to HSI or not to HSI

wrote in message
...

So what does any of this have to do with a pilot flying without an
autopilot?

You mentioned the law of primacy. We should assume that even the pilot of
an airplane without an autopilot may eventually fly with an autopilot, so
therefore we should fly under a paradigm compatible with autopilot
operation. It is impossible to use your method with an autopilot -- the
pilot must understand the concept of forward vs. reverse sensing to fly an
approach with an autopilot.



I am quite sure an autopilot doesn't simply fly right towards a right
needle some undetermined amount, and then turn some more when the
needle doesn't move, as many pilots do who use your preferred method.

Establishing a proper intercept angle can be done with either paradigm -- I
don't see the issue here.

In any event, I say again... flying a localizer approach with an autopilot
requires understanding of the "forward" vs. "reverse" sensing algorithm.
That is reason enough for all IFR pilots to use this paradigm.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

wrote in message
...

Irrelevant.

No, it is not irrelevant. This is in fact the best rationale of all to use
the forward vs. reverse sensing paradigm.

An IFR procedures paradigm which cannot be carried over to autopilot
operation when a pilot steps up to an autopilot-equipped airplane is a poor
paradigm.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 02:17:56 -0500, "Richard Kaplan"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .

So what does any of this have to do with a pilot flying without an
autopilot?

You mentioned the law of primacy. We should assume that even the pilot of
an airplane without an autopilot may eventually fly with an autopilot, so
therefore we should fly under a paradigm compatible with autopilot
operation. It is impossible to use your method with an autopilot -- the
pilot must understand the concept of forward vs. reverse sensing to fly an
approach with an autopilot.


Beyond ridiculous.



I am quite sure an autopilot doesn't simply fly right towards a right
needle some undetermined amount, and then turn some more when the
needle doesn't move, as many pilots do who use your preferred method.

Establishing a proper intercept angle can be done with either paradigm -- I
don't see the issue here.

In any event, I say again... flying a localizer approach with an autopilot
requires understanding of the "forward" vs. "reverse" sensing algorithm.
That is reason enough for all IFR pilots to use this paradigm.


I say again.

Totally ridiculous.



--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 02:19:44 -0500, "Richard Kaplan"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .

Irrelevant.

No, it is not irrelevant. This is in fact the best rationale of all to use
the forward vs. reverse sensing paradigm.

An IFR procedures paradigm which cannot be carried over to autopilot
operation when a pilot steps up to an autopilot-equipped airplane is a poor
paradigm.


The problem is in your assumption (unproven, undemonstrated) that the
method cannot be carried over to an autopilot.

It is a cute attempt to grasp at a straw to support your argument, but
it is dead wrong.

So it is, indeed, irrelevant.

Not that I really care at this point.

I have seen your method used. I have seen experienced pilots using
your method turn towards the needle and wait for it to center, with
no idea of what angle of intercept they are using, or even if they are
intercepting the course at all. I have seen them turn "a little bit
more" towards the needle, until they have completely turned around and
headed the other way.

I have seen them totally screwed up because of the mental gyrations
required to mentally turn the aircraft so that they know whether to
turn right or left, and then have to mentally turn the aircraft the
"other" way because they forgot they were making a localizer procedure
turn, or got screwed up by wind outbound in a localizer holding
pattern, and thought the holding course was on their right when it was
on their left or dead ahead of them , and they flew your method until
they were ten miles off the course.

I have seen them become so screwed up by this time that they not only
do not know their right from their left, they hardly know up from
down.

So I have given your method a chance, and it failed muster, so I
moved on to a better method. A more positive method, less error prone
and less pilot overload.

But you hang in there. I'm outta here on this one.

wrote in message
news

Beyond ridiculous.

Do you care to elaborate?

What autopilot(s) have you used to fly localizer approaches?

How do you propose flying a localizer approach using an autopilot in
navigation mode without understanding the paradigm of forward vs. reverse
sensing?

I do not know how to do this with an autopilot without using the concept of
forward or reverse sensing -- do you know of a way to do this? Does anyone
here know of a way to do this?


--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

wrote in message
...

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 02:19:44 -0500, "Richard Kaplan"

It is a cute attempt to grasp at a straw to support your argument, but
it is dead wrong.

OK, please tell me how to use an autopilot in nav mode on a localizer
approach without using the paradigm of reverse sensing.

