 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General AviationLearningIFRHomebuiltSoaringUltralightRotary-wingCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics BoatsCarsMotorcyclesMore Topics ... |
Aviation Forum / General / IFR / April 2005Compass turns revisited
Got a little memory jog in the April 2006 Designee Update...other than "Basic Instrument Flight Maneuvers," there is nothing in the 2004 (latest) PTS about timed turns OR compass turns. Nothing. Nada. So instrument pilot wannabes need not be concerned about demonstrating either one to the examiner. The examiner has some degree of latitude in deciding just what a "basic instrument flight maneuver" is...but no one is going to get a pink slip with "Timed turns to headings" on it. Bob Gardner > The examiner has some degree of latitude in deciding just what a > "basic instrument flight maneuver" is...but no one is going to get a pink > slip with "Timed turns to headings" on it. However, the full procedure partial panel non-precision approach is still in place, and in order to do that you will need to do compass turns or timed turns to headings. The change allows you to do what works best for you. Over time, I've discovered that what works best depends on the student and the equipment. Some students just don't get math. For them, the mental math required to figure out how many seconds the turn needs to be is too much to do while flying under the hood. For others, the jumping around, lead, and lag of the compass is too difficult to deal with - they prefer to time the turn, the check the compass only in level flight. I personally belong to the latter camp. I am a strong believer in only looking at the compass when I know it will be accurate, and using time for turns when the heading gyro is not available. I've taught some students that method, and they've done well with it. Others hated it, and wound up just looking at the compass anyway. If they slow the rate of turn to half-standard-rate when getting close to the heading, it works reasonably well. Fortunately I've never had a student who couldn't deal with either method. I'm not sure what I would do then. Michael > Fortunately I've never had a student who couldn't deal with either > method. I'm not sure what I would do then. I think the answer needs to be "not sign them off for the checkride". The ability to turn to and maintain a heading without a working DG is an essential skill. Somehow you need to be able to do it. Just turning until the little picture of the airplane is pointing in the same direction as the purple line might just be a reasonable plan with today's cockpits. Unfortunately, I'm not sure you would convince an examiner of that. Back when all our airplanes had ADF's in them, just setting the ADF to a distant AM radio station made a decent DG replacement. A new replacement for the ADF is the GPS, of course. Many, like the GNS430, provide course information that's a very useful replacement for a bad gyro. I used it on my checkride and the examiner made me turn to a different page. But if all the electrons die, you have to know how to use a magnetic compass. > I used it on my checkride and the examiner made me turn to >a different page The examiner was not authorized to do this. Pilots need to hold examiners to the same standards that the examiners hold the pilots, i.e., the standards as described by the PTS. Pilots don't get to say "I think I'll do it this way, and screw what the standards say". Neither does the examiner. > The examiner was not authorized to do this. Would you give a CFR reference for me on this? Thanks, T. >> The examiner was not authorized to do this. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >T. "Not authorized" means there is no authorization. The PTS sets forth, as stated below, what "shall" and "must" be done, and what "may" be done at the discretion of the examiner. Nowhere does the PTS say that the examiner "may" dictate what pages of a GPS may be viewed during an operation, any more than he "may", for example, set an OBS or HSI to his preferred setting, rather than what the appplicant wishes. If you have information to the contrary, I would find it interesting. General Information The Flight Standards Service of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has developed this practical test as the standard that shall be used by FAA inspectors and designated pilot examiners when conducting instrument ratingairplane, helicopter, and powered lift practical tests, and instrument proficiency checks for all aircraft. Thispractical test standard (PTS) shall also be used for the instrument portion of the commercial pilotairship practical test. Instructors are expected to use this PTS when preparing applicants for practical tests. Applicants should be familiar with this PTS and refer to these standards during their training This PTS sets forth the practical test requirements for the addition of an instrument rating to a pilot certificate in airplanes, helicopters, and powered-lift aircraft. Information considered directive in nature is described in this PTS book in terms, such as shall and must, indicating the actions are mandatory. Guidance information is described in terms, such as should and may, indicating the actions are desirable or permissive, but not mandator > "Not authorized" means there is no authorization. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > example, set an OBS or HSI to his preferred setting, rather than what > the appplicant wishes. An examiner is testing an applicant for an instrument rating. Part of the evaluation includes ensuring that the applicant is aware of his situation, for example, non-reception of a signal that the applicant may be =assuming= is being received. To do so, the examiner, during an approach, surrepticiously changes the frequency dialed in on the radio (be it nav or comm, it doesn't matter). The applicant doesn't notice. Though he completes the approach within tolerances, he may have missed a radio call or the fact that the zero-dot deviation is due to a dead radio rather than to his lucky flying. The examiner fails the applicant. The applicant appeals, claiming that the PTS does not say that the examiner "may" dictate what frequency the radios are tuned to. Your ruling? Jose  SignatureGet high on gasoline: fly an airplane. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. >The examiner fails the applicant. The applicant appeals, claiming that >the PTS does not say that the examiner "may" dictate what frequency the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Jose Which task did he fail, and what is the wording on the pink slip? ? > Which task did he fail, and what is the wording on the pink slip? ? Failure to maintain situational awareness. I don't know if "maintaining situational awareness" is a "task" for the PTS, but it is certainly necessary. Do you disagree? Jose SignatureGet high on gasoline: fly an airplane. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. >> Which task did he fail, and what is the wording on the pink slip? ? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Jose Disagree with what? If it's not a task or part of a task, then he can't be failed for it. An applicant has to fail a TASK, in order to fail the test. So what task did he fail? > If it's not a task or part of a task, then he can't be failed for it. > An applicant has to fail a TASK, in order to fail the test. > So what task did he fail? I don't know. But let me ask you this - suppose you were the examiner, and the ILS receiver =actually= failed during the approach, and the applicant did not catch it, but continued to fly the needles (which are now centered and flagged), and just by luck arrives at the MDA right in front of the runway... would you fail the applicant for this? What "task" would you fail him on? Jose SignatureGet high on gasoline: fly an airplane. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. >> If it's not a task or part of a task, then he can't be failed for it. >> An applicant has to fail a TASK, in order to fail the test. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Jose I would fail him under the following (as any examiner properly should) V. AREA OF OPERATION: NAVIGATION SYSTEMS A. TASK: INTERCEPTING AND TRACKING NAVIGATIONAL SYSTEMS AND DME ARCS 9. Recognizes navigational receiver or facility failure, and when required, reports the failure to ATC My suggestion to you is that you get together with an instructor and review practical tests before you go for whatever your next rating might be, so you know what to expect. By the way, an ILS approach ends at DA, not MDA. > I would fail him under the following (as any examiner properly should) > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 9. Recognizes navigational receiver or facility failure, and > when required, reports the failure to ATC Ok, so in my earlier example, the examiner simulates a failure by changing the frequency. This is not discovered by the applicant, and although the approach is completed successfully, the examiner fails the applicant on task V.A.9 just like your example. The applicant appeals, claiming that the examiner did not have the right to "dictate what frequency the radio would be set to". How does this materially differ from simulating GPS failure (could be signal failure, antenna failure, etc) by insisting that the GPS be turned to a non-useful page? > My suggestion to you is that you get together with an instructor and > review practical tests before you go for whatever your next rating > might be, so you know what to expect. Good advice for anyone looking towards a rating, and it should be covered by the instruction towards that rating. I am not working towards a rating, so this applies to me only as a snipe. > By the way, an ILS approach ends at DA, not MDA. Isn't it "DH" now? Or is that the old password? Sorry, I didn't eat my alphabet soup before I posted. Jose Take off power! SignatureGet high on gasoline: fly an airplane. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. > > By the way, an ILS approach ends at DA, not MDA. > > Isn't it "DH" now? A precision approach has both a DA and a DH. DA is the Decision Altitude (i.e. MSL), and DH is Decision Height (i.e. above the ground, although I'll admit that I can't remember if it's above the threshold or above the touchdown zone, or maybe something else). For some reason, people tend to say things like "The DH is 680", when they really mean "The DA is 680, and the DH is 200". It's sloppy, and wrong, but somehow people tend to be able to figure out what they're talking about. >> > By the way, an ILS approach ends at DA, not MDA. