wow, I wish I had you for an instrument instructor. As one who also
struggled with this matrix, I would have breezed right through this had I
thought of it in the way you explained.

--
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 =---

[Greg Esres]

<<I would have breezed right through this had I thought of it in the
way you explained.>>

You also would have had no problem if your instructor had taught you
the control/performance methodology. The best way to deal with
complexity is to choose a simpler way. ;-)

[Bob Gardner]

The problem, Greg, is that examiners are told in standardization class to
ask about P/S on orals. Gripes the hell out of most of them because they
don't believe it either. Most instrument pilots end up using a combination,
or "whatever works."

Bob Gardner

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> <<I would have breezed right through this had I thought of it in the
> way you explained.>>
>
> You also would have had no problem if your instructor had taught you
> the control/performance methodology. The best way to deal with
> complexity is to choose a simpler way. ;-)
>

[Greg Esres]

<<The problem, Greg, is that examiners are told in standardization
class to ask about P/S on orals. Gripes the hell out of most of them
because they don't believe it either. Most instrument pilots end up
using a combination, or "whatever works.">>

The current PTS explicitly allows EITHER control/performance or
primary/supporting, both on the instrument and instrument instructor
checkrides.

[Gaugin]

Thanks for the advice everyone, it helped!

"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
> Jeremy
> I had the same problem also, I would get them wrong on the tests untill
> stopped thinking about the answers and thought about how I actually fly.
> picture what they are asking, then what you really do when flying and you
> will probably get it right.
>
>
> Jeremy wrote:
>
> > I'm studying for my written and having an awful time with the
> > questions dealing with primary/secondary instruments for
> > pitch/bank/power during various phases of flight. The distinctions
> > appear to be senseless hair splitting, and I'm getting them mostly
> > wrong in the practice tests. Some of this is due to my study
> > materials explaining which is the right answer, but not really *why*.
> > Is there any way to logically learn this in a way I have a prayer of
> > remembering, or do I just have to memorize the matrix?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jeremy
>

[Andrew Sarangan]

It is actually a lot more obvious than they make it out to be. Primary
for straight and level is altimeter and heading indicator. If you
think about it, that is the very definition of straight and level.
Straight means constant heading, level means constant altitude. The
primary for constant-airspeed straight-ahead climb is airspeed and
heading. Again, you can figure that from the definition
constant-airspeed and straight. The only exception is, attitude
indicator becomes primary anytime you make a large pitch or bank
change.

The supporting instruments can be a bit obscure. I treat every
instrument on the panel as a supporting instrument.




(Jeremy) wrote in message >...
> I'm studying for my written and having an awful time with the
> questions dealing with primary/secondary instruments for
> pitch/bank/power during various phases of flight. The distinctions
> appear to be senseless hair splitting, and I'm getting them mostly
> wrong in the practice tests. Some of this is due to my study
> materials explaining which is the right answer, but not really *why*.
> Is there any way to logically learn this in a way I have a prayer of
> remembering, or do I just have to memorize the matrix?
>
> Thanks,
> Jeremy

[Jeremy Lew]

I do too, but that simply makes the answers more obscure-seeming.
Anyway, I just completed that section of the test bank flawlessly after
following everyone's advice (Bob G's "which instrument do you NOT want to
move" tip was especially helpful).

Thanks,
Jeremy

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
om...
>
> The supporting instruments can be a bit obscure. I treat every
> instrument on the panel as a supporting instrument.

[[email protected]]

Jeremy > wrote:
: I'm studying for my written and having an awful time with the
: questions dealing with primary/secondary instruments for
: pitch/bank/power during various phases of flight. The distinctions
: appear to be senseless hair splitting, and I'm getting them mostly
: wrong in the practice tests. Some of this is due to my study
: materials explaining which is the right answer, but not really *why*.
: Is there any way to logically learn this in a way I have a prayer of
: remembering, or do I just have to memorize the matrix?

Of course I'm an electrical engineering graduate student, so I've got math on
the brain, but I thought of it as two different types of manuvers. Transition and
steady-state. Transition is almost always an AI primary.

