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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Julian Scarfe wrote:
I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. Classic teaching of partial/limited panel involves covering an instrument and then continuing to fly without it. In the case of the Bandeirante accident, that wasn't the issue. There was still a perfectly serviceable AI in the panel, and a pilot sitting in front of it. The issue was identifying the failed instrument in a complex cockpit environment. I'm not sure I'm barking up the wrong tree. Possibly practicing flying partial panel makes little sense. OTOH, practicing partial panel *does* teach which combinations of instruments can be used to provide the same information as the missing AI. Surely this is relevant to obtaining and maintaining a good crosscheck -- and wouldn't good crosscheck be the key to identifying the failed instrument in a "complex cockpit environment"? BTW, my reading of the accident report is that they weren't certain but what both AIs had failed -- something that was certainly within statistical likelihood given the low MTBUR Cheers, Sydney |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Big John wrote:
NDB approach is a non precision approach. Takes less Partial Panel proficiency. I'm quite aware of what is and isn't a precision approach. You ask and I gave a straight forward answer. Why did you parse my answer and get snippy???? If you didn't want to know, why ask? I edit what I see as extra text routinely. I'm sorry you see my response as "snippy". To me, defining precision approaches didn't explain why you feel an NDB approach in particular is easiest to fly partial panel. That's what I wanted to know. Perhaps I should clarify that I was assuming comparing "apples to apples", ie an ILS vs a GPS vs an NDB approach flown down to about the same height AGL, maybe 700-800 ft ceiling. If we're talking 200 ft ceiling then I assume we agree it's a moot point, the ILS or maybe an ASR or a PAR is the only thing which will get you in. Are you trying to tell me it's not easier to fly a PP NDB approach than a PP ILS? Well, that seems to be the general opinion of more experienced pilots around here, including some folks I generally think pretty highly of. It's certainly my opinion from flying both partial panel in simulated IMC at night. We've been lucky enough that so far all our failures have occured day VFR, so I can't speak from experience. And I won't in our plane, because when we bought it, the ADF came in a cardboard box having been pulled to install an ifr-certifiable GPS. So it made the most sense to sell it and use the money to certify the GPS, and that's what we did. If you don't want to take advice from someone who has been there and done that then use your own procedure. Well, when one person who has "been there and done that" offers advice which runs counter to that of a number of others who have "been there and done that", I'd like to know the reason for the discrepency. It *is* a moot point to us, as explained above. Though I did have a CFI who insisted I learn to fake NDB approaches on a handheld GPS as an emergency procedure. Which sort of put me in mind of modifying an auto to make it into a good horse-drawn buggy. I'd like to see you PP trying to use GPS to make an approach. It's hard enough to keep the airplane flying PP without using the benefits of GPS. I don't follow this at all. There have been several articles commenting on the heading assistance provided by some modes of common handheld GPS. Unless you are thinking that the GPS is tucked off to the side and must be scanned by turning one's head constantly, instead of being readily in view? In an IFR install, there ought to be a CDI for the thing, right in one's primary scan and it shouldn't be necessary to turn one's head much to fly it. We have a moving map coupled to our GPS in the primary scan area, between the AI and the CDIs. I find it so useful partial- panel that our CFI fails it. Where are you located? Another post pointed out an individual practicing using his back up AI across the panel and got vertigo. He probably was moving his head back and forth which gives you vertigo when on instruments, Your scan is only with your eye balls or you will probably get vertigo. Yeah, that's probably part of the issue. Where my compass is located, I can't read it accurately eyeballs only. I have to move my head. So flying an approach like an NDB where I have to constantly scan the compass is he**. It's much simpler to fly an approach where I can pretty much drop the compass out of the scan and just center the needle. I'm going to back out of most of these threads and let yu'all have at it. I'll just read and enjoy. Might even look at a sport bird since I can't get a third class anymore. At least with out several years and a lot of time and money to fight the system. Have you heard of any one getting by OK City with a pacemaker? I pass a monthly check ok. Have enjoyed many of your posts. Keep it up. You are not afraid to ask questions which is good. Thanks. Appreciate your info about the 17 hrs a month, too. Afraid I can't quite pull that right now. A young child has a sad effect upon free time 'fraid I don't have good news about a pacemaker. I know someone who was a glider CFI/DE, and works for the local FSDO, and he didn't even fight it. Of course, he's still flying the gliders and enjoying every minute I assume. Cheers, Sydney |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
I have a Garmin 196. It has a simulated instrument
panel page on it that is pretty accurate. It would be the tie breaker in the event of confusion over what the gyro instruments were saying. "Sydney Hoeltzli" wrote in message ... Julian Scarfe wrote: I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. Classic teaching of partial/limited panel involves covering an instrument and then continuing to fly without it. In the case of the Bandeirante accident, that wasn't the issue. There was still a perfectly serviceable AI in the panel, and a pilot sitting in front of it. The issue was identifying the failed instrument in a complex cockpit environment. I'm not sure I'm barking up the wrong tree. Possibly practicing flying partial panel makes little sense. OTOH, practicing partial panel *does* teach which combinations of instruments can be used to provide the same information as the missing AI. Surely this is relevant to obtaining and maintaining a good crosscheck -- and wouldn't good crosscheck be the key to identifying the failed instrument in a "complex cockpit environment"? BTW, my reading of the accident report is that they weren't certain but what both AIs had failed -- something that was certainly within statistical likelihood given the low MTBUR Cheers, Sydney |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
I played with that page on the 196 yesterday in moderately gusty
conditions... You have to be smooth on the controls, make your correction and then wait for the unit to update... Flown that way it is useable and I suspect that I could fly an approach with it in real conditions (an ILS to minimums would be hairy).. The work load is significantly higher than with the gyros.. But, if you do not wait for the screen to update you get into a world of hurt... Since it was nice and bumpy I put the hood on and then flew it like I was panicky - rapid, big,. inputs - It only took about 30 seconds to get out of sync, with the ship laid over on it's side, whereupon I had the fun of recovering from an unusual attitude... Other than the speed having gotten further into the yellow arc than I like it was good exercise... About this time the controller came on and asked me to say intentions - uh, oh, busted! Denny "Roger Tracy" wrote in message ... I have a Garmin 196. It has a simulated instrument panel page on it that is pretty accurate. It would be the tie breaker in the event of confusion over what the gyro instruments were saying. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Backup vacuum pump system STC'ed for Cherokee 180 | Chuck | Owning | 6 | September 18th 04 02:30 PM |
Good AI backup, wish me luck | Robert M. Gary | Instrument Flight Rules | 29 | March 1st 04 05:36 PM |
Solid State Backup AI | Dan Truesdell | Instrument Flight Rules | 20 | January 15th 04 09:53 PM |
Gyros - which do you trust? | Julian Scarfe | Instrument Flight Rules | 6 | July 27th 03 09:36 AM |
Backup gyros - which do you trust? | Dan Luke | Owning | 46 | July 17th 03 08:06 PM |