What are my IR ground test chances if I "skip" the HSI questions?

azure said:
Ditto, but I'm pretty sure it is being driven by the GPS when it slews the course pointer. Once I switch the Sandel input to the NAV radio part of the 480, I'm pretty sure no further slewing happens.

I have to admit, however, that I've been grounded for over a year and that's entirely from a memory that's becoming more and more distant. I'm going to need a nice thorough BFR (and IPC) when I get my Basic Med sign off in a few months.
Click to expand...

Yes, it has to be getting that information from the GPS. There's no way for the Sandel to know what the course is by itself, it would have to have it's own database and updates to do that. Sections 3-10 and 6-1 of the 3308's pilot guide explain this clearly. It will NOT auto-slew for anything but GPS.
 
aterpster said:
Actually, the glass HSI is superior to the mechanical HSI because it auto-slews to the correct track when changing course en route, departure, and especially on approach. But, the principles are the same. The difference with the mechanical HSI is that your fingers do the slewing.

The HSI is a piece of cake if taught properly.
Click to expand...

The mechanical King KDI572 auto slews.

pggc.bmp
 
I love using an HSI. The problem with most book questions is that they set up the HSI all wrong for what the pilot is attempting to figure out, and then ask dumb questions about it configured wrong.
 
denverpilot said:
I love using an HSI. The problem with most book questions is that they set up the HSI all wrong for what the pilot is attempting to figure out, and then ask dumb questions about it configured wrong.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily a problem.

If you screw up in IMC and misconfigure the HSI, it's not an option to lose SA.
 
MAKG1 said:
Not necessarily a problem.

If you screw up in IMC and misconfigure the HSI, it's not an option to lose SA.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it's stupid to book test it as a way to determine knowledge of IFR. Just like book testing RMIs was retarded when nobody had one anymore.

Never saw any Omega or Loran questions based off of specific avionics and their user interfaces in the pool.
 
Hey folks, the FAA written exams are composed by people who find comfort working for a federal agency. Some of sharp. Most are "okay." And, some are just hanging on.

Think IRS.
 
aterpster said:
Hey folks, the FAA written exams are composed by people who find comfort working for a federal agency. Some of sharp. Most are "okay." And, some are just hanging on.

Think IRS.
Click to expand...

Or TSA.
 
Flight Simulator. Fly it for a bit not racking up the Hobbs, it'll click.

You can fly a CDI and a heading indicator, the HSI makes sense in a hurry, you won't want to go back.
 
ZeroPapaGolf said:
Yes, it has to be getting that information from the GPS. There's no way for the Sandel to know what the course is by itself, it would have to have it's own database and updates to do that. Sections 3-10 and 6-1 of the 3308's pilot guide explain this clearly. It will NOT auto-slew for anything but GPS.
Click to expand...

And yet it does.

As I said, I can't activate a ILS on the GNS, when I got from GPS to ILS on the 3308 the course is already set it.
 
denverpilot said:
Yeah, but it's stupid to book test it as a way to determine knowledge of IFR. Just like book testing RMIs was retarded when nobody had one anymore.
Click to expand...

Hey now, I've got RMI. So does everyone else with an Aspen.
 
James331 said:
And yet it does.

As I said, I can't activate a ILS on the GNS, when I got from GPS to ILS on the 3308 the course is already set it.
Click to expand...
I can't speak to your setup, but mine does the same thing and it is definitely getting its course info from the GPS. The reason is that the approach is part of the flight plan on the 480, and by the time I switch the HSI input to NAV, the GPS has already sequenced to the final approach course leg and auto-slewed the 3308 to it.

One reason I know this for a fact is the one time that did NOT work as expected, because I had punched in the destination as a direct-to, which on the 480 appends the approach AFTER the destination. When I switched to the NAV side, the current leg on the GPS was NOT the FAC but a course roughly 180 degrees from the FAC, which led to a nice little reverse-sensing confusion moment for me and some ribbing from the controller.

I just can't imagine how your 3308 is getting course information from a NAV radio.
 
James331 said:
And yet it does.

As I said, I can't activate a ILS on the GNS, when I got from GPS to ILS on the 3308 the course is already set it.
Click to expand...
There's no magic dust in avionics, they can only work with the information they have. The only place that course information exists in your airplane is in the GPS database, thus that is the only way your Sandel could be getting it. It's logically not possible otherwise. You may wish to review the pilots manuals for both your Sandel and your GPS so that you have a clear understanding of what is happening and why.
 