Steady-state is whatever presents the mathematically integrated data.
Altimeter integrates VSI, DG integrates bank, Airspeed integrates power. Those would
be primary for their respective steady-state flight regimes.

Not sure if that helps anyone else but me, but it might... never know!

-Cory

--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[Tarver Engineering]

> wrote in message
...
> Jeremy > wrote:
> : I'm studying for my written and having an awful time with the
> : questions dealing with primary/secondary instruments for
> : pitch/bank/power during various phases of flight. The distinctions
> : appear to be senseless hair splitting, and I'm getting them mostly
> : wrong in the practice tests. Some of this is due to my study
> : materials explaining which is the right answer, but not really *why*.
> : Is there any way to logically learn this in a way I have a prayer of
> : remembering, or do I just have to memorize the matrix?
>
> Of course I'm an electrical engineering graduate student, so I've got math
on
> the brain, but I thought of it as two different types of manuvers.
Transition and
> steady-state. Transition is almost always an AI primary.

The issue is one of probabilitys and certification to those probabilities.
A Primary instrument is going to have to meet a higher expectaion of correct
operation. So you see, it is math, in a Mil-Hbk 217F sort of way.

> Steady-state is whatever presents the mathematically integrated data.
> Altimeter integrates VSI, DG integrates bank, Airspeed integrates power.
Those would
> be primary for their respective steady-state flight regimes.
>
> Not sure if that helps anyone else but me, but it might... never know!

It is the real answer.

[Teacherjh]

>>
A Primary instrument is going to have to meet a higher expectaion of correct
operation.
<<

Huh? The "correctness" of operation doesn't depend on flight regeme, but
primary/secondary (if you use that methodology) does. It has nothing to do
with "correcness" of operation, but on immediacy and relevance of input.

Jose

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> A Primary instrument is going to have to meet a higher expectaion of
correct
> operation.
> <<
>
> Huh? The "correctness" of operation doesn't depend on flight regeme, but
> primary/secondary (if you use that methodology) does. It has nothing to
do
> with "correcness" of operation, but on immediacy and relevance of input.

What you write is arguable, but what I wrote is fact.

[Ron Natalie]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Teacherjh" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >>
> > A Primary instrument is going to have to meet a higher expectaion of
> correct
> > operation.
> > <<
> >
> > Huh? The "correctness" of operation doesn't depend on flight regeme, but
> > primary/secondary (if you use that methodology) does. It has nothing to
> do
> > with "correcness" of operation, but on immediacy and relevance of input.
>
> What you write is arguable, but what I wrote is fact.
>
Fact, but nonsequitor. He's not using primary in the same way you are.
In your context, all of the instruments are "primary flight instruments."
In the context of the FAA pedantry for the instrument knowledge test,
those instruments are divided into "primary" and "supporting" role for
each flight regime they list. What is a primary instrument in one regime
is a supporting in others.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > "Teacherjh" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > >>
> > > A Primary instrument is going to have to meet a higher expectaion of
> > correct
> > > operation.
> > > <<
> > >
> > > Huh? The "correctness" of operation doesn't depend on flight regeme,
but
> > > primary/secondary (if you use that methodology) does. It has nothing
to
> > do
> > > with "correcness" of operation, but on immediacy and relevance of
input.
> >
> > What you write is arguable, but what I wrote is fact.
> >
> Fact, but nonsequitor.

Not exactly. In fact, my reason is why FAA tends to insist on certain
equipments for an approach.

> He's not using primary in the same way you are.
> In your context, all of the instruments are "primary flight instruments."

No, each instrument system has it's own level of certification and
acceptable MTBF.

> In the context of the FAA pedantry for the instrument knowledge test,
> those instruments are divided into "primary" and "supporting" role for
> each flight regime they list. What is a primary instrument in one
regime
> is a supporting in others.

The secondary instrument gives the operator a cross check capability and may
be of a lower reliability.

