If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 21:09:21 -0500, "Richard Kaplan" wrote: wrote in message .. . As far as radios are concerned, if you have the OBS ring set to the single localizer course, and you are west of course, it will indicate west I say again.... when things are bouncing around in the airplane and you need a quick answer, which way do you turn when the needle is deflected? Easy as 1-2--3 You (1) look at the OBS, (2) select a heading on the needle side that provides the intercept angle you desire, and (3) fly that heading. You willl intercept the course on that angle. For 99% of pilots, it is MUCH easier to turn in the direction of the needle than to consider which geometric side of the course will result in what sort of deflection. It is MUCH easier and safer if interpretation of the needle is simplified in this format. Only because of the law of primacy. It is not MUCH easier, in fact it is more complex because of the mental processing required, and it is certainly not safer. I have seen too many pilots reverse course and fly away from their desired approach course because they kept turning right or left when the needle didn't start to center. "Forward" vs. "Reverse" sensing are indeed simply paradigms based upon the pilot's perspective of the world. For most pilots, the "Forward" sensing paradigm is much easier to interpret than your alternative (though acceptable) geometric paradigm. How would you know this? You have obviously never used the method, so you have no basis to make this statement. I agree that the "Reverse" sensing paradigm is a bit harder than your geometric paradigm, but that accounts for a small minority of time for most pilots compared with time under the "Forward" paradigm. -------------------- Richard Kaplan www.flyimc.com |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 06:45:28 -0500, Matt Whiting
wrote: wrote: Start by explaining that the ONLY information provided by a VOR head is the position of the aircraft with respect to two lines. Actually, it gives you the position with respect to four lines, as the TO/FROM flag allows you to bisect the course line and narrow your position down to one of four quandrants. This is explained particularly well in Peter Dogan's book. If you visualize the lines stopping at the VOR and another continuing out the other side. I prefer to visualize that as a single line, therefore I visualize only two lines. There is NO directional information provided, and without some other instrument to provide directional information, it is useless as a navigation tool. Well, not exactly. It provides no information as to the heading of the aircraft, but it provides a lot of information as to what direction to fly. Matt As I said, without the sun, the stars, or an instrument to use to turn to that direction, it is useless. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Am I missing something in this thread? With an HSI if you set the front course
bearing on the OBS, you fly inbound on a back course approach into the needle just as you do with the front course. Richard Kaplan wrote: wrote in message ... As far as radios are concerned, if you have the OBS ring set to the single localizer course, and you are west of course, it will indicate west I say again.... when things are bouncing around in the airplane and you need a quick answer, which way do you turn when the needle is deflected? For 99% of pilots, it is MUCH easier to turn in the direction of the needle than to consider which geometric side of the course will result in what sort of deflection. It is MUCH easier and safer if interpretation of the needle is simplified in this format. "Forward" vs. "Reverse" sensing are indeed simply paradigms based upon the pilot's perspective of the world. For most pilots, the "Forward" sensing paradigm is much easier to interpret than your alternative (though acceptable) geometric paradigm. I agree that the "Reverse" sensing paradigm is a bit harder than your geometric paradigm, but that accounts for a small minority of time for most pilots compared with time under the "Forward" paradigm. -------------------- Richard Kaplan www.flyimc.com |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
wrote: On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 06:32:32 -0800, wrote: Am I missing something in this thread? With an HSI if you set the front course bearing on the OBS, you fly inbound on a back course approach into the needle just as you do with the front course. Yep. Exactly what you do with a DG/OBS, if you create a mental HSI by superimposing the DG onto the OBS, or vice versa. I don't think my brain could handle that one. I did a lot of instrument instructing many years ago, before HSIs appeared in light aircraft. I thought then, and think now, of flying away from the CDI needle when flying inbound on a back course. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote
Here disagree - the current use appears to imply a "design flaw" but that is only because of imporper use and instruction of the instrument. It does not "point" to the course, rather it shows what sector of the localizer course you are on. (shaded or unshaded.) This is of course correct - provided you can get the student to do mental math on the approach. Of course to someone brought up on the ADF, that's not a big deal - if you fly ADF approaches, every approach requires mental math all the time. However, in today's instructional environment, the ADF is introduced late (as an advanced technique) or not introduced at all (since it is no longer required). Further, in the real world of IFR flying, the ADF is no longer particularly relevant to most pilots. It is a back course - meaning you are coming from the other way. You know this. Clearly the instruction should be corrected - it is a lot cheaper than everyone buying HSIs. It may not be cheaper than installing a switch. Instruction also costs money, if nothing else than in aircraft operation time. In the higher end aircraft, it may not be cheaper than buying HSI's. but the addition of a cheap, simple, and reliable part to the CDI (or replacement with an HSI) eliminates the potential for error - and is thus clearly an advantage. And what is thins part? The switch. I contest that ensuring the blue and yellow colors on the instrument and proper training would avert the confusion. I'm not convinced that blue and yellow colors on the instrument would be cheaper than the switch. They are certainly not common on modern CDI's. And the proper training you advocate involves being able to do mental math, which in my experience most pilots can't do. You may not realize this, but the elementary education system has changed. Have you ever seen what happens at a store these days when the power goes down and the cash registers don't work? Everything grinds to a halt; most of the cashiers can't make change without the register computing it. Michael |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
