Instrument training…

[TCABM]

This was simulated IFR - under the hood.

The PFD was not actually failed, just the GPS and G5 which is configured in this plane as HI; in that plane we also have both a mag compass and vacuum HI. Steam gauges were all nominal, so no need to declare emergency in VFR conditions.

I’m confused on the actual panel layout. In several instances, you refer to the G5 as an HI. I’ve been assuming that meant the G5 was configured as a Horizontal Situation Indicator (HSI). I’ve also assumed since post 1 there is just one G5 in this aircraft. Now you’re referring to it being configured as a PFD, which I would assume is the Attitude Indicator option.

Does this mean the scenario was the AI (assumed as steam) failed and you reverted the G5 HSI to the PFD page as the solution for a failing AI?

 

[StraightnLevel]

I’m confused on the actual panel layout. In several instances, you refer to the G5 as an HI. I’ve been assuming that meant the G5 was configured as a Horizontal Situation Indicator (HSI).

Yes. I think of it as the Heading Indicator, but yes, it normally sits in HSI mode.

I’ve also assumed since post 1 there is just one G5 in this aircraft

Correct.

Now you’re referring to it being configured as a PFD, which I would assume is the Attitude Indicator option.

It was, but only temporarily. The CFI "failed" my Attitude Indicator; in that plane, one option for backup is to switch the G5 into PFD mode and rely on the vacuum heading indicator and magnetic compass for heading information.

I chose that option briefly, then the CFI suggested that while it was a really good approach for a real-life situation, it wasn't meeting the intent of the training session. When I switched the G5 back to HSI mode, it was immediately clear that the heading and course indications were not in agreement with the legacy instruments.

Does this mean the scenario was the AI (assumed as steam) failed and you reverted the G5 HSI to the PFD page as the solution for a failing AI?

Yes. I obviously wasn't clear enough in my description.

 

[StraightnLevel]

Well, I still have some way to go for IR, but I got the Complex endorsement today. One more step along the path.....

 

[Steamflyer]

Navigation and approaches with a mag compass, turn coordinator, stop watch and VOR is a lost art with IR pilots today.

Add in night, IMC, and rain, and then you are talking!

That said, greatly in favor of a second AI in place of T/C.

 

[midlifeflyer]

That said, greatly in favor of a second AI in place of T/C.

I think most would agree but the choice is sometimes driven by your autopilot.

 

[MauleSkinner]

That said, greatly in favor of a second AI in place of T/C.

But whatever your backup and/or supporting instrumentation, you’re responsible to be proficient at it.

 

[Lndwarrior]

Had something similar happen on my very first IMC flight after getting my ticket. The high work load and lack of redundancy (and lack of autopilot) made me realize this was more risk than I was willing to take on.

Single pilot IFR can kill you and your family over a small problem. I made the decision that there was too much risk for my timid soul and never flew IFR again.

 

[Clip4]

Had something similar happen on my very first IMC flight after getting my ticket. The high work load and lack of redundancy (and lack of autopilot) made me realize this was more risk than I was willing to take on.

Single pilot IFR can kill you and your family over a small problem. I made the decision that there was too much risk for my timid soul and never flew IFR again.

Single pilot VFR can kill you over a small problem too.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Single pilot IFR can kill you and your family over a small problem. I made the decision that there was too much risk for my timid soul and never flew IFR again.

I agree with @Clip4 on this one. Lack of proficiency (and that includes avionics proficiency) and a tendency to overreact or panic over a small problem can kill us in any conditions.

 

[flyingron]

There's two things you need to learn. The first is the classic "partial panel" where the turn indicator is the only gyro instrument you have. Yes, that sometimes leads to ludicrous contrived situations when you have electronic instruments or even electric gyros (my instructor put covers over my HSI even though a vacuum failure would not have affected it).

