CFII Question

Lance F

Lance F

En-Route
PoA Supporter
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Messages
2,943
Location
GA
Display Name
Display name:
Lance F
If one has an electric HSI and vacuum Attitude indicator (i.e. no vacuum DG), what is partial panel? Is just the AI covered?
 
i think the PTS says something like "loss of primary flight indicators".

so if i wanted to build fundamental scan skills i would still cover the AI and Heading and force you to do timed turns on the TC and compass.

for an electrical failure sim i'd cover the HSI

for a vacuum failure sim i'd cover the AI
 
Lance F said:
If one has an electric HSI and vacuum Attitude indicator (i.e. no vacuum DG), what is partial panel? Is just the AI covered?
Click to expand...

Depends on what failure you're trying to replicate. :)

Not a CFII, but the way I'd likely do it in that case is an electrical failure would have the TC and HSI covered, a vacuum failure would have the AI covered.
 
Partial panel is getting to be more and more of a challenge for the instructor. My general philosophy is minimum to fly an approach.

In the situation you describe Lance if there is a second VOR, I'd cover the AI and HSI.

Like Tony, I'll run different failure scenarios during training. Although a complete electrical failure without com or nav radios is called compass turns to the heading we got from the briefer for nearest VFR conditions.
 
Concur with Areeda -- AI gets covered for sure, and if there's a second CDI, so does the HSI.
 
Doesn't the PTS also say something about emergencies simulating actual failure modes? A vacuum failure (no AI), combined with partial electrical failure (HSI gone, but second CDI working) seems a very unlikely failure mode.

Let's make this very practical. How do you CFIIs answer the question as it relates to taking the practical test for the instrument rating (as opposed to training scenarios)? The task in the PTS states: "Demonstrates a nonprecision instrument approach without the use of the primary flight instrument using the objectives of the nonprecision approach " And note that is says primary flight INSTRUMENT (singular). So what do DPE's do if there's an electric HSI?
 
Last edited:
Lance F said:
Doesn't the PTS also say something about emergencies simulating actual failure modes?
Click to expand...
That part is only applicable to integrated electronic flight displays.

Modern technology has introduced into aviation a new method of
displaying flight instruments, such as Electronic Flight Instrument
Systems, Integrated Flight Deck displays, and others. For the purpose
of the practical test standards, any flight instrument display that utilizes
liquid crystal display (LCD) or picture-tube-like displays will be referred
to as “Electronic Flight Instrument Display.” Aircraft equipped with this
technology may or may not have separate backup flight instruments
installed. The abnormal or emergency procedure for loss of the
electronic flight instrument display appropriate to the aircraft will be
evaluated in the Loss of Primary Instruments TASK. The loss of the
primary electronic flight instrument display must be tailored to failures
that would normally be encountered in the aircraft. If the aircraft is
capable, total failure of the electronic flight instrument display, or a
supporting component, with access only to the standby flight​
instruments or backup display shall be evaluated. [emphasis added]
Click to expand...
Garmin has put out a set of guidelines on this issue for instructors and examiners doing training and checkrides with the G1000 system (http://www8.garmin.com/manuals/G1000:Non-AirframeSpecific_GuideforDPEsandCFIs.pdf), but there's nothing in the PTS about keeping the failures "realistic" for steam-gauge panels either in the introductory section or the task itself (Area VII, Task D). For steam gauges, covering the AI and primary gyro HI seems to be the standard the FAA wants met.

A vacuum failure (no AI), combined with partial electrical failure (HSI gone, but second CDI working) seems a very unlikely failure mode.
Click to expand...
I agree, but that's the way Flight Standards seems to want it done for this sort of set-up.
 
Lance F said:
Doesn't the PTS also say something about emergencies simulating actual failure modes? A vacuum failure (no AI), combined with partial electrical failure (HSI gone, but second CDI working) seems a very unlikely failure mode.

Let's make this very practical. How do you CFIIs answer the question as it relates to taking the practical test for the instrument rating (as opposed to training scenarios)? The task in the PTS states: "Demonstrates a nonprecision instrument approach without the use of the primary flight instrument using the objectives of the nonprecision approach " And note that is says primary flight INSTRUMENT (singular). So what do DPE's do if there's an electric HSI?
Click to expand...

