Instrument training…

StraightnLevel said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
TCABM said:
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).
Click to expand...
Yes. I think of it as the Heading Indicator, but yes, it normally sits in HSI mode.
TCABM said:
I’ve also assumed since post 1 there is just one G5 in this aircraft
Click to expand...
Correct.
TCABM said:
Now you’re referring to it being configured as a PFD, which I would assume is the Attitude Indicator option.
Click to expand...
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.

TCABM said:
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?
Click to expand...
Yes. I obviously wasn't clear enough in my description.
 
Clip4 said:
Navigation and approaches with a mag compass, turn coordinator, stop watch and VOR is a lost art with IR pilots today.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Lndwarrior said:
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.
Click to expand...

Single pilot VFR can kill you over a small problem too.
 
Lndwarrior said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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 .
 
flyingron said:
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).
Click to expand...
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.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I think most would agree but the choice is sometimes driven by your autopilot.
Click to expand...
midlifeflyer said:
I agree with @Clip4 on this one. Lack of proficiency (and that includes avionics proficiency)….
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
MauleSkinner said:
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.
Click to expand...
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!
 
flyingron said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last night we flew in real IMC, with some really heavy winds. Straight down the runway at our departure, so no big deal. Once airborne, it's obvious that we have some winds and gusting, but it's easy enough to adjust for.

CFI takes me to a nearby airport under the hood, moderately rough air, RNAV approach onto a runway where we're seeing a 13g23 dead crosswind. At MDA I drop the foggles and realize how much I'm crabbing to maintain the line. Scared the crap outta me....

:eek2:

Lesson learned. The fact that you can fly the approach doesn't mean that it's safe to land.....wow.
 
StraightnLevel said:
CFI takes me to a nearby airport under the hood, moderately rough air, RNAV approach onto a runway where we're seeing a 13g23 dead crosswind. At MDA I drop the foggles and realize how much I'm crabbing to maintain the line. Scared the crap outta me....
Click to expand...
I don't recall what equipment you fly but I'm sure it told you how much you were crabbing so, hopefully, it wasn't a complete surprise. Although seeing with with our eyes can definitely be an awakening!!!
 
midlifeflyer said:
I don't recall what equipment you fly but I'm sure it told you how much you were crabbing so, hopefully, it wasn't a complete surprise. Although seeing with with our eyes can definitely be an awakening!!!
Click to expand...
This was in an Arrow with 430W and G5s, so yes I can see the difference between heading and course....but when you suddenly see it for real at 500 AGL it drives the point home in a hurry.

The new-to-me Bo doesn't have the G5s, just the 430W and steam gauges. I sense a panel upgrade in the very near future....
 
StraightnLevel said:
This was in an Arrow with 430W and G5s, so yes I can see the difference between heading and course....but when you suddenly see it for real at 500 AGL it drives the point home in a hurry.

The new-to-me Bo doesn't have the G5s, just the 430W and steam gauges. I sense a panel upgrade in the very near future....
Click to expand...
Even with an old fashioned DH and separate CDI, you have reference heading vs the course. But yeah, braking out or removing the hood, that runway is not in it's usual straight ahead position :cryin:
 
midlifeflyer said:
I think most would agree but the choice is sometimes driven by your autopilot.
Click to expand...
Believe the same AC that permits omitting the TC for another AI also allows remote placement of TC if the autopilot requires it (rate based).
 
flyingcheesehead said:
True, but not being a visual representation, it's still a surprise until you get used to it.
Click to expand...
Heh, “Where’s the runway?!?”

The first major xwind where I flew an approach during training, I knew which direction to look when I reached the minimum. But I didn’t realize how far over I had to look. I had that momentary loss of situational awareness: I could see the airport, taxiways, and everything except the approach end of the runway. It only lasted a second or two, but that was a real “what just happened?” moment.

Good times.
 
Matthew said:
Heh, “Where’s the runway?!?”

The first major xwind where I flew an approach during training, I knew which direction to look when I reached the minimum. But I didn’t realize how far over I had to look. I had that momentary loss of situational awareness: I could see the airport, taxiways, and everything except the approach end of the runway. It only lasted a second or two, but that was a real “what just happened?” moment.

Good times.
Click to expand...
It's windy town there in Kansas! I once was passing through and went flying with a friend who was working on his CFII at the time. He flew an approach into Topeka from the right seat while I safety piloted from the left seat... And during the approach, I was looking at the runway over the right-hand side of the cowling (not the front right, the right side!)

There was another plane that had taxied out and was at the hold short line, waited for us to shoot the approach, and after he saw us coming in taxied back to the hangar and called it a day.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
True, but not being a visual representation, it's still a surprise until you get used to it.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Although “visual presentation” may be in the mind of the beholder. It’s not as obvious as the situational awareness if a moving map but, from an old school standpoint, a CDI centered on 230 and a DG on 200 might be considered pretty “visual” by many.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Agreed.

Although “visual presentation” may be in the mind of the beholder. It’s not as obvious as the situational awareness if a moving map but, from an old school standpoint, a CDI centered on 230 and a DG on 200 might be considered pretty “visual” by many.
Click to expand...
There are things that are visible, but not everything visible is seen.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Agreed.

Although “visual presentation” may be in the mind of the beholder. It’s not as obvious as the situational awareness if a moving map but, from an old school standpoint, a CDI centered on 230 and a DG on 200 might be considered pretty “visual” by many.
Click to expand...
It's not in one place visually is what I meant. And sure, old school with 230/200 as in your example may be visual if you're experienced at building that picture in your head, but it won't be to someone who's in training.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
It's not in one place visually is what I meant. And sure, old school with 230/200 as in your example may be visual if you're experienced at building that picture in your head, but it won't be to someone who's in training.
Click to expand...
That’s true. Situational awareness is not easy when you are learning and understandably focused on details. But it is a very important skill to develop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top