[William W. Plummer]

Tarver, Are you a pilot? Instrument Rated?


"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > > "Teacherjh" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > >>
> > > > A Primary instrument is going to have to meet a higher expectaion of
> > > correct
> > > > operation.
> > > > <<
> > > >
> > > > Huh? The "correctness" of operation doesn't depend on flight
regeme,
> but
> > > > primary/secondary (if you use that methodology) does. It has
nothing
> to
> > > do
> > > > with "correcness" of operation, but on immediacy and relevance of
> input.
> > >
> > > What you write is arguable, but what I wrote is fact.
> > >
> > Fact, but nonsequitor.
>
> Not exactly. In fact, my reason is why FAA tends to insist on certain
> equipments for an approach.
>
> > He's not using primary in the same way you are.
> > In your context, all of the instruments are "primary flight
instruments."
>
> No, each instrument system has it's own level of certification and
> acceptable MTBF.
>
> > In the context of the FAA pedantry for the instrument knowledge test,
> > those instruments are divided into "primary" and "supporting" role for
> > each flight regime they list. What is a primary instrument in one
> regime
> > is a supporting in others.
>
> The secondary instrument gives the operator a cross check capability and
may
> be of a lower reliability.
>
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"William W. Plummer" > wrote in message
news:6eUYb.354452$na.523893@attbi_s04...
> Tarver, Are you a pilot? Instrument Rated?

I am an airplane systems engineer.

[Richard Hertz]

I think the question was "Are you a pilot? If so, instrument rated?"

You didn't answer the question(s).

Your answers, though interesting, do not appear to be relevant or the same
as what the dogma of the FAA states.
MTBF, while interesting, has nothing to do with the information the
instrument(s) show.

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "William W. Plummer" > wrote in
message
> news:6eUYb.354452$na.523893@attbi_s04...
> > Tarver, Are you a pilot? Instrument Rated?
>
> I am an airplane systems engineer.
>
>

[William W. Plummer]

Thanks, Richard. I was trying to find out if Tarver has any authority to
comment on instrument flying. He has not received the training and doesn't
understand the issues and thus, lacks credibilty.

"Richard Hertz" > wrote in message
...
> I think the question was "Are you a pilot? If so, instrument rated?"
>
> You didn't answer the question(s).
>
> Your answers, though interesting, do not appear to be relevant or the same
> as what the dogma of the FAA states.
> MTBF, while interesting, has nothing to do with the information the
> instrument(s) show.
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "William W. Plummer" > wrote in
> message
> > news:6eUYb.354452$na.523893@attbi_s04...
> > > Tarver, Are you a pilot? Instrument Rated?
> >
> > I am an airplane systems engineer.
> >
> >
>
>

[[email protected]]

I believe you are confusing the original question regarding the FAA exam
questions on primary/secondary instruments. This is not a Boeing 777 with
primary/backup flight control computers and instruments with differing
specified requirements for MTBF. In that context *all* flight instruments in a
typical GA (as tested on the FAA IR written) are "primary instruments." The
primary/supporting questions refer to which information is most relevent to the pilot
during a particular flight manuver or attitude.

Tarver Engineering > wrote:
:> Fact, but nonsequitor.

: Not exactly. In fact, my reason is why FAA tends to insist on certain
: equipments for an approach.

Quite correct... where "equipment" can be (but not limited to), VOR, DME, LOC,
GS, GPS, Loran, etc... that could be construed as having "primary/secondary"
functionality. For example, "Hrm... NAV1 seems to have died... let's use NAV2." The
*FLIGHT INSTRUMENTS* are required for IFR flight... i.e. altimeter, rate-of-turn,
airspeed, etc.


:> He's not using primary in the same way you are.
:> In your context, all of the instruments are "primary flight instruments."

: No, each instrument system has it's own level of certification and
: acceptable MTBF.

Also true. Also irrelevent.

:> In the context of the FAA pedantry for the instrument knowledge test,
:> those instruments are divided into "primary" and "supporting" role for
:> each flight regime they list. What is a primary instrument in one
: regime
:> is a supporting in others.