James331 said:
Aside from the written, if you're actually going to fly serious IFR, you'll likley find planes rigged for IMC, not just IFR, are going to have HSIs, if not eHSIs, I'd HIGHLY recommend you learn HSIs if you want to be a IFR pilot.

Here's a good (and 100% free) online HSI sim, play around on it with your study material next to you, it'll probably help ya a bit

http://www.luizmonteiro.com/Learning_HSI_Sim.aspx


Blue skies, or rather gray skies ;)
Click to expand...
Ok, that did the trick. I think my problem was my misunderstanding of the TO-FROM indicator...Thanks James.
 
It's always "To" in normal RNAV operations, except for a very brief "From" when you pass abeam a flyby waypoint or fly over a flyover waypoint.
 
ZeroPapaGolf said:
There's no magic dust in avionics, they can only work with the information they have. The only place that course information exists in your airplane is in the GPS database, thus that is the only way your Sandel could be getting it. It's logically not possible otherwise. You may wish to review the pilots manuals for both your Sandel and your GPS so that you have a clear understanding of what is happening and why.
Click to expand...

I get that, and I'm saying it auto slews for ILSs, no magic dust required ;)
 
aterpster said:
Hey folks, the FAA written exams are composed by people who find comfort working for a federal agency. Some of sharp. Most are "okay." And, some are just hanging on.

Think IRS.
Click to expand...
Not wanting to spin-zone this, but every large private enterprise I've worked in has had a similar distribution of talents... :)
 
azure said:
I can't speak to your setup, but mine does the same thing and it is definitely getting its course info from the GPS. The reason is that the approach is part of the flight plan on the 480, and by the time I switch the HSI input to NAV, the GPS has already sequenced to the final approach course leg and auto-slewed the 3308 to it.

One reason I know this for a fact is the one time that did NOT work as expected, because I had punched in the destination as a direct-to, which on the 480 appends the approach AFTER the destination. When I switched to the NAV side, the current leg on the GPS was NOT the FAC but a course roughly 180 degrees from the FAC, which led to a nice little reverse-sensing confusion moment for me and some ribbing from the controller.

I just can't imagine how your 3308 is getting course information from a NAV radio.
Click to expand...

Think I missed that part, yeah I'm activating the approach on my 530/430 which is feeding the course to the 3308, I don't switch Nav sources from GPS to LOC till I'm inbound, or I'm VTF, in which case I go VTF on the GNS and then switch to LOC, thus it's getting its OBS setting from the GNS.
 
labbadabba said:
Most PFD displays use an RMI-style pointer though.
Click to expand...

You people with PFDs. Sheesh. Thinking the world needs to know how to read your software's depiction of things in an ancient way. ;)

(Plus it ain't one where you need to pull the knob out and slave it if ya have a PFD LCD screen pretending to be an old instrument, and that was what those silly questions were -- "which way do you turn the knob?" -- you know what the answer really was in the real world? Pull it and turn, and if it went away from the heading you wanted, then just turn it the other way!) LOL.
 
denverpilot said:
You people with PFDs. Sheesh. Thinking the world needs to know how to read your software's depiction of things in an ancient way. ;)

(Plus it ain't one where you need to pull the knob out and slave it if ya have a PFD LCD screen pretending to be an old instrument, and that was what those silly questions were -- "which way do you turn the knob?" -- you know what the answer really was in the real world? Pull it and turn, and if it went away from the heading you wanted, then just turn it the other way!) LOL.
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree, by the time you figure in your head that the indicator is pointing the wrong way, you could have just twisted it until it points in the correct direction.

As for the PFDs, they're more and more common and are far more relevant than a lot of what's on the written. I actually love to have an ADF style pointer on my PFD HSI when I'm flying an ILS because I can exactly see my wind correction angle.
 
You may be overcomplicating it. Once you set your desired course on an HSI, it is always fly to the needle and there is never any reverse sensing. When using an HSI on an ILS, the GS indications are the needles on the side. On track needle centered = on course and GS needles midpoint = on Glideslope. Most portable GPS mimick the HSI lateral NAV function quite well. You're just combining your DG and CDI into one instrument.
 