Do you have an autopilot in the plane(s) you fly?


I have seen your method used. I have seen experienced pilots using
your method turn towards the needle and wait for it to center, with
no idea of what angle of intercept they are using, or even if they are

That can happen with any pardigm.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message
t...


The easiest way to interpret a CDI needle 99% of the time is to think of
it in terms of "left" vs "right".

And that is bad.

Then as I asked in another message in this thread -- how do you propose
using an autopilot in nav mode to fly a localizer approach without utilizing
the concept of forward vs. reverse sensing? It cannot be done.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote
My instructor was an anachronism as well. He loathes the pretty maps and
pictures on the display. Thinks it is killing all understanding of IFR
flying.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. I think a moving map is great - but
unfortunately, it does allow pilots who have not grasped the
difference between heading, bearing, course, and track to obtain an
instrument rating. And it does cause more subtle problems. That's
why I like the ADF - it's a pretty lousy navaid, but it's great for
forcing the student to learn what all those things mean and
internalize the knowledge. It's sort of like the tailwheel of IFR
flying.

And my point is that if you're training someone who can't add/subtract
three digit numbers in his head, the training is going to take a long
time.

I suppose, I am not a CFII. I have no idea what to say to that - (however,
I am not sure the method I advocate requires doing math - there is a way to
find "left/right" by looking at a chart)

Yes, but that means doing mental geometry, and most people these days
aren't any better at that than they are at mental arithmetic. Six of
one, half dozen of the other.

So how do these folks figure out
intercept angles or other such stuff?

Poorly. With tricks using the DG and/or the CDI and rules of thumb
and memory aids. I never messed with any of that stuff when I was
learning to fly instruments, because I always considered it easier
just to figure it out, but now as an instructor I find that I must
maintain an arsenal of them.

Surely you have to prepare them to be
ready to intercept airways and courses, etc. (There is also the timed
turns) I am astounded that this is the hard part and not those other issues
for people who can't do math. I cringe thinking about how they must start
smoking out their heads when they have to come up with wind corrections or
other stuff.

Unfortunately, that's not far off the mark. There is a reason many
people need 50 hours (or more) for an instrument rating, and this is
it. I've never seen anyone need more than a few hours to develop the
skills necessary to control the airplane adequately when told what
heading and altitude to fly - meaning the skills required for an ASR
or PAR approach. Most people get there in well under 3 hours. Some
of them (those who are good at understanding geometry) move on
quickly, and are ready to pass the checkride at 15-20 hours. Others
bog down on procedures and need an additional 20-50 hours.

Have you noted lately the popularity of such techniques as the
no-brainer NDB approach, the hold entry where you simply turn the
short way to the outbound, and all the other tricks people come up
with to avoid the need for situational awareness?

They only have to remember it ONCE - upon starting the approach.

But what if they do not?

Then they will quickly peg the needle and hopefully go missed. Or, if
they're CFII's who are making their first flight in IMC while
instructing a student, they descend below mins with the needle pegged
and wait for the student to identify a local landmark and land the
plane (no **** this really happened).

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote
My instructor was an anachronism as well. He loathes the pretty maps and
pictures on the display. Thinks it is killing all understanding of IFR
flying.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. I think a moving map is great - but
unfortunately, it does allow pilots who have not grasped the
difference between heading, bearing, course, and track to obtain an
instrument rating. And it does cause more subtle problems. That's
why I like the ADF - it's a pretty lousy navaid, but it's great for
forcing the student to learn what all those things mean and
internalize the knowledge. It's sort of like the tailwheel of IFR
flying.

And my point is that if you're training someone who can't add/subtract
three digit numbers in his head, the training is going to take a long
time.

I suppose, I am not a CFII. I have no idea what to say to that -
(however,
I am not sure the method I advocate requires doing math - there is a way
to
find "left/right" by looking at a chart)

Yes, but that means doing mental geometry, and most people these days
aren't any better at that than they are at mental arithmetic. Six of
one, half dozen of the other.

So how do these folks figure out
intercept angles or other such stuff?

Poorly. With tricks using the DG and/or the CDI and rules of thumb
and memory aids. I never messed with any of that stuff when I was
learning to fly instruments, because I always considered it easier
just to figure it out, but now as an instructor I find that I must
maintain an arsenal of them.

Yes, my point of view is skewed towards a little more competency.