: The secondary instrument gives the operator a cross check capability and may
: be of a lower reliability.

Almost true. WRT your primary/secondary equipment argument (think NAV1/NAV2),
this may be the case. WRT FAA's definition of "primary/supporting" flight
instruments, not so much. Cross-check: maybe. Lower reliability: perhaps. Slightly
different information that can be interpretted to obtain equivalent information to the
primary instrument: absolutely.... that's the point.

-Cory
--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[Tarver Engineering]

"William W. Plummer" > wrote in message
news:743Zb.13008$Xp.74133@attbi_s54...
> Thanks, Richard. I was trying to find out if Tarver has any authority to
> comment on instrument flying. He has not received the training and
doesn't
> understand the issues and thus, lacks credibilty.

I'll keep that in mind next time I write a page for someone's POH.

If you want to disagree with FAA on instruments, forget about using me as a
proxy.

[Tarver Engineering]

> wrote in message
...
> I believe you are confusing the original question regarding the FAA exam
> questions on primary/secondary instruments. This is not a Boeing 777 with
> primary/backup flight control computers and instruments with differing
> specified requirements for MTBF.

I am not the least bit confused.

[Richard Hertz]

I have never seen a POH that discusses instrument flight. (Note - my
experience is limited to GA, so maybe someone can tell me if the 777 POH and
all other material discuss how to fly IFR. I doubt that they do, but I
could be mistaken. I don't doubt that there is a volume of information that
uses the words primary, secondary, MTBF, etc - but that is not the same as
what is being discussed here). While you, Mr. Tarver Engineering, may be
the world's foremost expert on cool electronic gear for the big boys' jets
and have the FAA knocking at your door to find all the answers to
everything, I don't think what you are discussing is the same thing as the
original poster's (and most other replies) content. (Apparently you hold
your ideas in very high regard. Technically you sound very competent, but
you are consistently a bit off the subject that is being discussed on this
thread.)

Have you read "Instrument Flying Handbook?" (FAA-H-8083-15 - specifically
chapter 4 and the "Primary and Supporting Method sections?"

"For any maneuver or condition of flight, the pitch, bank, and power control
requirements are most clearly indicated by certain instruments. the
instruments that provide the most pertinent and essential information will
be referred to as primary instruments. Supporting instruments back up and
supplement the information shown on the primary instruments."

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "William W. Plummer" > wrote in
message
> news:743Zb.13008$Xp.74133@attbi_s54...
> > Thanks, Richard. I was trying to find out if Tarver has any authority
to
> > comment on instrument flying. He has not received the training and
> doesn't
> > understand the issues and thus, lacks credibilty.
>
> I'll keep that in mind next time I write a page for someone's POH.
>
> If you want to disagree with FAA on instruments, forget about using me as
a
> proxy.
>
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"Richard Hertz" > wrote in message
...
> I have never seen a POH that discusses instrument flight. (Note - my
> experience is limited to GA, so maybe someone can tell me if the 777 POH
and
> all other material discuss how to fly IFR. I doubt that they do, but I
> could be mistaken. I don't doubt that there is a volume of information
that
> uses the words primary, secondary, MTBF, etc - but that is not the same as
> what is being discussed here). While you, Mr. Tarver Engineering, may be
> the world's foremost expert on cool electronic gear for the big boys' jets
> and have the FAA knocking at your door to find all the answers to
> everything, I don't think what you are discussing is the same thing as the
> original poster's (and most other replies) content. (Apparently you hold
> your ideas in very high regard. Technically you sound very competent, but
> you are consistently a bit off the subject that is being discussed on this
> thread.)

It is not my intent to say you have to listen to FAA. All I am doing is
providing information as to why the terms primary and secomndary are used
they way they are by FAA. It is not a bad idea to know which instrument is
by FAA's thinking the primary instrument. The fact that in common use that
thinking breaks down is not necessarily a bad thing either. Using secondary
instrument, or even a "reference only" instrument, can make the operation
easier.