As a controller cadre instructor I teach and adminster many ATC test. We have a requirement to make a 90% to pass. If it was up to me it would be 100%. And when I explain this to students I toss them several ATC manuals and ask them, "show me the 10% it's ok for you not to know.". I have the same attitude about flying and instruction, as unreasonable some may think it is.

Any subject matter that the FAA and thousands of man years of experience (among the many instructors out there) say is necessary info to master to be a knowledgeable subject matter expert (for whatever level of piloting you are attempting to become) you should, and if it were up to me (and it is up to me with my students), would be thoroughly proficient with.

HSI is one of these because you may fly a plane with one. In fact it is quite likely. And since the HSI includes at least two of the essential cockpit instruments you MUST be proficient with it is imperative that you understand it.

The first thing you must do to get past an understanding problem is to correctly identify WHY you are having trouble...what is the stumbling block. You have to analyze what is causing you grief with the HSI and what it does and address that. For example, one issue may be interpreting the CDI deflection in relation to a DG card that rotates in relation to the world coordinates. Look for the underlying problem. Maybe the problem is really figuring out how to visualize an indication that would make more sense if you turned your head upside down! You can't do that so HOW do you solve that problem!? You may have to think in different terms, as if you are looking at a 2D map or something.

Remember the DG card represents not only the heading of the aircraft but the aircraft's relationship to the radial selected for which the OBS has been selected and the CDI is indicating. Always remember that orientation is always a two step process. First imagine that the airplane is flying on the selected OBS heading. Then imagine what action would be necessary to center the needle taking into account forward/reverse sensing AT THAT POINT!. There are simpler ways that experience will teach you but this is the basic thing you must learn.

The point is that there is always some underlying problem that is usually not what you expect and that is more cognitive rather than technical.

tex
 
Last edited:
Dave S. said:
Any subject matter that the FAA and thousands of man years of experience (among the many instructors out there) say is necessary info to master to be a knowledgeable subject

tex
Click to expand...

The problem with FAA testing is simple. The tests contain poorly worded questions and poorly prepared or even incorrect exhibits. And worse? They test areas of aviation now obsolete or soon to be obsolete. And one can expect at least one or two "gothcha" questions likely intended to prevent a 100% score.

If the goal of the testing is to determine whether a candidate is knowledgeable enough to fly safely, then FAA testing falls short of that goal, IMHO.
 
Last edited:
Dave S. said:
"show me the 10% it's ok for you not to know."
Click to expand...
I would love to get 100% on tests to prove that I have learned all required knowledge there is. (no, I am not a geek/nerd/dork but I like to understand all parts of flying)

But I think Citizen has the right answer below.

citizen5000 said:
The problem with FAA testing is simple. The tests contain poorly worded questions and poorly prepared or even incorrect exhibits.
Click to expand...

Cannot agree more.
They STILL have an airspace question which has NO CORRECT ANSWER. And it's been like that for decades and nobody is fixing it. The student must simply guess where the FAA made an error and try to assume which answer they expect to be the correct one. *rolleyes*
 
citizen5000 said:
The problem with FAA testing is simple. The tests contain poorly worded questions and poorly prepared or even incorrect exhibits. And worse? They test areas of aviation now obsolete or soon to be obsolete. And one can expect at least one or two "gothcha" questions likely intended to prevent a 100% score.

If the goal of the testing is to determine whether a candidate is knowledgeable enough to fly safely, then FAA testing falls short of that goal, IMHO.
Click to expand...

The controller tests must be a lot closer to controlling. The HSI questions on the IR written have nothing to do with how to read a HSI. They're gotcha questions that even if they happened in real life, you could just simply turn the OBS until it made sense.

The HSI questions (figure 17) for the Commercial written are even dumber...
 
Whether by accident or on purpose there are definitely gotcha questions. The 2016 edition of the private test supplement messed up the VOR figure and has indications that are not possible in real life. (Half-scale needle and neutral to/from indicator.) There's also the VASI question that's been on there for a long time which makes you distinguish between a real indication and an impossible one. Might be useful to know if vandals ever turn the light projectors upside down. :rolleyes:
 
dmspilot said:
Whether by accident or on purpose there are definitely gotcha questions. The 2016 edition of the private test supplement messed up the VOR figure and has indications that are not possible in real life. (Half-scale needle and neutral to/from indicator.) There's also the VASI question that's been on there for a long time which makes you distinguish between a real indication and an impossible one. Might be useful to know if vandals ever turn the light projectors upside down. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I can get a half scale needle and no To/From flag on my panel, but it has more to do with how damned slow my flag flips than anything.