THen when flying advanced aircraft, you need to know how things work, what the potential failures are, and how to cope with them. This goes from everything like the Navion which is easy to fly but has some complex systems (hydraulic gear and flaps, the emergency gear extension has about 13 steps), to what to do when you have electronic flight displays and autopilots in the mix.

I do all my approach currency in both hand flown and autopilot modes for instance. One to keep my skills up in the face of no automation and one to recognize how to use the autopilot to decrease the mental load on me without getting into the "WTF is this thing doing" moments .

 

[midlifeflyer]

There's two things you need to learn. The first is the classic "partial panel" where the turn indicator is the only gyro instrument you have. Yes, that sometimes leads to ludicrous contrived situations when you have electronic instruments or even electric gyros (my instructor put covers over my HSI even though a vacuum failure would not have affected it).

LOL!
Fortunately, they don't have to be completely contrived since all that's currently required is the failure of the primary flight instruments. "Classic" partial panel is mostly for "classic" flight decks.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I think most would agree but the choice is sometimes driven by your autopilot.

I agree with @Clip4 on this one. Lack of proficiency (and that includes avionics proficiency)….

As a fairly direct example combining these two statements…I used to train a guy in his Baron who had a dual vacuum pump failure. While it’s entirely possible that both failed on the same flight, I found out that he really didn’t understand the indication of a vacuum pump failure, so who knows how long between the first and second.

He was relieved that he was in Visual conditions, but also didn’t understand that when he bought the airplane and had a new panel installed, it was specifically configured with an electric TC and rate-based autopilot so that if he lost vacuum/attitude indication, he could simply have the autopilot fly the airplane as normal…he didn’t actually have to fly needle-ball-and-airspeed, but could let the autopilot do it. And if he lost electricity, he still had an air-driven attitude gyro.

 

[flyingron]

That's the problem with redundent systems. If you don't have any indication (or fail to notice it) that one of the redundant items fails, you don't know until they both fail. Learned this when I ran a large statewide educational network system. Even our dual ignitions we test them from time to time. The MVP-50 even tells you in flight if it detects a failure on one side.

On my instrument checkride the examiner in the middle of my (hand flown) partial panel approach asked me:

DPE: Does your autopilot work without vacuum?
ME: Yes (and in fact so does the HSI you covered up, but I'm not going there).
DPE: So why don't you use it?
ME: OK.

So I did but it was a gusty day and the rate based autopilot hunts a bit, he finally said that I could probably hand fly it better, so I went back and did that.

 

[midlifeflyer]

As a fairly direct example combining these two statements…I used to train a guy in his Baron who had a dual vacuum pump failure. While it’s entirely possible that both failed on the same flight, I found out that he really didn’t understand the indication of a vacuum pump failure, so who knows how long between the first and second.

He was relieved that he was in Visual conditions, but also didn’t understand that when he bought the airplane and had a new panel installed, it was specifically configured with an electric TC and rate-based autopilot so that if he lost vacuum/attitude indication, he could simply have the autopilot fly the airplane as normal…he didn’t actually have to fly needle-ball-and-airspeed, but could let the autopilot do it. And if he lost electricity, he still had an air-driven attitude gyro.

Yep. And there are a whole bunch of variations. I am in a club with two DA40s. Both G1000. One is a 2005 with a KAP 140; the other is a 2010 with a GFC 700. A PFD failure kills the attitude-based GFC but not the rate-based KAP.

Your comment reminded me - I'm working on a revision of the club quiz was thinking of putting a question about this in it. Thanks!

 

[MauleSkinner]

That's the problem with redundent systems. If you don't have any indication (or fail to notice it) that one of the redundant items fails, you don't know until they both fail.

I think the overwhelming majority of multiple failures are really a single failure that went unnoticed for a period of time before the second failure made the first one obvious.

Contrary to my personal experience, of course.

I also think it would be interesting to get a good feel for how many “multiple failures” were actually single-point failures but the pilot lacked enough understanding or proficiency to isolate it.