You should not be given multiple failures during a certificate checkride. If the simulation is a vacuum failure then the AI should be covered. If it's electrical then the HSI should be covered.

You are correct on the PTS stating "flight instrument" meaning singular.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
You should not be given multiple failures during a certificate checkride. If the simulation is a vacuum failure then the AI should be covered. If it's electrical then the HSI should be covered.
Click to expand...
Your position is apparently not shared by other FSDO's. Pretty much every DPE I've dealt with from New England to the Carolinas to Michigan to Arkansas is covering both in this situation, and they say that's what their POI's want. Even when there's a backup vacuum system and backup electrical system, they cover both.

From 8900.1:
3) ASIs should emphasize pilot competency in partial panel instrument skills during the training and testing of airmen in simulated emergency operations, particularly in aircraft that do not have redundant or dual, independently powered flight instrumentation systems
Click to expand...
That "particularly" seems to imply that even when "redundant or dual, independently powered flight instrumentation systems" exist, these skills are still to be tested. If you have some written guidance to the contrary, I'd love to see it.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Your position is apparently not shared by other FSDO's. Pretty much every DPE I've dealt with from New England to the Carolinas to Michigan to Arkansas is covering both in this situation, and they say that's what their POI's want. Even when there's a backup vacuum system and backup electrical system, they cover both. If you have some written guidance to the contrary, I'd love to see it.
Click to expand...

I'm just going by what we were taught at the Academy in OKC.

Perhaps you could show some guidance (in writing) showing where I'm wrong.
 
Ron Levy said:
Your position is apparently not shared by other FSDO's. Pretty much every DPE I've dealt with from New England to the Carolinas to Michigan to Arkansas is covering both in this situation, and they say that's what their POI's want. Even when there's a backup vacuum system and backup electrical system, they cover both.

From 8900.1:

That "particularly" seems to imply that even when "redundant or dual, independently powered flight instrumentation systems" exist, these skills are still to be tested. If you have some written guidance to the contrary, I'd love to see it.
Click to expand...

You obviously don't understand 8900.1.

3) ASIs should emphasize pilot competency in partial panel instrument skills during the training and testing of airmen in simulated emergency operations, particularly in aircraft that do not have redundant or dual, independently powered flight instrumentation systems.

If the aircraft at the checkride has a vacuum AI and an electric DG (HSI) then it obviously has a redundant system. As ASI's (or DPE's) we are required to give the checkride based upon the equipment to be used during the checkride.

The emphasis can be made during the checkride by asking the applicant questions about a similar model aircraft that does not have a redundant system.This can be accomplished during the oral part of the exam or as an oral question during flight.
 
Last edited:
It appears to be a question of how we read English, not our "understanding of 8900.1." To me, that "particularly" suggests special emphasis in those specific cases, but does not waive the requirement in other cases. To mean what you seem to be saying it does, it should read, "ASIs should emphasize pilot competency in partial panel instrument skills during the training and testing of airmen in simulated emergency operations in aircraft that do not have redundant or dual, independently powered flight instrumentation systems" and that's it. There's nothing "redundant" or "dual" for heading information, or "redundant" or "dual" for attitude information with an electric HSI and vacuum AI. Now, if there's an "eight ball" AI like we had in the F-4 and F-111A/E, with an independently powered HSI, that would be redundant for heading, but not for attitude.

As I said, if you have written guidance which says that in a vacuum AI/electric HSI plane, only one should be covered at a time, I'd like to see it, because it would save me a lot of time and agony doing the training to satisfy the examiners supervised by the many other FSDO's which seem to feel it that covering both is necessary.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
It appears to be a question of how we read English, not our "understanding of 8900.1." To me, that "particularly" suggests special emphasis in those specific cases, but does not waive the requirement in other cases. As I said, if you have written guidance which says that in a vacuum AI/electric HSI plane, only one should be covered at a time, I'd like to see it, because it would save me a lot of time and agony doing the training to satisfy the examiners supervised by the many other FSDO's which seem to feel it that covering both is necessary.
Click to expand...

