After a lot of delays finally back at it.

D

drotto

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
1,162
Location
NJ
Display Name
Display name:
drotto
My IFR is taking me much longer than expected due to winter weather in the NE, and that my original CFII was basically transition over to a full time charter job, and I was finally forced to switch instructors. So after lessons for three weeks in a row, after about 2 months with limited flying, things are starting to click again. A few observations.

1. Wow on day one was I rusty. Make me wonder how you can stay safe by doing the minimum currency requirements.
2. Any suggestions on keeping altitude? My biggest problems seems to be drifting slightly below my floor. Which is about the worst thing you can do, I am well aware.
3. Interesting to see what the different instructors emphasize. The new instructor loves to stress the redundant systems, even when the primary ones are working just fine (or in training situations not blocked).
4. Experienced my first get in line but keep you speed up. That was fun.

Well, I have about 5 hours of hood time left. Need to pass the written (yeah I kinda let that slide with all the hiccups). And need to find about 15 more hours of solo PIC time.
 
Hit the books. If you know your stuff, any DPE will be able to tell, and your checkride will be cake.
 
There's no requirement for SOLO time.

1. The minimum currency are the minimum. You may indeed need to fly more often (especially at first) to keep current. A desktop simulator may help (even if it isn't loggable by itself).
2. Drifting down is a sign you are not keeping your scan going. Any time you note something is off in the scan (beginning to descend/climb, heading changing, course changing), fix it. Note especially the hard floor on the MDA during approaches.
3. Everybody has their ideas of what is more important than others, but you should always be crosschecking your instruments against each other lest you not know if the primary is failing. The face that instructors are different are a good thing, you can make sure you're not missing something in your training with a single instructor.
 
I read an article recently that helped with my scan. Which sucked. Maybe it still does... it certainly seems like a lot of work.

Anyway.

The article pointed out that when you reach the attitude indicator in your scan pattern, it really has -two- pieces of information. You do a "mini scan" on the AI... check the pitch is where you want it, check the bank, and then (since its so damn sensitive in pitch) check pitch again before moving to the next instrument.

Also, it finally sunk in that we're talking SMALL movements in pitch. Like top to bottom on the "ball" (center dot) is freakin' 500 FPM. The same article suggested imagining splitting the ball up into four zones with horizontal lines. Think of them as an equator (split the ball in half, top to bottom), with each half being split again. If you do, then each section is 125 ft a min. That's a tiny amount for such a large effect. And that's why -my- altitude was always deviating. I didn't realize such a small amount mattered. You have to pick the 1/4 ball you want under the bar. It's annoyingly sensitive.

I've also settled on a radial scan pattern. AI is central (with the mini scan within the AI), and then depending on what I'm trying to do, down to the DG, over to the VSI and back. Occasional glances at the rest as required.

When they say "keep your scan going", it's annoyingly vague. What they mean is (I think), look at, interpret and then ACT ON what each instrument is telling you rapidly enough to keep the airplane doing what you want it to within whatever tolerance you've decided on. For me, this means 2-3 iterations per second or so. Any slower and something starts to get off, and then requires a larger correction once it's that far off...
 
The radial scan is legit, but it has a risk. If you lose the vacuum system, you'll follow the AI into an unusual attitude, as it emphasizes the AI over other instruments. The antidote is to confirm with other instruments.

It can be eye opening to practice failures on a good simulator, especially if you don't know they are coming. Real failures are quite different from the instructor putting a sticky on your AI and DG. It can be hard to tell the failure is going on at first.

I eventually settled on a circular scan, and primary/supporting during my training.

It is a mistake to adjust pitch based on the AI, without checking other instruments first. ALL SIX before you make any corrections. If your AI says your pitch is low, but your altimeter, VSI and ASI all say it isn't, check your vacuum.
 
Yup. Agreed.

But, I just want to get through the check ride. And at my level of ability (and believe me, I'm unhappy with it, but I'm just tired of this whole situation), I'm looking for the minimum required. And if you assume a perfectly functioning airplane, your workload goes down, sometimes a lot, while you learn how to do it. Instrument cross checks are important, but since you really can't cause one outside of a sim, it's more work initially to incorporate things into a scan which aren't going to change.

