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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
I thought one of the reasons for the turn coordinator is that it won't tumble in
unusual attitudes where the AI will. I once tumbled my AI in IMC, and it was not a pretty thing. Gave me a real bad sense of vertigo. At the time I had a needle and ball rather than a TC, but that was the instrument that let me sort things out. I think I would still want either a T&B or a TC in my primary scan. Richard Kaplan wrote: Put it where the turn coordinator is located and the put the turn coordinator off to the side somewhere.. the regs say you must have a turn coordinator but do not say where the turn coordinator has to be on your panel. -- --Ray Andraka, P.E. President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc. 401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950 http://www.andraka.com "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, 1759 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Newer vacuum AIs have warning flags, dual vacuum pumps, and vacuum warning
lights on the annunciator panel. If I had an electric AI and a vacuum AI and they disagreed markedly, I would be suspicious of the one having warning lights and flags all over it. Otherwise, comparing them to the other instruments, as you suggested, is the best approach. AOPA Safety Foundation just ran some tests on how long it takes a pilot to recognize that his vacuum system has failed, and how long it takes pilots to recover from those failures. Many times it took over 90 seconds, which is way too long. Some never did recognize the failure. However, none of them were convinced that the vacuum instruments were working and that it was the other instruments that had failed. IIRC somewhat less than half discovered the problem quickly and took quick action. Only about 1/4 of them covered the failed instrument. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
On 13-Jul-2003, Ray Andraka wrote: The problem isn't just finding a home for it, it is finding a home for it that is in a spot where it will be in the pilot's primary scan. I don't think it would do much good on the other side of the panel where it might only be referenced once a minute or less. Our Arrow has a backup electric AI on the right side of the panel. It is turned on whenever I am in or near IMC. I do not include it in my primary instrument scan, but check it periodically to make sure it is on and stable. I have fortunately never had a failure of my vacuum AI in IMC, but I have practiced under the hood with the vac AI and DG covered, using the electric AI for guidance. For me, it only takes a few seconds to get comfortable with looking across the panel, and sure beats sweating bullets trying to hold attitude and a reasonable course with only the TC, particularly in turbulence. So, the only issue is whether I could detect a failed vac AI before it leads me (or the autopilot) into an unusual attitude. If the problem is (as is most likely) a vacuum pump failure, I have a vacuum warning light right in front of my eyes that would be hard to miss. But a failure of the gyro itself could be trickier. I tell myself that if I can't keep a reasonable course (per the DG) with a wings-level attitude (per the AI), then something is wrong and I need to immediately refer to the TC and the electric AI to sort things out. -Elliott Drucker |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Ray Andraka wrote:
Personally, I think the instrument scan typically taught relies too heavily on the AI given its relatively low reliability. Unfortunately, the alternative is a scan that works a bit more like a partial panel scan using the AI as supporting, not primary. Such a scan is much harder to master and requires considerable finesse to keep from chasing the needles. It is not one I would expect to be able to teach someone just learning to fly by instruments. You are probably right. When I did my initial IFR training, my instructor was very big on partial panel work. As a result, I learned to not rely on the AI, and I find partial panel approaches (in training, anyway) almost a non-event. The downside, is that I suspect I don't use the information the AI gives me as much as I should. I tend to fly pitch by airspeed, not by the AI. This probably makes me not as smooth and precise as I might otherwise be. But I do have a lot of confidence that I can fly an approach on the TC and ASI alone. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
James Robinson wrote:
One comment in the report was that the pilot might have had a tendency to focus on a single problem, and mot paid attention to other things. He could have been trying to troubleshoot the electrical problem, and not handed control over to the copilot, who would have had a better view of the remaining functional instruments. This is poor CRM if it is the case. Did the report say anything about the training of the pilots? I woulda thought they did regular sim stuff, where I assume the instructors put you through the wringer on various failues. The failure would have been immediately obvious, so it wasn't one of those insidious failures that people don't notice at first. An experienced IFR pilot should have been aware of the need to maintain attitude and yet lost control almost immediately. In reading the report, it seems like such an avoidable accident, yet... Yeah, that's what gets me about so many of these. Sydney |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Roy Smith writes:
The downside, is that I suspect I don't use the information the AI gives me as much as I should. I tend to fly pitch by airspeed, not by the AI. Are you sure that using the ASI for pitch doesn't make you smoother? I think that a couple of knots difference is more noticeable than a fraction of a degree change in the AI pitch indication. My problem is that managing pitch with the ASI gets hard in turbulence. All the best, David -- David Megginson, , http://www.megginson.com/ |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
C J Campbell wrote:
Newer vacuum AIs have warning flags, dual vacuum pumps, and vacuum warning lights on the annunciator panel. If I had an electric AI and a vacuum AI and they disagreed markedly, I would be suspicious of the one having warning lights and flags all over it. CJ, How do newer vacuum AIs come with dual vacuum pumps? We have a "warning flag" on our newer AI. I note that it is really a low vacuum flag. It doesn't say a thing about how reliably the instrument itself is operating. Sydney |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Ray Andraka wrote:
There are several things you can add to help with the identification, In my plane I have a low vacuum warning light (part of the precise flight backup) mounted between the AI and DG. The AI is one of the sigmatec ones with a vacuum flag, so that if vacuum is lost in the instrument but not in the system I still know about it right away. These warnings cover identification of the more common cause of loss of the AI. The other failure mode would be failure of the gyro, in which case I don't believe you get the insidious gradual spin-down like you do with loss of vacuum. Ray, I'll speak to the latter. A failing horizon gyro may not "spin down". But it can still be insidious. Example: our AI had a period where, in level flight, it would jump up and indicate a rather nose-high attitude. Fail to catch it and you'd be in a rather steep dive. Then it would go back to normal. Then jump up again....finally it broke and unmistakably started spinning in a nauseating fashion, but the "breaking" process could easily have caused a loss of control for a pilot w/out a good cross-check (our failure happened VMC) Cheers, Sydney |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Richard Kaplan wrote:
Put it where the turn coordinator is located and the put the turn coordinator off to the side somewhere.. N. F. W. I think it's time I had a really, really, good hunt for that post about the Grumman getting flipped upside down and dumped into IMC after (what was probably) a collision with an RC plane. Those Electric and Vacuum AIs come with a get-your-life-back guarantee they honestly, really truly, won't tumble, never ever, no matter what, even if I do? How do I test it, in a non-aerobatic plane not approved for spins? Cheers, Sydney |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
C J Campbell wrote: Newer vacuum AIs have warning flags, dual vacuum pumps, and vacuum warning lights on the annunciator panel. If I had an electric AI and a vacuum AI and they disagreed markedly, I would be suspicious of the one having warning lights and flags all over it. I just bought a new AI this spring. For an extra $50 or so you can get the one with the flag. Since I already have the EI volts/amps instrument that has warning lights for both high and low voltage, but no warning light for the vacuum pump, I spent a little extra for the flag. Now I don't need a suction warning lamp. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Backup plates on PDA | Stan Prevost | Instrument Flight Rules | 29 | December 10th 04 02:42 AM |
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 |
Handheld gyros? | Roy Smith | General Aviation | 0 | September 2nd 03 03:39 PM |
Gyros - which do you trust? | Julian Scarfe | Instrument Flight Rules | 6 | July 27th 03 09:36 AM |