From 8900.2
[FONT=&quot]45.[/FONT]Instrument Flying Skills/Partial Panel.

a.Partial Panel Training. Data gathered during accident investigations show a need for emphasis on the skills required for control of aircraft in instrument conditions without the use of the attitude indicator. Partial panel operations involving control of an airplane by the use of the primary flight instruments develops skills that are needed if the attitude indicator fails during flight in instrument conditions. These skills apply to all pilot certificates.

b.Ensuring Basic Instrument Skills in Partial Panel Operations. Inspectors are directed to reemphasize to pilot examiners and flight instructors the need for the following:

(1)On all pilot proficiency and competency checks in which instrument flying skill is a requirement, the pilot’s competency in partial panel instrument flying skills must be evaluated.

(2)Pilots must demonstrate competency levels in basic aircraft control with partial panel using “turn coordinator, ball, and airspeed” appropriate to the certificate and ratings held, with pilot privileges authorized for the check, to be fully satisfactory.

[FONT=&quot]Note:[/FONT][FONT=&quot] The above procedures are to be reemphasized, by inspectors, to the extent possible, to ensure that all pilot examiners and flight instructors are kept aware of this requirement.[/FONT]

****************************************

This is subjective. If the aircraft at the checkride has a vacuum AI and an electric DG (HSI) then it's not practical to have the applicant demonstrate a full partial panel due to the system redundancy. However it is OK to quiz the applicant on a system that is fully vacuum or fully electric, whatever the case may be.

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
 
Rotor&Wing said:
(2)Pilots must demonstrate competency levels in basic aircraft control with partial panel using “turn coordinator, ball, and airspeed” appropriate to the certificate and ratings held, with pilot privileges authorized for the check, to be fully satisfactory.
Click to expand...
That's pretty much what I thought and what the examiners I've dealt with have been requiring -- "needle, ball, and airspeed" only (well, altimeter, too). Thanks for looking it up. The only time they haven't is in something like an Avidyne system where they allow use of the backup vacuum AI when the PFD dies (taking with it primary heading and primary attitude).
 
Ron Levy said:
That's pretty much what I thought and what the examiners I've dealt with have been requiring -- "needle, ball, and airspeed" only (well, altimeter, too). Thanks for looking it up. The only time they haven't is in something like an Avidyne system where they allow use of the backup vacuum AI when the PFD dies (taking with it primary heading and primary attitude).
Click to expand...

The problem today is fewer and fewer aircraft have turn coordinators or T&B's. If the applicant shows up with an airplane that has a AI in the place of the turn coordinator the DPE (or ASI) has to "evaluate" the applicant on partial panel as he sees appropriate. That's why the language of 8900.2 is written as it is.

The PTS is clear by infering "primary flight instrument", and 8900.2 infers that instrument is the attitude indicator.

I cannot speak for ASI's or DPE's in other districts. It's my opinion that I will conduct the ride with what's appropriate and advise the DPE's to do the same.

As far as the OP question, I would conduct the ride covering the AI to simulate vacuum failure. If I had questions about his partial panel ability then I would proceed further by "failing" (covering up) the HSI.
 
If you can't fly needle ball and airspeed, you shouldn't be in the clouds.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
The problem today is fewer and fewer aircraft have turn coordinators or T&B's. If the applicant shows up with an airplane that has a AI in the place of the turn coordinator the DPE (or ASI) has to "evaluate" the applicant on partial panel as he sees appropriate. That's why the language of 8900.2 is written as it is.
Click to expand...
I agree on that -- if you have backup heading/attitude instruments, you can use them. But if your only backup heading instrument is your mag compass supported by turn rate indicator, I think AFS-600 wants the primary gyroscopic heading indicator as well as the primary attitude indicator covered for this task. Perhaps that's a question which needs written clarification from those folks.
 
nosehair said:
If you can't fly needle ball and airspeed, you shouldn't be in the clouds.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that all TAA (technological advanced aircraft) should be prohibited from IFR flight?

What about aircraft that does not have a turn and bank or a turn coordinator installed but instead has a backup attitude indicator?
 
Aww c'mon - there's a needle (pointer) on that backup attitude indicator! ;) Heck, there's no "needle" on many turn coordinators - just an itty-bitty airplane!

