CFII Question

I see this has turned into another R.A.R. thread.
 
Ron Levy said:
:dunno: I wish I knew so I could better answer frustrated instrument trainees.
Click to expand...

I found this explanation in the Instrument Flying Handbook:

The major limitation of the older turn-and-slip indicator is that
it senses rotation only about the vertical axis of the aircraft. It
tells nothing of the rotation around the longitudinal axis, which
in normal flight occurs before the aircraft begins to turn.
A turn coordinator operates on precession, the same as the
turn indicator, but its gimbals frame is angled upward about
30° from the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. [Figure 3-34]
This allows it to sense both roll and yaw. Therefore during
a turn, the indicator first shows the rate of banking and once
stabilized, the turn rate.

I'm not really catching on why it's important for the turn indicating instrument to show rotation around the longitudinal axis - don't we get that information from the DG?
 
Clark1961 said:
No, Ron, your bias isn't just based on being a CFII, it includes your association with PIC. How on Earth can you attempt to claim otherwise?
Click to expand...
Because I felt the same way long before I started my association with PIC.

As for what folks learn "better and faster," well folks learn what they are taught. Are you the least bit surprised that folks learn what you teach?
Click to expand...
Having taught folks both with backup AI's and with TC's, I feel well qualified to make this judgement. Just how many instrument rating trainees and hours of instrument training have you taught?
 
Trapper John said:
I found this explanation in the Instrument Flying Handbook:

The major limitation of the older turn-and-slip indicator is that
it senses rotation only about the vertical axis of the aircraft. It
tells nothing of the rotation around the longitudinal axis, which
in normal flight occurs before the aircraft begins to turn.
A turn coordinator operates on precession, the same as the
turn indicator, but its gimbals frame is angled upward about
30° from the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. [Figure 3-34]
This allows it to sense both roll and yaw. Therefore during
a turn, the indicator first shows the rate of banking and once
stabilized, the turn rate.

I'm not really catching on why it's important for the turn indicating instrument to show rotation around the longitudinal axis - don't we get that information from the DG?
Click to expand...
Exactly. The desciption you quote accurately describes the difference between a TC and T&B, but gives no clue as to why they decided to add that "feature" to the instrument. And even with the HI inop, the slip-skid indicator will let you know right away if you're turning around the longitudinal axis without turning around the vertical axis.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Because I felt the same way long before I started my association with PIC.
Click to expand...

So now we're to the heart of the matter. You "felt" your position is correct and you associate with others who share the "feeling." Is there any chance of for objectivity and perspective in that situation?

Ron Levy said:
Having taught folks both with backup AI's and with TC's, I feel well qualified to make this judgement.
Click to expand...

See comment above.
 
Clark1961 said:
So now we're to the heart of the matter. You "felt" your position is correct and you associate with others who share the "feeling." Is there any chance of for objectivity and perspective in that situation?



See comment above.
Click to expand...

I sense a new book in the works...

Skinning Cats: There is only one way, dammit!
 
Ron Levy said:
Exactly. The desciption you quote accurately describes the difference between a TC and T&B, but gives no clue as to why they decided to add that "feature" to the instrument. ...
Click to expand...
That 'feature' (cant in the gyro) in a TC was created by an autopilot manufacturer (Britton I believe) in order to allow their A/P to react to both roll and yaw, which allows it to more accurately fly straight and level.
It has another side effect - it gives an instant positive feedback when recovering from a steep turn. If you are turning fast enough to peg a T&B needle, it will remain pegged until the turn rate slows enough to unpeg the needle, whereas the roll sensitivity of a TC will give the pilot 'instant gratification' that he/she is doing the right thing.
A number of years ago, I read a study done with low time pilots recovering from unusual attitudes while flying partial panel (steam guage panel of course). Their findings were that in a steep turn situation, pilots with a TC, vs. a T&B, recovered quicker and easier because of the instant feedback that their input was in the proper direction. I always figured that was one of the reasons TCs are more prevalent than T&Bs.
On a side note, the G1000 Cessnas with the KAP140 A/P have a 'hidden' TC behind the panel, just for the A/P.
 
