I think the answer needs to be "not sign them off for the checkride".


Well, that's a defeatist attitude. I would like to think that I would
come up with some method they could handle.

Just turning until the little picture of the airplane is pointing in
the same direction as the purple line might just be a reasonable plan

with today's cockpits.

In a glass cockpit Cirrus (at least the one I flew) it is the only
plan. A PFD failure leaves you with ASI, electric AI, Altimeter - and
two Garmin 430's without CDI's (the only CDI is built into the HSI
presentation on the PFD). The only approach you can shoot after PFD
failure is a GPS, and you can shoot it ONLY by turning until the little
picture of the airplane is pointing in the same direction as the purple
line. I suppose you could use a compass, but I'm not sure what the
benefit would be.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure you would convince an examiner of that.

In the Cirrus I flew, there was no way to simulate PFD failure (vacuum?
who dat?) which would not allow that approach to work. There would be
no convincing involved, and with the deletion of compass turns from the
PTS, the examiner no longer has the option of failing both GPS units (I
guess we lost the PFD and both GPS units or the constellation?) and
making the applicant do compass turns.

Of course the recommended emergency procedure in the event of PFD
failure is to engage the autopilot and not hand-fly at all, and you can
argue that losing the autopilot AND the PFD on the same flight is
unlikely. On the other hand, that makes the autopilot a no-go item for
IMC, and I doubt any examiner would accept this.

The interesting question is whether an examiner would insist on setting
up a situation, however improbable, that would require the student to
do partial panel flying without the GPS. I suppose he might, but it
would surprise me if he did. Is it reasonable to expect an instrument
rating applicant to be able to handle multiple point failures - and
then allow him to carry passengers in low IMC in a single engine
airplane?

Much as I hate to say it, the truth is that partial panel as we know it
is not so much a valuable skill in itself (except in the sense that
learning to do ANYTHING that is demanding in an airplane is valuable as
it makes you a better pilot) and more a reasoned response to flying
with unreasonable technology. When both your sole attitude gyro and
your sole heading gyro are plumbed to a single dry pump, you better be
proficient at flying with both of them failed, since dry pumps are
junk. It might interest you to know that the ATP checkride includes no
partial panel work at all, since that sort of crap is not tolerated in
transport category aircraft.

Michael