[Richard Hertz]

I don't understand the strong objection(s) to the primary/supporting method.

But then again, I was on the unpopular side of the CANPA in GA planes debate
here as well...


"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Richard Hertz" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I have never seen a POH that discusses instrument flight. (Note - my
> > experience is limited to GA, so maybe someone can tell me if the 777 POH
> and
> > all other material discuss how to fly IFR. I doubt that they do, but I
> > could be mistaken. I don't doubt that there is a volume of information
> that
> > uses the words primary, secondary, MTBF, etc - but that is not the same
as
> > what is being discussed here). While you, Mr. Tarver Engineering, may
be
> > the world's foremost expert on cool electronic gear for the big boys'
jets
> > and have the FAA knocking at your door to find all the answers to
> > everything, I don't think what you are discussing is the same thing as
the
> > original poster's (and most other replies) content. (Apparently you
hold
> > your ideas in very high regard. Technically you sound very competent,
but
> > you are consistently a bit off the subject that is being discussed on
this
> > thread.)
>
> It is not my intent to say you have to listen to FAA. All I am doing is
> providing information as to why the terms primary and secomndary are used
> they way they are by FAA. It is not a bad idea to know which instrument
is
> by FAA's thinking the primary instrument. The fact that in common use
that
> thinking breaks down is not necessarily a bad thing either. Using
secondary
> instrument, or even a "reference only" instrument, can make the operation
> easier.
>
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"Richard Hertz" > wrote in message
...
> I don't understand the strong objection(s) to the primary/supporting
method.

That is not my issue, but perhaps some of the instructors here can explain
why they like to fly different from that method.

[ross watson]

I, too, found the concept of primary and secondary and the other one whose
name momentarily eludes me tedious. I finally chose to just take the hit on
the test and drive on. Make your best guess on those answers and don't look
back. You won't get a 100 on the test but you will pass if you're savvy on
the other stuff.

fwiw
************************************************** **************************
***
"Jeremy" > wrote in message
om...
> I'm studying for my written and having an awful time with the
> questions dealing with primary/secondary instruments for
> pitch/bank/power during various phases of flight. The distinctions
> appear to be senseless hair splitting, and I'm getting them mostly
> wrong in the practice tests. Some of this is due to my study
> materials explaining which is the right answer, but not really *why*.
> Is there any way to logically learn this in a way I have a prayer of
> remembering, or do I just have to memorize the matrix?
>
> Thanks,
> Jeremy

[Andrew Sarangan]

I believe strongly in the primary/supporting instrument concept. For
the experienced pilot, this may not make any sense because they look
at the whole panel and figure out what's going on. But a beginning
student needs clear directions. The primary/supporting concept
provides that direction. If you let a new student loose without
teaching the primary/supporting, they will eventually learn the
correct technique, but it will take longer. There is also the
potential for omitting one instrument in the scan.



"Jeremy Lew" > wrote in message >...
> I do too, but that simply makes the answers more obscure-seeming.
> Anyway, I just completed that section of the test bank flawlessly after
> following everyone's advice (Bob G's "which instrument do you NOT want to
> move" tip was especially helpful).
>
> Thanks,
> Jeremy
>
> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > The supporting instruments can be a bit obscure. I treat every
> > instrument on the panel as a supporting instrument.

[Barry]

> I don't understand the strong objection(s) to the primary/supporting method.

I think that if the primary/supporting system is taught properly, it's really
not too much different from the control/performance system that I prefer.
Note that the FAA's Instrument Flying Handbook states that the attitude
indicator (AI):

"... should always be used, when available, in establishing AND MAINTAINING
[my emphasis] pitch and bank attitudes".