It was a revelation to realize my "scan" workload would go down if I stopped pretending I was always trying to spot a malfunctioning instrument. Now, I really only look at the AI, DG and VSI with occasional glances at whatever else I'm trying to target.

I'm sure this will cause grief. I'm also sure I'm tired of not making any progress, and am now not even a little embarrassed to admit I'm looking for the quickest route to passing the check ride. I'll figure the other stuff out later. License to learn, right?

But it might help others to know that it doesn't have to be as hard as they're trying to make it. That's why I mention it.
 
Mistake Not... said:
Yup. Agreed.

But, I just want to get through the check ride. And at my level of ability (and believe me, I'm unhappy with it, but I'm just tired of this whole situation), I'm looking for the minimum required. And if you assume a perfectly functioning airplane, your workload goes down, sometimes a lot, while you learn how to do it. Instrument cross checks are important, but since you really can't cause one outside of a sim, it's more work initially to incorporate things into a scan which aren't going to change.

It was a revelation to realize my "scan" workload would go down if I stopped pretending I was always trying to spot a malfunctioning instrument. Now, I really only look at the AI, DG and VSI with occasional glances at whatever else I'm trying to target.

I'm sure this will cause grief. I'm also sure I'm tired of not making any progress, and am now not even a little embarrassed to admit I'm looking for the quickest route to passing the check ride. I'll figure the other stuff out later. License to learn, right?

But it might help others to know that it doesn't have to be as hard as they're trying to make it. That's why I mention it.
Click to expand...

You're assuming instrument failures are rare. They aren't.

I had two in my first year as an instrument pilot, in the clouds. I've had more malfunctions in VMC. Yes, I've had to do compass and timed turns for real, as a new instrument pilot. It does happen.

That "higher workload" is going to save your life. If you can't do it, you're not ready for the checkride. It's much more than busy work.
 
I've had one pump vacuum pump failure, two pitot lines plugged, one static plug, two engine failures, and countless electrical failures, in 35 years of flying.
But it only takes one you don't recognize to kill you.
 
MAKG1 said:
That "higher workload" is going to save your life. If you can't do it, you're not ready for the checkride. It's much more than busy work.
Click to expand...

I'm not ready for the check ride. But I've been at this almost two years now, with much time wasted on pointless stuff that didn't do anything but burn money. I'm at the point where if I don't get this done, I'll probably never do it. That's why PIC is coming in a few weeks. Finish up course.

Look, the FAA set this up... they set the standards. If I pass a test, talk to a guy for a little while and fly for an hour or two, I get to have an instrument rating. Those are their rules, not mine. If I meet the standards, then... I meet them. We all know that doesn't make you safe. It means a box gets checked. I'm scaling back to the bare minimum necessary to get it done. Then, I'll figure out what I need to do to be safe.

But yes, you guys are totally right. I do need to be able to perform at a higher level. What types of training are available, post rating, to help develop those skills?
 
Mistake Not... said:
But yes, you guys are totally right. I do need to be able to perform at a higher level. What types of training are available, post rating, to help develop those skills?
Click to expand...

Fly and use that instrument rating. Best way to develop those skills is to fly in the system.
 
UngaWunga said:
http://www.avweb.com/news/airman/184317-1.html
Click to expand...

I can fly partial panel fine. I'm less confident I can recognize a slowly failing instrument, because it's never happened.

I've never liked the mechanical stuff, and hate the idea of vacuum powered anything, but don't have the $$$$ to go totally electrical. Which is why I've been looking at the Dynon D10a. I can get it for the mooney now, apparently.

great article. Thanks for the link.
 
Mistake Not... said:
I can fly partial panel fine. I'm less confident I can recognize a slowly failing instrument, because it's never happened.

I've never liked the mechanical stuff, and hate the idea of vacuum powered anything, but don't have the $$$$ to go totally electrical. Which is why I've been looking at the Dynon D10a. I can get it for the mooney now, apparently.

great article. Thanks for the link.
Click to expand...