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >really mean "The DA is 680, and the DH is 200". It's sloppy, and wrong, >but somehow people tend to be able to figure out what they're talking about. It's above TDZE, but DA used to be callled DH. There was no "DA" on approach charts until a few years back. The use of DH is not so much sloppiness as long term memory in a lot of cases. > It's above TDZE, but DA used to be called DH. There was no "DA" on > approach charts until a few years back. The use of DH is not so much > sloppiness as long term memory in a lot of cases. It's not as clear as it should be: - The AIM says that DA replaces DH for RNAV procedures with vertical guidance. - The FAA's Instrument Procedures Handbook says "DA is currently used on RNAV approach charts with vertical descent guidance. DA will replace DH for Category I precision IAPs. MDA and DA are referenced to MSL and measured with a barometric altimeter. CAT II and III approach DHs are referenced to AGL and measured with a radio altimeter." - The Terminal Procedures legend (front of the NACO approach chart books) and FAR Part 91 still use only DH as far as I can see. True, but the point is now that DH is now measuring height, not altitude. DH once upon a time referred to what was actually a decision altitude. and I may be missing something, but I don't see where the charts refer to altitudes as heights. You may be right about Part 91. If so, it probably is the sloppiness that Roy Smith referred to. >> It's above TDZE, but DA used to be called DH. There was no "DA" on >> approach charts until a few years back. The use of DH is not so much [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >- The Terminal Procedures legend (front of the NACO approach chart books) and >FAR Part 91 still use only DH as far as I can see. >Ok, so in my earlier example, the examiner simulates a failure by >changing the frequency. This is not discovered by the applicant, and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >signal failure, antenna failure, etc) by insisting that the GPS be >turned to a non-useful page? If the applicant failed to discover that the GPS wasn't working, I'd say you have a case. For example, he fails to see that the GPS does not go into "ACTV" mode (or the equivalent) 2 miles before the FAF, and continues the approach, he fails V.A.9 If he discovers the anomoly, on the other hand, the applicant would be expected to take remedial action as soon as it was discovered, i.e., change the frequency back to the proper one, fly a missed approach if appropriate, reload the GPS approach, etc., and he would have satisfied the requirements of the task. He would pass. In your scenario, likewise, once he discovered the anomoly, he would set the GPS back to the proper page. If he discovers it right away, the requirements of V.A.9 are then satisfied. He passes. But what you are missing, I thnk, is that there is no provision for testing the applicant's ability to perform procedures with less than all equipment on board, except for failing the "primary instruments". i.e., AI and DG, or the equivalent on a glass panel, and simulating loss of communication equipment. There is no task set up to fly procedures with failed navigational equipment. For example, it is possible to fly an intersection hold with one VOR. and no DME. If an applicant were failed on the holding task because an examiner insisted he turn off the second VOR and DME, and do an intersection hold, I would say the examiner has overstepped his bounds, regardless of how much he or you or I feel this is something "every instrument pilot should be able to do." The PTS doesn't require it. Likewise with all other navigational equipment, GPS included. > If he discovers the anomoly, on the other hand, the applicant would > be expected to take remedial action as soon as it was discovered, > i.e., change the frequency back to the proper one... > But what you are missing, I thnk, is that there is no provision for > testing the applicant's ability to perform procedures with less than > all equipment on board, except for failing the "primary instruments". > i.e., AI and DG, or the equivalent on a glass panel, and simulating > loss of communication equipment. There is no task set up to fly > procedures with failed navigational equipment. Perhaps I am missing that, but that's not quite my issue (which is more of a puzzled question). In the case of "failing the engine", the examiner typically pulls the power lever back and says "your engine failed". The equivalent response seems to be to smack him one, put the power lever back, and say "no it didn't". Does the PTS in fact say that the examiner may play with the power lever? In an exam, there's a certain amount of make-believe problem that is accepted for the purpose of showing that one can deal successfully with a real problem. Jose SignatureGet high on gasoline: fly an airplane. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. > > If it's not a task or part of a task, then he can't be failed for it. > > An applicant has to fail a TASK, in order to fail the test. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > front of the runway... would you fail the applicant for this? What > "task" would you fail him on? How about: V. AREA OF OPERATION: NAVIGATION SYSTEMS A. TASK: INTERCEPTING AND TRACKING NAVIGATIONAL SYSTEMS AND DME ARCS 9. Recognizes navigational receiver or facility failure, and when required, reports the failure to ATC. or, if you prefer: VI.AREA OF OPERATION: INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES B. TASK: PRECISION APPROACH (PA) 9. Selects, tunes, identifies, and monitors the operational status of ground and airplane navigation equipment used for the approach. >> The examiner was not authorized to do this. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >T. This was meant to be included in my previous post. Note the use of the language about the adherence to the PTS being 'mandatory". Practical Test Standard Concept Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 61 specifies the areas in which knowledge and skill must be demonstrated by the applicant before the issuance of an instrument rating. The CFRs provide the flexibility to permit the FAA to publish practical test standards containing the AREAS OF OPERATION and specific TASKs in which pilot competency shall be demonstrated. The FAA will revise this PTS whenever it is determined that changes are needed in the interest of safety. Adherence to the provisions of the regulations and the practical test standards is mandatory for evaluation of instrument pilot applicants Its my understanding that a recent email to DPEs discussed exactly this scenario and told DPEs that they could not allow pilots to use the GPS during partial panel. Someone out there may be able to verify this. I completed (successfully!) my instrument checkride last evening and was not allowed to use the GPS during this maneuver. I tried to load the approach and was told "no." Turned to the position page and the DPE turned it to the NAVCOM page (not much help). Had to rely on the compas and the timer. Bob >> I used it on my checkride and the examiner made me turn to >>a different page [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Neither does the examiner. >Its my understanding that a recent email to DPEs discussed exactly this >scenario and told DPEs that they could not allow pilots to use the GPS [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >and was told "no." Turned to the position page and the DPE turned it to the >NAVCOM page (not much help). Had to rely on the compas and the timer. I find this difficult to reconcile with the following excerpt from a recent FAA Designee Update, discussing the failure of MFD, which is equivalent of partial panel in a non-mfd aircraft: \The applicant is evaluated on their ability to identify the failure, determine what equipment is affected (integration), and select the most suitable course of action based on flight conditions. Recommended Course of Action (applicant): With a ADAHARS failure, the multiple function display (MFD) will no longer display heading information. The S-Tec 55X lateral navigation (heading and navigation) will not operate. The pilot has two basic courses of action: 1. Fly traditional partial panel using the backup instruments, compass, and the NAV 1 page on the Garmin GPS for lateral navigation. (The problem is the scan pattern is so large spatial disorientation is a concern.) 2. The recommended course of action is to utilize the GPS Steer (GPSS) function on the autopilot. Lateral navigation for the autopilot is then taken directly from the GPS. Altitude and vertical speed modes are not affected. NOTE: Precision approaches are not possible with an ADAHARS failure. The applicants safest course of action is to select an approach procedure that will auto-sequence all the way to the visual descent point (VDP) or missed approach point. The standard T shaped GPS approach is a perfect example of this >Bob > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >> Neither does the examiner. cfe, Just give it a rest! The examiner may, in my experience, do just about anything, under the guise of distraction or instrument failure. So while you may be technically right, in the real world I don't think yoiur arguement has any validity. - Barney PPL, SEL, IR, working on CPL >cfe, Just give it a rest! The examiner may, in my experience, do just about >anything, under the guise of distraction or instrument failure. So while you [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >PPL, SEL, IR, working on CPL IIn the real world, those who sit still for abuses of authority deserve what they get, which, of course, is more abuse of authority. > I think the answer needs to be "not sign them off for the checkride". Well, that's a defeatist attitude. I would like to think that I would come up with some method they could handle. > Just turning until the little picture of the airplane is pointing in > the same direction as the purple line might just be a reasonable plan > with today's cockpits. In a glass cockpit Cirrus (at least the one I flew) it is the only plan. A PFD failure leaves you with ASI, electric AI, Altimeter - and two Garmin 430's without CDI's (the only CDI is built into the HSI presentation on the PFD). The only approach you can shoot after PFD failure is a GPS, and you can shoot it ONLY by turning until the little picture of the airplane is pointing in the same direction as the purple line. I suppose you could use a compass, but I'm not sure what the benefit would be. > Unfortunately, I'm not sure you would convince an examiner of that. In the Cirrus I flew, there was no way to simulate PFD failure (vacuum? who dat?) which would not allow that approach to work. There would be no convincing involved, and with the deletion of compass turns from the PTS, the examiner no longer has the option of failing both GPS units (I guess we lost the PFD and both GPS units or the constellation?) and making the applicant do compass turns. Of course the recommended emergency procedure in the event of PFD failure is to engage the autopilot and not hand-fly at all, and you can argue that losing the autopilot AND the PFD on the same flight is unlikely. On the other hand, that makes the autopilot a no-go item for IMC, and I doubt any examiner would accept this. The interesting