However, it's been my experience, first as an instrument student then as a
CFII, that learning the primary/supporting method often leads to jerky,
overcontrolled flight. The problem is that the word "primary" is misleading.
Students tend to overemphasize the "primary" instrument and don't catch trends
early enough. For example, in straight and level flight, the altimeter is
"primary" for altitude, but it's really the least important instrument for
precise pitch control. A small pitch deviation, due to turbulence or
inadvertent control input, shows up first on the attitude indicator, then on
the VSI, and lastly on the altimeter. If a student concentrates too much on
the altimeter, by the time he sees a need for correction the plane can already
be in a pretty major climb or descent. This is similar to what happens to a
primary student who does steep turns staring at the altimeter instead of
looking outside at the position of the nose on the horizon. It's very easy to
get into a mode where he's chasing the altimeter, pulling the nose way up and
down, instead of catching deviations early using the outside pitch reference
and the VSI.

This is also similar to the problems a lot of students have while tracking the
localizer. They stare at the CDI needle and try to center it by reacting to
its movement, and end up chasing it back and forth.

As yet another example, although the airspeed indicator is "primary" for pitch
in a full-power climb, trying to use it for pitch control often leads to
oscillations as the student chases the lagging indication. This is
something I see a lot with VFR pilots on climb out, or in a simulated
engine-out glide. They try to chase the airspeed and are always a couple of
seconds behind, pulling the nose up and pushing it down instead of just
setting a pitch attitude, trimming away the control pressure, and then
checking the airspeed to see if the pitch needs a small correction.

Barry

[Greg Esres]

<<A small pitch deviation, due to turbulence or inadvertent control
input, shows up first on the attitude indicator, then on the VSI, and
lastly on the altimeter. >>


Strongly agree with everything you said.

[[email protected]]

Barry > wrote:
: However, it's been my experience, first as an instrument student then as a
: CFII, that learning the primary/supporting method often leads to jerky,
: overcontrolled flight. The problem is that the word "primary" is misleading.
: Students tend to overemphasize the "primary" instrument and don't catch trends
: early enough. For example, in straight and level flight, the altimeter is
: "primary" for altitude, but it's really the least important instrument for
: precise pitch control. A small pitch deviation, due to turbulence or
: inadvertent control input, shows up first on the attitude indicator, then on
: the VSI, and lastly on the altimeter. If a student concentrates too much on
: the altimeter, by the time he sees a need for correction the plane can already
: be in a pretty major climb or descent. This is similar to what happens to a
: primary student who does steep turns staring at the altimeter instead of
: looking outside at the position of the nose on the horizon. It's very easy to
: get into a mode where he's chasing the altimeter, pulling the nose way up and
: down, instead of catching deviations early using the outside pitch reference
: and the VSI.

: This is also similar to the problems a lot of students have while tracking the
: localizer. They stare at the CDI needle and try to center it by reacting to
: its movement, and end up chasing it back and forth.

: As yet another example, although the airspeed indicator is "primary" for pitch
: in a full-power climb, trying to use it for pitch control often leads to
: oscillations as the student chases the lagging indication. This is
: something I see a lot with VFR pilots on climb out, or in a simulated
: engine-out glide. They try to chase the airspeed and are always a couple of
: seconds behind, pulling the nose up and pushing it down instead of just
: setting a pitch attitude, trimming away the control pressure, and then
: checking the airspeed to see if the pitch needs a small correction.

: Barry

Thus my original comment on the most "integrated" (mathematically) instrument.
Those are usually the primary instruments for non-transitioning flight.

-Cory



--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[Michael]

(Andrew Sarangan) wrote
> I believe strongly in the primary/supporting instrument concept.

I don't.

> For
> the experienced pilot, this may not make any sense because they look
> at the whole panel and figure out what's going on. But a beginning
> student needs clear directions.

I agree with this part completely.

> The primary/supporting concept provides that direction.

It absolutely does. I just think it provides suboptimal direction.

> If you let a new student loose without
> teaching the primary/supporting, they will eventually learn the
> correct technique, but it will take longer. There is also the
> potential for omitting one instrument in the scan.

I think everything you say would be 100% correct if the only choices
were "teach the student a scan based on the primary/supporting method"
or "let him flounder around and find his own way." I do not in any
way disagree with the value of teaching a scan. I simply do not agree
that "primary and supporting" is the best scan to teach. Neither does
the military, which teaches the performance/control method
exclusively.