It seems hard only because you learned a different method, and old
ideas and habits are hard to replace with new ones. It's a real simple concept, however, simpler really than "reverse sensing" by a a lot. Anyone can learn it, and it takes the guesswork out of the equation. On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 07:32:44 -0800, wrote: wrote: On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 06:32:32 -0800, wrote: Am I missing something in this thread? With an HSI if you set the front course bearing on the OBS, you fly inbound on a back course approach into the needle just as you do with the front course. Yep. Exactly what you do with a DG/OBS, if you create a mental HSI by superimposing the DG onto the OBS, or vice versa. I don't think my brain could handle that one. I did a lot of instrument instructing many years ago, before HSIs appeared in light aircraft. I thought then, and think now, of flying away from the CDI needle when flying inbound on a back course. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael" wrote in message om... "Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote Here disagree - the current use appears to imply a "design flaw" but that is only because of imporper use and instruction of the instrument. It does not "point" to the course, rather it shows what sector of the localizer course you are on. (shaded or unshaded.) This is of course correct - provided you can get the student to do mental math on the approach. Of course to someone brought up on the ADF, that's not a big deal - if you fly ADF approaches, every approach requires mental math all the time. What mental math? You look at the needle, determine what sector it is in, then look at the chart and matchi it up. There is no math - you just match a pattern of shaded or unshaded. I don't understand your objection about it being difficult. However, in today's instructional environment, the ADF is introduced late (as an advanced technique) or not introduced at all (since it is no longer required). Further, in the real world of IFR flying, the ADF is no longer particularly relevant to most pilots. I don't know if I would go that far. For those that use them it is a wonderful tool. For those that do not it is useless. It is a back course - meaning you are coming from the other way. You know this. Clearly the instruction should be corrected - it is a lot cheaper than everyone buying HSIs. It may not be cheaper than installing a switch. Instruction also costs money, if nothing else than in aircraft operation time. In the higher end aircraft, it may not be cheaper than buying HSI's. Agreed, but my point was that if the training had been correct the first time around it would all be avoided. but the addition of a cheap, simple, and reliable part to the CDI (or replacement with an HSI) eliminates the potential for error - and is thus clearly an advantage. And what is thins part? The switch. And you think that people would remember to flip the switch? It is essentially the same issue as remembering you are on a BC. If you can remember that you don't need the switch. It is the same problem, but now you have added a component to the avioinics... As you pointed out earier I seem to have started a religious war and I am sorry for it. I have not been on this group long enough to have seen this one before. My apologies. I contest that ensuring the blue and yellow colors on the instrument and proper training would avert the confusion. I'm not convinced that blue and yellow colors on the instrument would be cheaper than the switch. They are certainly not common on modern CDI's. And the proper training you advocate involves being able to do mental math, which in my experience most pilots can't do. A simple memory aid will also work. But again, I see no mental math to do. Nothing can be simpler. You may not realize this, but the elementary education system has changed. Have you ever seen what happens at a store these days when the power goes down and the cash registers don't work? Everything grinds to a halt; most of the cashiers can't make change without the register computing it. I do, and I lament it terribly. I own many rental properties and pay taxes for many school districts and I am certainly not getting my "money's worth" from our local governments. I tutored some students recently and was appalled at the curriculum and the text books. Michael |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 06:32:32 -0800, wrote: Am I missing something in this thread? With an HSI if you set the front course bearing on the OBS, you fly inbound on a back course approach into the needle just as you do with the front course. Yep. Exactly what you do with a DG/OBS, if you create a mental HSI by superimposing the DG onto the OBS, or vice versa. An HSI does not sense anything any differently. It combines two instruments for ease of interpretation. The same thing can be done mentally, if you want to save yourself $8000 or so. If you set the OBS to the inbound course on a back course, and fly headings that are on the CDI side of the OBS ring, you are doing what the HSI "tells" you to do. True, but the HSI makes it much easier. Matt |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|