question is whether an examiner would insist on setting up a situation, however improbable, that would require the student to do partial panel flying without the GPS. I suppose he might, but it would surprise me if he did. Is it reasonable to expect an instrument rating applicant to be able to handle multiple point failures - and then allow him to carry passengers in low IMC in a single engine airplane? Much as I hate to say it, the truth is that partial panel as we know it is not so much a valuable skill in itself (except in the sense that learning to do ANYTHING that is demanding in an airplane is valuable as it makes you a better pilot) and more a reasoned response to flying with unreasonable technology. When both your sole attitude gyro and your sole heading gyro are plumbed to a single dry pump, you better be proficient at flying with both of them failed, since dry pumps are junk. It might interest you to know that the ATP checkride includes no partial panel work at all, since that sort of crap is not tolerated in transport category aircraft. Michael > In a glass cockpit Cirrus (at least the one I flew) it is the only > plan. A PFD failure leaves you with ASI, electric AI, Altimeter - and > two Garmin 430's without CDI's (the only CDI is built into the HSI > presentation on the PFD). Don't the 430's still have the CDI on the "Default NAV page"? Or did Garmin change the interface for the Cirrus? > The interesting question is whether an examiner would insist on setting > up a situation, however improbable, that would require the student to > do partial panel flying without the GPS. What do you mean "improbable"? The student gets his rating in a Cirrus, rents a 172 on vacation, it has no GPS, and it loses vacuum. Jose SignatureGet high on gasoline: fly an airplane. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. >> The interesting question is whether an examiner would insist on setting >> up a situation, however improbable, that would require the student to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Jose That's no excuse for an examiner to create his own personal PTS. >> What do you mean "improbable"? The student gets his rating in a Cirrus, >> rents a 172 on vacation, it has no GPS, and it loses vacuum. >>Jose > > That's no excuse for an examiner to create his own personal PTS. I don't know that's creating "his own personal PTS". The examiner is supposed to show that the applicant is safe for the flying he or she is licensed to do. Well, yes, the resulting pilot should also have the sense to not fly aircraft he is ill equipped to handle should failure-prone components fail, but this can be overextended the other way to not require licensing at all. What is your opinion of "just learn the answers" to the written test, and that being sufficent for the oral? IN all cases judgment is involved. Jose SignatureGet high on gasoline: fly an airplane. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. >>> What do you mean "improbable"? The student gets his rating in a Cirrus, >>> rents a 172 on vacation, it has no GPS, and it loses vacuum. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >supposed to show that the applicant is safe for the flying he or she is >licensed to do. The PTS is a set of standards that is used to measure whether or not an applicant meets the requirements to be issued a certificate. The examiner is there to evaluate whether the applicant has met the standards set forth by the issuing agency. The applicant does not get to tell the examiner how he would like to deviate from the standards. Likewise, the examiner has no basis for rejecting an applicant because he does not meet the subjective personal standards of the examiner. >Well, yes, the resulting pilot should also have the sense to not fly >aircraft he is ill equipped to handle should failure-prone components [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Jose > The applicant does not get to tell the examiner how he would like to > deviate from the standards. > > Likewise, the examiner has no basis for rejecting an applicant because > he does not meet the subjective personal standards of the examiner. Using the BFR guide as an example (it's what I have in my hand) there is a "ground" requirement. One can deliver, by rote, the exact answers to questions on the ground reqirement, and do so with no understanding whatsoever of what you are saying. Should an applicant be failed for "failing to show understanding..." if he does in fact give the right answers? Would probing further be "coming up with your own BFR"? There is a SignatureGet high on gasoline: fly an airplane. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. (continued...) There is an air portion too, and although a BFR is not the same as getting a new rating, the principle is the same. One must =safely= demonstrate flying more or less within those standards for a successful BFR. (I say "more or less" because the BFR book I have specifies that the standards are not mandatory). I would posit that the examiner =is= (subject to review by another examiner if there is a dispute) not only empowered, but required to make sure that the applicant has the requisite (muscular) understanding, and isn't "flying by rote". Jose SignatureGet high on gasoline: fly an airplane. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. >(continued...) >There is an air portion too, and although a BFR is not the same as [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Jose If you grounded everybody who flies by rote, he skies would grow strangely silent. Butr thanks for the chuckle. (What is "muscular understanding", by the way?) > If you grounded everybody who flies by rote, he skies would grow > strangely silent. I meant "that can fly =only= by rote". > Butr thanks for the chuckle. (What is "muscular understanding", by > the way?) "muscular understanding" is my (coined) analog opposed to rote mecahnics. It is important to fly (and understand flying) in such a way that when circumstances turn less than ideal, they don't turn disastrous. Granted we train for this so that the proper responses come by rote in a way, but it is important to have these responses in reserve. Jose SignatureGet high on gasoline: fly an airplane. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. >> The applicant does not get to tell the examiner how he would like to >> deviate from the standards. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >There is a The BFR is not a practical test. It is a flight review. There are no questions required on the "ground requirement". No one fails a BFR. Michael, I think you need to brush up on your Garmin GPS's. In the Cirrus, I believe, the Garmins drive the Avidyne display. One of the navigation pages on the Garmin displays a CDI that scales properly to approach sensitivity. That is much more accurate than following the magenta line for a backup approach. Ron "Michael" <usenetreplies@thisoldairplane.com> wrote in message Well, that's a defeatist attitude. I would like to think that I would come up with some method they could handle. > Just turning until the little picture of the airplane is pointing in > the same direction as the purple line might just be a reasonable plan > with today's cockpits. In a glass cockpit Cirrus (at least the one I flew) it is the only plan. A PFD failure leaves you with ASI, electric AI, Altimeter - and two Garmin 430's without CDI's (the only CDI is built into the HSI presentation on the PFD). The only approach you can shoot after PFD failure is a GPS, and you can shoot it ONLY by turning until the little picture of the airplane is pointing in the same direction as the purple line. I suppose you could use a compass, but I'm not sure what the benefit would be. >Michael, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Ron Don't be so sure. You can scale the map down to 500 feet top to bottom. That means that if the line is on the page, you are within 250 feet of it;. That's pretty good sensitivity. Better than a localizer, even. > I think you need to brush up on your Garmin GPS's. In the Cirrus, I > believe, the Garmins drive the Avidyne display. Which is the PFD. The guidance in the latest revision of the PTS calls for a non-precision approach to be performed without the PFD if the aircraft is capable, and this one is. > One of the navigation pages > on the Garmin displays a CDI that scales properly to approach sensitivity. Sure - but it still only works for the GPS, not the VOR/LOC. You're still limited to GPS approaches only. >That is much more accurate than following the magenta line for a backup >approach. This is not correct for three reasons. First, the accuracy of the data is not affected by the presentation. It is a function of satellite geometry and the underlying algorithms. You're talking about precision, or resolution. Second, you can zoom the map to a view of only a few hundred feet, and if you so choose, you can configure the 430 to auto zoom as you get closer. Your effective precision in this case is about 25 feet, which is better than you can do with the CDI. This is better than the 430 can consistently do. In other words, you have accessible to you a display with a level of precision not justified by the underlying accuracy. And finally, using the CDI only gives you information about your position relative to the FAC. This is inherently wrongheaded. VOR/LOC work that way because that's all the information you have, but the GPS also has track information. The map display presents the same position information as the CDI, with the same accuracy and any practically usable precision, and it also presents the track information graphically, such that the pilot can almost immediately see whether he is converging with the FAC, diverging from it, or paralelling it - without having to estimate this by monitoring the movement of the CDI over time. This will allow the pilot to more consistently track the course. Thus, while I will grant you that there is indeeed a plan other than watching the little airplane and its position and direction relative to the courseline, it's a clearly inferior plan since it will yield inferior results while requiring all the same equipment. Michael >> Fortunately I've never had a student who couldn't deal with either >> method. I'm not sure what I would do then. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >with today's cockpits. Unfortunately, I'm not sure you would convince >an examiner of that. Why would you have to convince an examiner of anything? The PTS doesnt require that one look at a specific device. It says only that the applicant must complete a maneuver to a certain standard with (or without) certain equipment. The PTS determines what equipment is or is not available to the applicant, not the examiner. >Back when all our airplanes had ADF's in them, just setting the ADF to >a distant AM radio station made a decent DG replacement. Do you get the Designee Update? Good stuff in the April edition in the context of this thread. Go to the AFS-600 page and click on Designee Update. Bob >> The examiner has some degree of latitude in deciding just what a >> "basic instrument flight maneuver" is...but no one is going to get a [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Michael > Some students just don't get math. For them, the mental math required > to figure out how many seconds the turn needs to be is too much to do > while flying under the hood. For others, the jumping around, lead, and > lag of the compass is too difficult to deal with - they prefer to time > the turn, the check the compass only in level flight. For some reason, despite two 'A' levels in maths, I have brain failure with my three times table when trying to figure out timed turns. So long as I take a few seconds to double-check your multiplication, though, and I sanity check it (e.g. if you're turning 120 degrees it should take less than a minute, not more) it's not a problem. > I personally belong to the latter camp. I am a strong believer in only > looking at the compass when I know it will be accurate, and using time > for turns when the heading gyro is not available. Seconded. The two aircraft I spent most of my learning hours in had compasses that were pretty grim (mainly around North and South, of course) unless you were flying absolutely straight, which made even checking the DI a bit of a chore. There wasn't really an alternative to a timed turn if you wanted to end up pointing even vaguely the right way. D. >> Some students just don't get math. For them, the mental math required >> to figure out how many seconds the turn needs to be is too much to do [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > sanity check it (e.g. if you're turning 120 degrees it should take less than a minute, not more) it's not a > problem. I think its easier just to do it on the dg (or even an obs if your dg has failed and is covered up)-- as Gardner said, count 10 seconds per "numbered" heading, even if it means putting your finger physically on the numbers as you count from your current heading to your desired heading... Cheers, John Clonts Temple, Texas N7NZ >I think its easier just to do it on the dg (or even an obs if your dg has failed and is covered up)-- as >Gardner said, count 10 seconds per "numbered" heading, even if it means putting your finger physically on the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Temple, Texas >N7NZ Excuse me, but my irrepressible ego requires me to point out that it was I who suggested this technique to Mr Gardner, as an alternative to doing mental arithmetic. > Excuse me, but my irrepressible ego requires me to point out that it > was I who suggested this technique to Mr Gardner, as an alternative > to doing mental arithmetic. Sorry about that... >I think its easier just to do it on the dg (or even an obs if your dg has failed and is covered up)-- as >Gardner said, count 10 seconds per "numbered" heading, even if it means putting your finger physically on the >numbers as you count from your current heading to your desired heading... Yeah, that works great unless you have a barrel DG (or the DG is covered) and an indicator without full view of the numbers. I've flown IFR in such planes. Michael > >I think its easier just to do it on the dg (or even an obs if your dg > has failed and is covered up)-- as [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Michael Have you ever flown a plane with OBS's that were designed where you couldn't see most of the numbers around the perimeter of it? I haven't, but I have seen such on a MS Flight Sim panel for a C210 that I got... It drives my crazy since it pretty much thwarts the "VOR as a Quadrature Instrument" approach, and other visualizations that you can otherwise do on the OBS! I have not seen any on the market currently. I wonder during what years--and by whom--were they manufactured? Cheers, John Clonts Temple, Texas N7NZ > Have you ever flown a plane with OBS's that were designed where you couldn't see most of the numbers around the > perimeter of it? Yes, that's one kind I referred to. In fact, I once had to train a student whose airplane was so equipped. I believe his CDI's were Garmin and some model of Narco, but I could be wrong. There are also others (Terra, Bendix 2000) that are digital - you dial in the radial on a display rather than have a mechanical ring. Michael I agree. It also reinforces the direction in which you should be turning and about how far when your in a panic and lose situational awareness. When my CFII pointed out this technique, it was a godsend. I can do the math and was pretty good with timed turns, but it was a nice tool to double check and speed the process. Bob >>> Some students just don't get math. For them, the mental math required >>> to figure out how many seconds the turn needs to be is too much to do [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Temple, Texas > N7NZ Well, there is the small problem of flying an approach with no primary instruments. While not specifically demonstrating either method, one presumably has to have a way fo navigating without reference to a directional gyro. But you raise an interesting question. If equipped with GPS, can it acceptably be used in lieu of a compass? I see no reason why not. >Got a little memory jog in the April 2006 Designee Update...other than >"Basic Instrument Flight Maneuvers," there is nothing in the 2004 (latest) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Bob Gardner |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.