From a control theory viewpoint, the primary/secondary method is
primarily a feedback method, and the performance/control method is
primarily a feedforward method. Of course this is a gross
oversimplification - there are feedback and feedforward components to
each - but it's a matter of emphasis.

In the performance/control model, the emphasis is on the attitude of
the airplane. This is either read directly off the AI, or inferred
from the TC and ASI in partial panel flight. That centers the scan.
If you keep the wings level, heading will stay approximately constant.
If you keep the wings banked, you will turn. If you keep the nose on
the horizon, you will hold altitude. If you raise it, you will climb.
Lower it, and you will descend. The correct pitch and bank angles
vary based on the performance of the airplane, but they are pretty
well known in advance, so the method is more about acting than
reacting.

On the other hand, the primary/secondary method is based on reaction.
In level flight, the primary pitch instrument is the altimeter. So
let's say the altitude goes up. Why did it go up? Did you let your
nose come up? How much? By the time you saw the result on the
altimeter, it might have been a lot or a little. How much should you
correct? What if your nose is still on the horizon, and you simply
entered rising air?

Of course this is more important when flight attitude changes - at
which point the FAA gives up and makes the AI primary, making the
methods equivalent. But why should it not be primary all the time?

Michael

[Richard Hertz]

"Barry" > wrote in message
...
> > I don't understand the strong objection(s) to the primary/supporting
method.
>
> I think that if the primary/supporting system is taught properly, it's
really
> not too much different from the control/performance system that I prefer.
> Note that the FAA's Instrument Flying Handbook states that the attitude
> indicator (AI):
>
> "... should always be used, when available, in establishing AND
MAINTAINING
> [my emphasis] pitch and bank attitudes".
>
> However, it's been my experience, first as an instrument student then as a
> CFII, that learning the primary/supporting method often leads to jerky,
> overcontrolled flight. The problem is that the word "primary" is
misleading.
> Students tend to overemphasize the "primary" instrument and don't catch
trends
> early enough. For example, in straight and level flight, the altimeter is
> "primary" for altitude, but it's really the least important instrument for
> precise pitch control. A small pitch deviation, due to turbulence or
> inadvertent control input, shows up first on the attitude indicator, then
on
> the VSI, and lastly on the altimeter. If a student concentrates too much
on
> the altimeter, by the time he sees a need for correction the plane can
already
> be in a pretty major climb or descent. This is similar to what happens to
a
> primary student who does steep turns staring at the altimeter instead of
> looking outside at the position of the nose on the horizon. It's very
easy to
> get into a mode where he's chasing the altimeter, pulling the nose way up
and
> down, instead of catching deviations early using the outside pitch
reference
> and the VSI.
>
> This is also similar to the problems a lot of students have while tracking
the
> localizer. They stare at the CDI needle and try to center it by reacting
to
> its movement, and end up chasing it back and forth.
>
> As yet another example, although the airspeed indicator is "primary" for
pitch
> in a full-power climb, trying to use it for pitch control often leads to
> oscillations as the student chases the lagging indication. This is
> something I see a lot with VFR pilots on climb out, or in a simulated
> engine-out glide. They try to chase the airspeed and are always a couple
of
> seconds behind, pulling the nose up and pushing it down instead of just
> setting a pitch attitude, trimming away the control pressure, and then
> checking the airspeed to see if the pitch needs a small correction.
>
> Barry
>
>

So then really the objections are because the students/instructor haven't
really learned the proper techniques. The fundamentals behind the method
are sound. I was taught both and see no problems with either. I suspect
the objections are then because the instructors aren't teaching it well
enough or want to find ways to make the students progress faster, possibly
at the expense of learning the fundamentals.

After taking my training I have trouble seeing how it is possible to get
good training without using a simulator.

Chasing a cdi needle is bad. and clearly the student needs to be corrected -
the best way is to cover it up. Have them focus on heading, then look at
the cdi for a moment, etc.