Glass Partial Panel?!?

[ARFlyer]

I have decided to finish my last few instrument 141 lessons, the EOC and Checkride in our glass complex aircraft. The short story reason is below. So we have run into an odd problem. We can not figure out how to do partial panel approaches. Our complex aircraft have Avidyne EX5000 with STBY AS, AI, and ALT. You can fail the PFD/AHRS but that leaves you w/o a Turn Coordinator or VSI. Which means you can only shoot a GPS approach partial panel. You also can not do any partial panel constant rate climbs/descents. So we are trying to figure out how the DE is going to do the partial panel testing.

Long story short I have not flown our main instrument plane, steam gauge, since DEC because my old CFI had to leave, both our DEs left on medical leave and winter break. So I went ahead and finished the cross countries for commercial which involved our complex aircraft. So now I have my most recent 20+ hours in our Pipers. So my current CFI and me decided it would be quicker and easier just to finish off my instrument in the Piper or so we thought.

[Matt Hammer]

There isn't anything in the manufacturer's manual that explains how to simulate individual failed systems? Worst case, you could probably just use opaque vinyl "cling-ons."

[ARFlyer]

Originally Posted by matthammer

There isn't anything in the manufacturer's manual that explains how to simulate individual failed systems? Worst case, you could probably just use opaque vinyl "cling-ons."

Nope... The CFIs just pull the PFD, MFD, DAU or AHRS breakers to simulate failures. The Avidyne manual just stats what each error/failure is and how to correct it.

[Recycled Auto Parts Save Pilots Money!]

Originally Posted by matthammer

Worst case, you could probably just use opaque vinyl "cling-ons."

Link added

[eVoid]

Don't know if this helps, but I can give you my experiences. Towards the end of my IFR training, I bought a G1000 equipped Cessna 206 and elected to do my check ride in that rather than the 172's I had started out in. For training, my CFII who was used to teaching IFR partial panel in the G1000 would pull the fuses to fail the ADC and AHRS and simulate how a partial panel failure would happen in a G1000, but this would also shut down the transponder. Around here (Addison and McKinney in Tx), the controllers would not like that and would be asking us to recycle transponders, etc, so I was not surprised that the DPE did not do that. He did it a low tech way, he simply taped a piece of paper over the ENTIRE PFD. I had as one of my approaches a VOR DME A approach using only the analog backup instruments (altitude, airspeed, attitude), and the GPS overlay of the VOR.

Realistically on the G1000, this is what would happen since there are two GPS receivers, but only one ADC and one AHRS. The chances of both GPS receivers failing is probably low (I would hope). But of course if that happened, you are only left with the three analog instruments. And probably no radio. In that case, and assuming low fuel that gives me no other options, I would probably shoot the approach with my iPad... I hope it never gets to that!

[Matt Hammer]

Originally Posted by AggieMike88

Link added

[ARFlyer]

Originally Posted by Gubbins

Don't know if this helps, but I can give you my experiences. Towards the end of my IFR training, I bought a G1000 equipped Cessna 206 and elected to do my check ride in that rather than the 172's I had started out in. For training, my CFII who was used to teaching IFR partial panel in the G1000 would pull the fuses to fail the ADC and AHRS and simulate how a partial panel failure would happen in a G1000, but this would also shut down the transponder. Around here (Addison and McKinney in Tx), the controllers would not like that and would be asking us to recycle transponders, etc, so I was not surprised that the DPE did not do that. He did it a low tech way, he simply taped a piece of paper over the ENTIRE PFD. I had as one of my approaches a VOR DME A approach using only the analog backup instruments (altitude, airspeed, attitude), and the GPS overlay of the VOR.

Realistically on the G1000, this is what would happen since there are two GPS receivers, but only one ADC and one AHRS. The chances of both GPS receivers failing is probably low (I would hope). But of course if that happened, you are only left with the three analog instruments. And probably no radio. In that case, and assuming low fuel that gives me no other options, I would probably shoot the approach with my iPad... I hope it never gets to that!

So basically you have to use all three STBYs? My CFI tried to cover up the STBY ATT, but that left me with no bank information. So we got stuck in this problem.

The other guys arn't to pleased either. They think it will be way to easy. As you have TWO 430s, MFD with a huge map display and a STBY ATT instead of just a 430, VOR, Airspeed, Altitude and T/C. I think our EOC guy will just test me even harder then the rest since I am in an "easier" IFR aircraft.

Well I could see how it would work with your iPAD if you have georef plates! My old CFI tried it one day and it worked. In clear weather of course!

[FlyingRon]

Garmin came out with a publication on how to teach and examine students on the G1000.
http://www8.garmin.com/manuals/G1000...PEsandCFIs.pdf

[Cap'n Ron]

You can fail the Avidyne by pulling breakers, but you cannot restart it in flight. About all you can do is dim the PFD to zero and have them fly off the MFD and 3 standbys. Also, many of the Avidyne Entegra aircraft don't have a second "real" CDI, so when you do that, there's no CDI at all, just the display on the MFD plus the displays on the 430's. It's an issue when training, as there's no way to simulate the AHRS failure other than killing it for the rest of the flight.

[iNdigo]

Originally Posted by ARFlyer

So basically you have to use all three STBYs? My CFI tried to cover up the STBY ATT, but that left me with no bank information. So we got stuck in this problem.

Isn't that what would really happen if you lost the other displays? Why would your CFI cover up the standby AI if it's part of the standby instruments?

[ARFlyer]

Originally Posted by Everskyward

Isn't that what would really happen if you lost the other displays? Why would your CFI cover up the standby AI if it's part of the standby instruments?

