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 |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
|
#122
|
|||
|
|||
|
#123
|
|||
|
|||
David Megginson wrote in message ...
And please remember, my original point was that you should let go of the yoke in IMC when you are not looking at the attitude instruments And my original point is that this is not a "one size fits all" solution to lack of autopilot. There are planes where this will get you into trouble. My problem was that I would involuntarily pull the yoke slightly to the right every time I leaned over to look at the mag compass straight on -- the movement takes well under a second, but now I know to release the yoke before I do it. If I released the yoke for small tasks like this, Andrew's disparate AA5B experience notwithstanding, my flying would definately suffer. In fact it used to suffer and I have the scabs from remedial CFI beating to prove it *g*. With practice, one learns to compensate and *not* pull the yoke while performing other tasks. You move your eyes or position, scan to be sure you're compensating correctly, then go back to task. Cheers, Sydney |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
David Megginson wrote in message ...
Right. Personally, I think that safety flying in IMC comes mostly from the ability to prioritize, defer, and negotiate, not from any extra equipment in the plane. At a fundamental level, this is correct. No amount of fancy gear can compensate for fundamental flying skills (or the lack thereof) and for pilot judgement. However, other things being equal, I don't think there can be any doubt that extra equipment adds to safety. I personally would not care to argue that a SE plane flown by a proficient pilot is as safe or safer than a ME plane flown by a proficient pilot -- how can it be, when the extra engine/alternator/vacuum pump provide levels of redundancy and additional options after a failure which most SE planes lack. You? The same is fundamentally true of any equipment which adds redundancy or options. For example, there is no reason that a complex new routing should increase your risk of being in an accident with or without an AP or IFR GPS -- if there is a higher risk, it's because the pilot stops prioritizing and fixates on the rerouting task. This is fundamentally false. You appear to be focusing only on one aspect of the issue. If there is a higher *immediate* risk, it is because the pilot stops flying the plane to fixate on the immediate task. But that's far from the only risk. Rerouting can become part of an accident chain, if the ramefications of the rerouting aren't completely understood, including its effect on fuel status, enroute weather, and destination weather. I appreciate that there are pilots here who feel that they fly so well that they have ample excess brain power and time to get and process wx updates, recalculate their ETAs and fuel, and so forth and so on. However, I don't think it's arguable that the same pilots would have MORE brain capacity to devote to these issues if they were able to enlist "George" while they transcribed their wx and gave a little extra attention to an enroute chart. Maybe most of the time, that extra capacity isn't needed, but maybe sometime the particular parameters and conditions of the flight will require more. I feel there is a reason why a number of experienced and skilled pilots feel an autopilot adds appreciably to the safety of single pilot IFR ops, and it's not that they're incapable of controlling the airplane at a near-automatic level whilest talking to ATC. I suppose it's possible that their cranial capacity is simply more limited than those who feel to the contrary, but this strikes me as a hubristic assumption. YMMV. I'm sure that most pilots appreciate the reroutings, though, since they have IFR GPS's and the reroutings might save them five or ten minutes. We have yet to receive a significant rerouting which *saved* us appreciable time. FWIW. Sydney |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
David Megginson wrote:
The reason I'm skeptical is that the mag compass also works fine for holding heading in smooth air with very shallow turns: it doesn't go to hell in a handbasket until the air gets rough, precisely the same time the update lag in a handheld GPS could potentially also make it difficult to use. That's why I'm interested in hearing from people who've used it successfully in rough air, preferably at night (where there are fewer visual cues like shadows moving over the panel). And that's why I'm looking for a device that acts - effectively - as a backup AI. I saw a couple of devices at the Expo. Both were "boxes" that plugged into different "computers". One was a large box that plugged into what I think was and Ipaq, and one was a small box that plugged into a "Cheeta" portable MFD device. I really liked the Cheeta, but I think it was the most expensive of the solutions I saw. Anyone have other thoughts about this? What was the price of a panel-mounted electric AI? 4K? I wonder if I could get the club to consider such an investment on our aircraft. - Andrew |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
Roy Smith wrote:
Given that I can buy a Garmin eTrex for $100, I have to assume the basic GPS sensor engine is pretty cheap. The obvious next step would be a GPS in each wingtip and one in the tail and trying to derive pitch, bank, and heading from those three 3D data points. There are "electronic gyros". I saw at least two examples at the Expo. - Andrew |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
"Snowbird" wrote in message om... With practice, one learns to compensate and *not* pull the yoke while performing other tasks. You move your eyes or position, scan to be sure you're compensating correctly, then go back to task. Also, learn to handle the yoke without using a death grip. It may require a bit more than fingertip pressure to handle the yoke in turbulence, but "white knuckles" only makes the sensations worse. |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
"Snowbird" wrote:
hubristic Saving that one. -- Dan C172RG at BFM |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Snowbird wrote: At a fundamental level, this is correct. No amount of fancy gear can compensate for fundamental flying skills (or the lack thereof) and for pilot judgement. Oh come on, a 777 can do Cat IIIb autoland if I know how to push the buttons, even if I couldn't maintain heading or altitude without the autopilot. A GPS with "nearest" has rescued plenty of pilots from bad judgement or poor pilotage. This whole thread is nuts. There are many levels of safety, and people have to choose between them all the time. Why can't people who have decided not to install an autopilot just admit that they have chosen a slightly lower level of safety? He I will admit that I have chosen not to install a GPS and as a result I am less safe than I would be with a GPS. Go ahead and insult my navigation skills! It doesn't matter if I could draw a 3-meter resolution map of the US from memory, however good (or bad) I am, the GPS would augment that. If inflating a tire cost $12000 I bet we'd have people here arguing that they were just as safe with good landing technique on a flat tire. -- Ben Jackson http://www.ben.com/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
I wonder if Chris Thomas is a real pilot? Anybody know? | Badwater Bill | Home Built | 116 | September 3rd 04 05:43 PM |
Pilot Error? Is it Mr. Damron? | Badwater Bill | Home Built | 3 | June 23rd 04 04:05 PM |
Single-Seat Accident Records (Was BD-5B) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 41 | November 20th 03 05:39 AM |
Effect of Light Sport on General Aviation | Gilan | Home Built | 17 | September 24th 03 06:11 AM |