Electronic horizon?

Well, let's see, last I checked, I'm a "trained pilot" (SEL, instrument,
glider), and *I* haven't confused it yet. While I respect your opinion, I'd
like to know what data you're basing it on.

Agreed, the Trutrak does sort of "resemble" a full fledged horizon or AI,
but even at first glance it's pretty obvious that it's not the same.

I'm not suggesting that people go out and fly IMC with the Trutrak. Like the
Garmin 196 panel page, the Trutrak, an old mechanical gyro, or damn near
anything is better than nothing for inadvertent or emergency IMC. Many of us
know dead folks who would still be alive if they had one of these devices.

BTW, the Trutrak doesn't tumble. Like a needle and ball, it simple stops
increasing the displayed bank angle once you get steeper than say 60
degrees. It is available set up for both 1 and 2 minute turns (1 minute
recommended for glider).

I've also flown with a mechanical gyro 1 minute needle and ball installed in
a Stemme I recently sold, so I have experience with several instruments. In
order of preference, and assuming one doesn't have a full AI, I'd rate the
Trutrak first, then the Garmin 196 (that is amazingly good), and the
mechanical gyro needle and ball last - - though they will all do the job
given adequate pilot training flying partial panel IMC.

bumper


"Stefan" wrote in message
...
bumper wrote:

Even though it doesn't have pitch info, I've been really happy with the
Trutrak

http://www.trutrakflightsystems.com/...struments.html

I consider this instrument dangeruous because a trained pilot *will*
confuse it with a horizon. And an untrained pilot shouldn't fly in IMC in
the first place.

Stefan

bumper wrote:

While I respect your opinion, I'd
like to know what data you're basing it on.

It is generally considered a bad idea to have two instruments which look
the same but have a different meaning. It will work fine as long as
there is no stress present, but the moment there is additional stress,
chances are that the human system breaks down. For illustration, read
the accident report at http://www.bfu.admin.ch/common/pdf/1781_e,
especially paragraph 1.18.2. (Agreed, things were much more complex and
there were many more factors involved, but I think the report is very
enlightning anyway.)

damn near
anything is better than nothing for inadvertent or emergency IMC.

I think nobody will disagree on this.

Stefan

Stefan,

Again, no argument with regard to the conclusions drawn in the accident
report you cite. BTW, that is one incredibly long and detailed accident
report! I think in the US, only a Kennedy could garner that much attention.

Anyway, with regard to the Trutrak versus western style horizons, the
depiction is the same, i.e. the aircraft silhouette remains stationary with
the host aircraft while the "outside" sky/earth turns within the instrument
to depict bank angle. Thus, someone who has trained on western instruments
should have no problem adapting to the Trutrak. Much easier and more
intuitive than a needle and ball - - at least for me as I trained w/ a turn
coordinator. All you gotta remember is there's no pitch info. In a glider,
that isn't too tough as if you go too fast, the wings get swept back.

bumper

"Stefan" wrote in message
...
bumper wrote:

While I respect your opinion, I'd like to know what data you're basing it
on.

It is generally considered a bad idea to have two instruments which look
the same but have a different meaning. It will work fine as long as there
is no stress present, but the moment there is additional stress, chances
are that the human system breaks down. For illustration, read the accident
report at http://www.bfu.admin.ch/common/pdf/1781_e, especially paragraph
1.18.2.