You don't want to go totally electrical. If you have an electrical problem and have to turn stuff off, that vacuum AI is going to save your butt. Redundancy is a very good thing. You can fly with only compass, altimeter and ASI, but it's a LOT easier with an AI that works.

The various Redbird simulators seem to have very nice instrument failures. Real life is still different, but it's a whole lot closer than putting stickies on your AI. Avoid "full motion" if possible. It's wrong and will make your instructor queasy.
 
I agree with Ron that too much focusing on one instrument in your scan can cause altitude problems. One other thing is to specifically focus on how you hold the yoke. The airplane wants to fly, and your touch on the yoke should be very light and let it do its job. Also, the light touch helps to get the trim right.

Hang in there. All of us probably thought we would never get finished, but most did. It is worth the effort, but boy does it get tiresome sometimes. Aerobatic lessons are more fun as long as your lunch stays where it is supposed to! :)
 
Mistake Not... said:
I read an article recently that helped with my scan. Which sucked. Maybe it still does... it certainly seems like a lot of work.

Anyway.

The article pointed out that when you reach the attitude indicator in your scan pattern, it really has -two- pieces of information. You do a "mini scan" on the AI... check the pitch is where you want it, check the bank, and then (since its so damn sensitive in pitch) check pitch again before moving to the next instrument.

Also, it finally sunk in that we're talking SMALL movements in pitch. Like top to bottom on the "ball" (center dot) is freakin' 500 FPM. The same article suggested imagining splitting the ball up into four zones with horizontal lines. Think of them as an equator (split the ball in half, top to bottom), with each half being split again. If you do, then each section is 125 ft a min. That's a tiny amount for such a large effect. And that's why -my- altitude was always deviating. I didn't realize such a small amount mattered. You have to pick the 1/4 ball you want under the bar. It's annoyingly sensitive.

I've also settled on a radial scan pattern. AI is central (with the mini scan within the AI), and then depending on what I'm trying to do, down to the DG, over to the VSI and back. Occasional glances at the rest as required.

When they say "keep your scan going", it's annoyingly vague. What they mean is (I think), look at, interpret and then ACT ON what each instrument is telling you rapidly enough to keep the airplane doing what you want it to within whatever tolerance you've decided on. For me, this means 2-3 iterations per second or so. Any slower and something starts to get off, and then requires a larger correction once it's that far off...
Click to expand...

The other technique I've seen about the AI is to go out on a nice VFR day and really concentrate on looking at the actual horizon moving, way out at the side of the front windows for bank, and just across the whole window for pitch and then looking hard at the AI to see how much of a change that big change on the window is in the relatively small AI. Link the two together in your head.

Tiny movement on AI, "visualize" the larger movement in the window.

Or put another way, pretend the horizon bar on the AI reaches all the way to the far sides of the cockpit, and see the line it would draw in the air if it did. You'll quickly get a feel in your mind's eye for how just a tiny change on the AI is really a big change if you extend that line in your imagination.

Since this is really a scan question, this is a bit of a tangent, but that visualization helped me see those small movements as actually being much bigger ones. This information won't help your scan, just how you see the AI overall.

Someone else also phrased it "pretend the AI is a small hole in the panel that you can see a small piece of the horizon through it"... that also helps visualize just how small the AI movements are and how big they'd be on the real horizon.

Might help, or not, if your imagination can extend the size of the AI horizon bar to cover the space of the whole cockpit. Depends on how your brain visualizes things.
 
MAKG1 said:
You don't want to go totally electrical. If you have an electrical problem and have to turn stuff off, that vacuum AI is going to save your butt. Redundancy is a very good thing. You can fly with only compass, altimeter and ASI, but it's a LOT easier with an AI that works.
Click to expand...
You can have redundancy with all electric. A lot of larger stuff do that. A friend has in independently (battery) powered Aspen as a backup to his Garmin PFD. Not a single vacuum or even traditional "spinning" gyro in the thing.
 
The plane I am flying is actually equipped with a G500, G750, G650 (I know overkill), and the backup systems are steam, with the only gyro instrument being the AI. S0 my scan is not the traditional scan. And in my case, the primaries are likely more reliable than the backup.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top