Trying to figure out if you could do partial panel the old school way. Yes, you would use those three. If any are INOP flight into IMC isn't allowed.

[iNdigo]

Originally Posted by ARFlyer

Trying to figure out if you could do partial panel the old school way. Yes, you would use those three. If any are INOP flight into IMC isn't allowed.

Do you even have a turn coordinator? Any airplane I have flown that has a STBY AI does not also have a turn coordinator, but I've never flown small airplanes with STBY AIs.

[iHenning]

The long and the short of it is you get a stand alone SVT unit to serve as your back up.

Glass without SVT is great for VFR and light IFR when backed up with the triple stack and an CDI w/GS on #2, in my case a Kx 155A. For real IFR though this half measure upgrade to panels is not very optimal.

One of the nice things about doing my last 5 years of IPCs in Av Shilo's Comanche is that it's given me the opportunity to evaluate many different 'glass' panel configurations in the same plane lol. My conclusion came to this, in an IFR context, glass does not become worthwhile until you add SVT. Once you go SVT, mixed panels become suboptimal so for best result you back up SVT with SVT and eliminate instrument interpretation altogether.

[Cap'n Ron]

Originally Posted by ARFlyer

So basically you have to use all three STBYs? My CFI tried to cover up the STBY ATT, but that left me with no bank information. So we got stuck in this problem.

Your instructor needs to review the IR PTS and the guidance in the Avidyne manual on meeting the requirements for Area VII, Task D APPROACH WITH LOSS OF PRIMARY FLIGHT INSTRUMENT INDICATORS. The standby AI is there just for the purpose of providing attitude information if the PFD and/or AHRS are lost.

[Cap'n Ron]

Originally Posted by Henning

The long and the short of it is you get a stand alone SVT unit to serve as your back up.

Glass without SVT is great for VFR and light IFR when backed up with the triple stack and an CDI w/GS on #2, in my case a Kx 155A. For real IFR though this half measure upgrade to panels is not very optimal.

One of the nice things about doing my last 5 years of IPCs in Av Shilo's Comanche is that it's given me the opportunity to evaluate many different 'glass' panel configurations in the same plane lol. My conclusion came to this, in an IFR context, glass does not become worthwhile until you add SVT. Once you go SVT, mixed panels become suboptimal so for best result you back up SVT with SVT and eliminate instrument interpretation altogether.

Henning's fascination with SVT has been expressed repeatedly. If you want to spend a bunch of money on that, mighty fine, but if you have an Avidyne Entegra system with backup AI, there should not be any need for a stand-alone backup SVT, and if you can't handle a PFD failure without that tertiary system, you need more training with the installed equipment, not a separate SVT box.

[FrankenkotaFlyer]

Originally Posted by Everskyward

Do you even have a turn coordinator? Any airplane I have flown that has a STBY AI does not also have a turn coordinator, but I've never flown small airplanes with STBY AIs.

??? You flew the 'kota! Stby AI & a TC. Of course the TC is over on my side and prolly tough for you to see.

[iHenning]

Originally Posted by Ron Levy

Henning's fascination with SVT has been expressed repeatedly. If you want to spend a bunch of money on that, mighty fine, but if you have an Avidyne Entegra system with backup AI, there should not be any need for a stand-alone backup SVT, and if you can't handle a PFD failure without that tertiary system, you need more training with the installed equipment, not a separate SVT box.

Yep, that's another way to do it. There's always more than one way to achieve a result, some are better than others.

If I was looking at SVT all the time though, when an emergency happened, I sure as hell wanna be looking at SVT then as well. Double loading by switching mindsets of data interpretation while dealing with whatever else is going on doesn't sound like the safer way of doing things. Besides, we buy these systems for when things are going bad, not for when they are going good. To have a failure mode in an emergency revert to the system that you were trying to avoid in an emergency isn't exactly logical.

[iNdigo]

Originally Posted by Clark1961

??? You flew the 'kota! Stby AI & a TC. Of course the TC is over on my side and prolly tough for you to see.

It was so tough to see I don't remember it being there.

The thing I remember about flying the Frankenkota is that my eyes were always drawn to the conventional altimeter and airspeed indicator rather than the Aspen. Of course the conventional instruments were closer to me too, as I recall. I also remember vaguely searching for the VSI then deciding I didn't need it for whatever it was I was trying to do. I finally asked you or realized it's in the same place as on the PFD I use only much smaller.

[Cap'n Ron]

Originally Posted by Henning

Yep, that's another way to do it. There's always more than one way to achieve a result, some are better than others.

Agreed, but a tertiary standalone SVT is not going to get you through the IR practical test.

If I was looking at SVT all the time though, when an emergency happened, I sure as hell wanna be looking at SVT then as well. Double loading by switching mindsets of data interpretation while dealing with whatever else is going on doesn't sound like the safer way of doing things. Besides, we buy these systems for when things are going bad, not for when they are going good. To have a failure mode in an emergency revert to the system that you were trying to avoid in an emergency isn't exactly logical.

Sure, but the cost (not just money) of installing fully redundant glass in a light single is prohibitive. And the interpretation of the standby AI is no different than the interpretation of the PFD for attitude, anyway. I've trained a few folks on the Entegra in both Cirri and Pipers, and unlike those trying to do it "needle, ball, and airspeed," with only one exception (and he had other serious issues), they never have the slightest problem with primary flight instrument inop unusual attitudes or approaches.

[iHenning]

Cost prohibitive is a relative statement.