That reminds me - I had an argument with someone who insisted the "needle" in needle-ball-airspeed was the compass needle, and I kept asking him where the gyro was.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
I agree on that -- if you have backup heading/attitude instruments, you can use them. But if your only backup heading instrument is your mag compass supported by turn rate indicator, I think AFS-600 wants the primary gyroscopic heading indicator as well as the primary attitude indicator covered for this task. Perhaps that's a question which needs written clarification from those folks.
Click to expand...

The key word for ASI's and DPE's is evaluate. Both the PTS and 8900.2 is very clear on the parameters.

If it's a single source system (vacuum) then it would be appropriate, albeit not required to cover both the AI and DG. In the event of a dual system as the OP asked (vacuum and electric) then it's appropriate to cover the AI to simulate a vacuum failure. However, at the discretion of the examiner he may cover both to "evaluate" the applicant.

As far as what AFS-600 "wants" that was covered fairly well at indoc at the Academy.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
So you are saying that all TAA (technological advanced aircraft) should be prohibited from IFR flight?

What about aircraft that does not have a turn and bank or a turn coordinator installed but instead has a backup attitude indicator?
Click to expand...
I believe they should be treated like CLT ME ratings. Limited to TAA.
 
FWIW, during my instrument checkride the examiner covered both the electric HSI and the vacuum AI.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
So you are saying that all TAA (technological advanced aircraft) should be prohibited from IFR flight?

What about aircraft that does not have a turn and bank or a turn coordinator installed but instead has a backup attitude indicator?
Click to expand...

No, but you should still be able to fly basic instruments. i.e. needle, ball, airspeed.
 
EdFred said:
No, but you should still be able to fly basic instruments. i.e. needle, ball, airspeed.
Click to expand...

So for 27+ years I flew turbo props and jet aircraft that didn't have a TC or a T&B installed. So you are saying I should have been prohibited from flying IFR?

The last 3 airplanes I owned didn't have a T&B or TC installed (replaced with a backup AI). Why should I show proficiency flying partial panel if the necessary instruments are not installed on the aircraft I operate?

Most new GA airplanes are being delivered with modern flat panel displays with no T&B or TC's. How should those pilots demonstrate "needle, ball and airspeed"?
 
Last edited:
nosehair said:
I believe they should be treated like CLT ME ratings. Limited to TAA.
Click to expand...
Almost 10 years ago, the FAA considered either establishing separate IR's for glass panels and steam gauges, or creating an additional training endorsement a la TW, complex, and HP. After studying the issue in depth, they decided that the insurance companies had a pretty good hold on the situation, and using a "regulation by insurance policy" strategy was adequate to address the safety concerns. So far, there's been no data to support a change to that policy.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
So for 27+ years I flew turbo props and jet aircraft that didn't have a TC or a T&B installed. So you are saying I should have been prohibited from flying IFR?

The last 3 airplanes I owned didn't have a T&B or TC installed (replaced with a backup AI). Why should I show proficiency flying partial panel if the necessary instruments are not installed on the aircraft I operate?

Most new GA airplanes are being delivered with modern flat panel displays with no T&B or TC's. How should those pilots demonstrate "needle, ball and airspeed"?
Click to expand...

I never said anything about banning you from the sky, but you should be able to fly them. Sort of like your power hitter in baseball - he never bunts, probably never will, but he should be able to.
 
EdFred said:
I never said anything about banning you from the sky, but you should be able to fly them.
Click to expand...

I am able to fly them, just haven't practiced it in 30 years because I don't have the need to. There is a difference between knowledge and proficiency.

EdFred said:
Sort of like your power hitter in baseball - he never bunts, probably never will, but he should be able to.
Click to expand...



This is like requiring all automobile drivers to have the know how and show proficiency in a manual transmission automobile even though they never drive one. :dunno:




If you are still operating an aircraft with a TC or T&B, then yes, stay proficient in partial panel.
 
I have Ye Olde School needle in my plane.
 
I agree with R&W on that. If you live in the glass panel world, you should be able to fly that. If you live in the old school world, you should be able to fly that. I wouldn't let anyone just hop in my Aztec and fly it without some checkout. If they've only flown glass panel aircraft, then that will make it that much more important for me to go over old school instruments.