@jesse can attest to it.

"You're going to have to start that turn over the VOR before that flag finishes flipping or you're not going to make the runway and the controller is going to ask where you're going." LOL.

But I get what you're saying about the tests. If anything, the goofy example instruments that have stuff on them that isn't possible, can usually just be immediately eliminated so you can look at the other four out of six. :)
 
citizen5000 said:
The problem with FAA testing is simple. The tests contain poorly worded questions and poorly prepared or even incorrect exhibits. And worse? They test areas of aviation now obsolete or soon to be obsolete. And one can expect at least one or two "gothcha" questions likely intended to prevent a 100% score.

If the goal of the testing is to determine whether a candidate is knowledgeable enough to fly safely, then FAA testing falls short of that goal, IMHO.
Click to expand...
As a CFI I hear this gripe daily. Here's my response:

The written test is something you just need to buckle down and get done. The more time you spend complaining about it, the less motivated you'll be to pass it. You can spend 5 hours a week complaining about the written test, and none of those hours will improve your score.

The written tests are not designed to determine whether a candidate is knowledgeable enough to fly safely. They're not supposed to be easy. They're not necessarily supposed to be applicable.

Written tests in nearly every other industry are way harder. Ask any CATS or Lasergrade proctor what their local pass rates are on the USPS, HVAC, pesticide application, and other non-aviation exams, all of which are proctored there. In comparison, the FAA exams are a cake walk.

Among the three multiple choice options that are provided...
FAA Knowledge Test Guide said:
...it may appear that there is more than one possible answer; however, there is only one answer that is correct and complete. The other answers are either incomplete, erroneous, or derived from popular misconceptions.
Click to expand...

The FAA tells us that the test is not designed to be a measure of a pilot's competence to fly in the NAS:
FAA Knowledge Test Guide said:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) airman knowledge tests are effective instruments for aviation safety and regulation compliance measurement. However, these tests can only sample the vast amount of knowledge every pilot needs to operate safely in the National Airspace System (NAS).

Comments may be emailed to AFS630Comments@faa.gov.
Click to expand...
 
You can probably mathematically pass.
That said, the HSI is the easiest thing on the planet. If you can't master it, you shouldn't be flying.
 
Best explanation I've ever came across


for HSI, just add the "It can't reverse sense unless you force it to" rule and bada bing bada boom
 
I still think the VOR display is a disaster in terms of what we now call "UX" (User Experience).

The only piece of information you get from the VOR signal is the number of degrees around from its zero reference course. That's it. Everything else is computed in the receiver and displayed locally. Which means there was a choice of how to present that information. I'd love to find a historical "why we did it this way" from the earliest days of the VOR.
 
... for example, instead of the video posted by jaybee explaining how to track to a station, consider:

if the VOR head simply displayed a pointer that indicated which radial you're on, to track to the station fly the reciprocal. Which would be on the opposite end of the pointer. None of this look at a flag and needle deflection stuff.
 
Mistake Not... said:
... for example, instead of the video posted by jaybee explaining how to track to a station, consider:

if the VOR head simply displayed a pointer that indicated which radial you're on, to track to the station fly the reciprocal. Which would be on the opposite end of the pointer. None of this look at a flag and needle deflection stuff.
Click to expand...
Sounds like the opposite of an RMI.
 
Mistake Not... said:
... for example, instead of the video posted by jaybee explaining how to track to a station, consider:

if the VOR head simply displayed a pointer that indicated which radial you're on, to track to the station fly the reciprocal. Which would be on the opposite end of the pointer. None of this look at a flag and needle deflection stuff.
Click to expand...

The CDI display is a lot more precise for detecting intersections and station passage. I find instrument flight next to impossible using the RMI-type displays available on a lot of glass panels. Using the CDI, it's not very hard to fly a radial with precision.

And you can only track to a station using the reciprocal if there is no wind. Otherwise, you have to either work out a wind correction, or you home to it in a line that isn't straight.

Remember, the CDI is also used for cross-radials.
 
The RMI is great for flying a DME arc and for an initial track for direct-to. But, you're right the CDI or EHSI course indicator is for tracking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top