Are pilots really good or just lucky???

"C Kingsbury" wrote
That would be interesting to know. However, I stand by my judgment that this
was pretty egregious. Fixing this wouldn't have been *that* difficult. They
knew about it at least a week beforehand--more than enough time to call
Chief and have them FedEx a new one and have any old mechanic slap it in.

Have you ever shipped electronic/mechanical equipment internationally?
I have. You can't make it happen in a week.

Michael

"C J Campbell" wrote
Any reason Plan C could not have been a handheld GPS like the Garmin 296,
with TC and AI displays?

That works well with relatively draggy and stable airplanes. There is
no gyro in the 296. It infers bank information from rate of turn
information, and that information is of course delayed. In something
nice and stable like a Cherokee (or, for that matter, any single
engine Cessna with struts and fixed gear) this works adequately well -
certainly well enough to shoot a no-gyro PAR in 1000 and 2 - because
the delay time between banking the wings and turn indication on the
GPS is not sufficient for anything really ugly to happen. But the 210
is a different beast - with retractable gear and no struts, it's more
like the Bonanzas and Mooneys than it is like most Cessnas. By the
time you get turn indication on the GPS, you might already be in a
spiral. It might work OK with a very sharp pilot familiar with the
plane, a well-trimmed airplane, and smooth air but it's not much of a
plan.

Michael

Anybody had any experience with the AI information on the Anywheremap
system?

It would be interesting to know what PDA is used, if there is anybody.


On 23 Nov 2004 07:09:49 -0800,
(Michael) wrote:

"C J Campbell" wrote
Any reason Plan C could not have been a handheld GPS like the Garmin 296,
with TC and AI displays?

That works well with relatively draggy and stable airplanes. There is
no gyro in the 296. It infers bank information from rate of turn
information, and that information is of course delayed. In something
nice and stable like a Cherokee (or, for that matter, any single
engine Cessna with struts and fixed gear) this works adequately well -
certainly well enough to shoot a no-gyro PAR in 1000 and 2 - because
the delay time between banking the wings and turn indication on the
GPS is not sufficient for anything really ugly to happen. But the 210
is a different beast - with retractable gear and no struts, it's more
like the Bonanzas and Mooneys than it is like most Cessnas. By the
time you get turn indication on the GPS, you might already be in a
spiral. It might work OK with a very sharp pilot familiar with the
plane, a well-trimmed airplane, and smooth air but it's not much of a
plan.

Michael

(Michael) wrote in
om:

"C J Campbell" wrote
Any reason Plan C could not have been a handheld GPS like the Garmin
296, with TC and AI displays?

That works well with relatively draggy and stable airplanes. There is
no gyro in the 296. It infers bank information from rate of turn
information, and that information is of course delayed. In something
nice and stable like a Cherokee (or, for that matter, any single
engine Cessna with struts and fixed gear) this works adequately well -
certainly well enough to shoot a no-gyro PAR in 1000 and 2 - because
the delay time between banking the wings and turn indication on the
GPS is not sufficient for anything really ugly to happen. But the 210
is a different beast - with retractable gear and no struts, it's more
like the Bonanzas and Mooneys than it is like most Cessnas. By the
time you get turn indication on the GPS, you might already be in a
spiral. It might work OK with a very sharp pilot familiar with the
plane, a well-trimmed airplane, and smooth air but it's not much of a
plan.

Michael


If she was already on approach, wouldn't the plane already be dirty and
slowed down a bit?

If it wasn't, wouldn't that be the first thing to do? Slow the plane WAY
down and fly the rudder?

I seem to recall a thread a while back that discussed getting down safely
if you lose everything, and it involved trimming all the way up and
reducing the throttle and flying with the rudder only... Admittedly, I
never tried it, but it is an excercise worth trying because I'd be
curious to see if it really works...

"C Kingsbury" wrote
The only thing I find myself really choking on in this case is the turn
coordinator. That strikes me as a sort of russian roulette.

No more so than night/IFR/overwater flying in a single, except that
engines are typically more reliable than AI's so you don't have quite
the same number of chambers.

It's just a question of how much of a chance you're willing to take.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
"C Kingsbury" wrote
The only thing I find myself really choking on in this case is the turn
coordinator. That strikes me as a sort of russian roulette.

No more so than night/IFR/overwater flying in a single, except that
engines are typically more reliable than AI's so you don't have quite
the same number of chambers.

It's just a question of how much of a chance you're willing to take.

Yes, except that in risk management terms the likelihood of AI/vac failure
and engine failure are independent variables. So it still represents a
sizable net increase in total likelihood of a critical failure.

-cwk.