Same with cars... if you can drive a manual transmission, it probably makes you a better driver. But if you never drive a car with a manual, you probably don't need to know how.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Same with cars... if you can drive a manual transmission, it probably makes you a better driver. But if you never drive a car with a manual, you probably don't need to know how.
Click to expand...
I can drive a manual transmission car but I disagree with that statement. Being able to drive one might make you a more versatile driver but not a better one. I know some people who I could use as an example...

I think it's the same with instruments. You are not necessarily "better" if you can fly steam gauges as opposed to glass or vice versa. They are just different. I also think that we need to be careful about what we want regulated. I don't think it's necessary to micromanage, otherwise we will have regs which will make you get a separate checkout for CDI vs. HSI or for each model of GPS.
 
Everskyward said:
I also think that we need to be careful about what we want regulated. I don't think it's necessary to micromanage, otherwise we will have regs which will make you get a separate checkout for CDI vs. HSI or for each model of GPS.
Click to expand...

Exactly, but the insurance industry already adds a layer of check-out requirement.
 
Everskyward said:
That's true and your common sense should also be applied here.
Click to expand...

Well, we are talking about pilots... B)

One "common sense" addition is the required tailwheel endorsement. I've flown with folks who have logged an hour or two in TW back in '65 or '45 and somehow they are deemed "capable" by the CFRs.

Yet no insurance company will insure those types until the hour total is achieved and there's some record.

Better yet -- no one will fly my Chief until I've checked him/her out -- even if he's logged 20 hours in a Citabria.

Why? Common sense, of course! :thumbsup:
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I agree with R&W on that. If you live in the glass panel world, you should be able to fly that. If you live in the old school world, you should be able to fly that.
Click to expand...
I agree with you and R&W on that, and the standards for how to test "primary flight instrument inop" with glass panels are pretty clearly laid out, especially in the guide written by Garmin and endorsed by the FAA for training and examination with the G1000.

However, the question on which R&W and I differ is whether an electric HI in a 6-pack panel excuses you from flying the "partial panel" stuff on the IR practical test or an IPC with both AI and HI covered, rather than merely simulating a vacuum or AI failure by covering only the AI. The guidance in 8900.1 and 8900.2 is neither consistent nor clear on that point. I hope to have an answer on that from AFS-600 today or tomorrow.

Of course, if both are covered, and you whip out your Garmin 496 and punch up the 5-instrument page, you've pretty well solved the problem, and both I and all the examiners I know are good with that (even if I'll still teach you timed turns first in training). In fact, I know two examiners who'll bust you on judgement if you have a GPS and don't use it on the partial panel portion of the test.
 
Ron Levy said:
Of course, if both are covered, and you whip out your Garmin 496 and punch up the 5-instrument page, you've pretty well solved the problem, and both I and all the examiners I know are good with that (even if I'll still teach you timed turns first in training). In fact, I know two examiners who'll bust you on judgement if you have a GPS and don't use it on the partial panel portion of the test.
Click to expand...

This is exactly the sort of thing that should be discussed as part of the ground rules before climbing in the airplane.

If in doubt, point to each handheld piece in the airplane and ask if is available in case of "emergency."

Better to get it all clear before playing some sorta gotchya game. :incazzato:
 
dmccormack said:
One "common sense" addition is the required tailwheel endorsement. I've flown with folks who have logged an hour or two in TW back in '65 or '45 and somehow they are deemed "capable" by the CFRs.
Click to expand...
That's me!:yes:

However, nearly 9000 hours later, I've found that I can fly a tailwheel plane much better and with a lot less sweat than I did in 1971 when I added that one hour to the 130 or so I had at that time. Knowing what I do now about the fundamentals of aircraft control, and having internalized that knowledge, I have a much easier time forming my mental picture of what I want the plane do and turning that picture into the control inputs necessary to make it do that.

For example, I flew my buddy's Luscombe 10 days ago -- one t/o and one landing on a narrow paved runway, and he was quite happy with that landing. But while I think I'd be OK landing a TW airplane in an emergency situation if the PIC dropped dead, I know darn well I'd need a lot more work to feel safe flying that or any other TW airplane by myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top