Surely you have to prepare them to be
ready to intercept airways and courses, etc. (There is also the timed
turns) I am astounded that this is the hard part and not those other
issues
for people who can't do math. I cringe thinking about how they must
start
smoking out their heads when they have to come up with wind corrections
or
other stuff.

Unfortunately, that's not far off the mark. There is a reason many
people need 50 hours (or more) for an instrument rating, and this is
it. I've never seen anyone need more than a few hours to develop the
skills necessary to control the airplane adequately when told what
heading and altitude to fly - meaning the skills required for an ASR
or PAR approach. Most people get there in well under 3 hours. Some
of them (those who are good at understanding geometry) move on
quickly, and are ready to pass the checkride at 15-20 hours. Others
bog down on procedures and need an additional 20-50 hours.

I must be stupid then as well. I spent about 50 hours in a frasca trainer
before ever getting in the plane to fly (but then it was quick).


Have you noted lately the popularity of such techniques as the
no-brainer NDB approach, the hold entry where you simply turn the
short way to the outbound, and all the other tricks people come up
with to avoid the need for situational awareness?

They only have to remember it ONCE - upon starting the approach.

But what if they do not?

Then they will quickly peg the needle and hopefully go missed. Or, if
they're CFII's who are making their first flight in IMC while
instructing a student, they descend below mins with the needle pegged
and wait for the student to identify a local landmark and land the
plane (no **** this really happened).

That is scary. I have also heard scary stories about 15 minute practicals
with about 5 minutes of oral beforehand and the DE was handling the radios
the whole time. It is no wonder so many people end up in the sides of
mountains.



Michael

Yes, and I miss the old 4 course ranges. An approach down one of those
really made a man out of you. All this VOR and DME stuff is for
sissies too. Just gimmie a 4 course range and good set of earphones,
and I'll land 'er in any weather, by gump.


(Michael) wrote in message . com...
"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote
My instructor was an anachronism as well. He loathes the pretty maps and
pictures on the display. Thinks it is killing all understanding of IFR
flying.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. I think a moving map is great - but
unfortunately, it does allow pilots who have not grasped the
difference between heading, bearing, course, and track to obtain an
instrument rating. And it does cause more subtle problems. That's
why I like the ADF - it's a pretty lousy navaid, but it's great for
forcing the student to learn what all those things mean and
internalize the knowledge. It's sort of like the tailwheel of IFR
flying.

And my point is that if you're training someone who can't add/subtract
three digit numbers in his head, the training is going to take a long
time.

I suppose, I am not a CFII. I have no idea what to say to that - (however,
I am not sure the method I advocate requires doing math - there is a way to
find "left/right" by looking at a chart)

Yes, but that means doing mental geometry, and most people these days
aren't any better at that than they are at mental arithmetic. Six of
one, half dozen of the other.

So how do these folks figure out
intercept angles or other such stuff?

Poorly. With tricks using the DG and/or the CDI and rules of thumb
and memory aids. I never messed with any of that stuff when I was
learning to fly instruments, because I always considered it easier
just to figure it out, but now as an instructor I find that I must
maintain an arsenal of them.

Surely you have to prepare them to be
ready to intercept airways and courses, etc. (There is also the timed
turns) I am astounded that this is the hard part and not those other issues
for people who can't do math. I cringe thinking about how they must start
smoking out their heads when they have to come up with wind corrections or
other stuff.

Unfortunately, that's not far off the mark. There is a reason many
people need 50 hours (or more) for an instrument rating, and this is
it. I've never seen anyone need more than a few hours to develop the
skills necessary to control the airplane adequately when told what
heading and altitude to fly - meaning the skills required for an ASR
or PAR approach. Most people get there in well under 3 hours. Some
of them (those who are good at understanding geometry) move on
quickly, and are ready to pass the checkride at 15-20 hours. Others
bog down on procedures and need an additional 20-50 hours.

Have you noted lately the popularity of such techniques as the
no-brainer NDB approach, the hold entry where you simply turn the
short way to the outbound, and all the other tricks people come up
with to avoid the need for situational awareness?

They only have to remember it ONCE - upon starting the approach.

But what if they do not?

Then they will quickly peg the needle and hopefully go missed. Or, if
they're CFII's who are making their first flight in IMC while
instructing a student, they descend below mins with the needle pegged
and wait for the student to identify a local landmark and land the
plane (no **** this really happened).

Michael