My instructor (Vlad the Impaler) regularly had me under the hood on hot July afternoons in gut bouncing turbulence with nothing left but needle/ball, airspeed, altimeter, a leaky whiskey compass, and my wristwatch - the panel had developed some horrid disease that caused it to break out in bilious yellow sink stoppers... He kept calling for 45 degree heading changes, etc.. Not as much fun as it sounds, but many decades later I am still alive - and damned cautious about what I fly into just in case those damned sink stoppers make another strafing run on my panel...

denny-o
 
EdFred said:
I sense a new book in the works...

Skinning Cats: There is only one way, dammit!
Click to expand...

It'll be a best seller! How could anyone argue with the way the Air Force and the airlines do things!

The sequel will be: It works for us so shut-up!
 
Ron Levy said:
Subtitled "We know your method doesn't work as well, so stop bugging us."
Click to expand...

Further subtitled: "We say this even though we know most of the aircraft you'll be flying aren't equipped the way we wish they would be."
 
Clark1961 said:
Further subtitled: "We say this even though we know most of the aircraft you'll be flying aren't equipped the way we wish they would be."
Click to expand...
One last time -- on how many hours of instrument training given are you basing your opinion?
 
There are some instructors who may be very good, but I have no intention of flying with under any circumstances simply because of the attitude they present. Sadly, the opinions in the case of this instructor don't even reflect what I see as very high numbers, knowing people who've put logged more instructional hours with more trainees, and are less opinionated and more open to the ideas of othere. Those are the instructors I seek out and wish to fly with. Furthermore, they don't have to fight for or demand the respect of others - they earn it by virtue of their attitudes and results (which they'd never tell you if you didn't ask, and even then, they would answer quietly and with humility).

Had I been previously considering one company for training, based on posts in this thread, I would decide to look elsewhere instead.
 
Two final questions:
  1. Why do you think the FAA lets you fly IFR with two AI's and no TC, but won't allow two TC's and no AI?
  2. If you were wings level inverted with your primary attitude instrument dead, how well would you recognize the position and recover safely with only a TC to go with your altimeter and airspeed compared to only a backup AI?
You can train anyway you want in order to pass the IR test with a single-AI plane, but if you have the choice, you're better off in the long run with two AI's than with an AI and a TC, because your AI will give you all the information of a TC, but a TC won't give you all the information of an AI.
 
Ron Levy said:
If you were wings level inverted with your primary attitude instrument dead, how well would you recognize the position and recover safely with only a TC to go with your altimeter and airspeed compared to only a backup AI?
Click to expand...
If you end up wings level inverted in IMC you're already dead. You'll probably end up tumbling the attitude indicator attempting to do any sort of recovery plus you're already extremely disoriented to get into that situation in the first place. Most of the airplanes we fly do not fly wings level inverted that well nor is the average instrument pilot capable of coming out of it in one piece with any instrument.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
There are some instructors who may be very good, but I have no intention of flying with under any circumstances simply because of the attitude they present. Sadly, the opinions in the case of this instructor don't even reflect what I see as very high numbers, knowing people who've put logged more instructional hours with more trainees, and are less opinionated and more open to the ideas of othere. Those are the instructors I seek out and wish to fly with. Furthermore, they don't have to fight for or demand the respect of others - they earn it by virtue of their attitudes and results (which they'd never tell you if you didn't ask, and even then, they would answer quietly and with humility).

Had I been previously considering one company for training, based on posts in this thread, I would decide to look elsewhere instead.
Click to expand...

Excellent post! :thumbsup:
 
"Mr. Maryk, you may tell the crew for me that there are four ways of doing things aboard my ship: The right way, the wrong way, the Navy way, and my way. They do things my way, and we'll get along. "
 
DGlaeser said:
I
A number of years ago, I read a study done with low time pilots recovering from unusual attitudes while flying partial panel (steam guage panel of course). Their findings were that in a steep turn situation, pilots with a TC, vs. a T&B, recovered quicker and easier because of the instant feedback that their input was in the proper direction. I always figured that was one of the reasons TCs are more prevalent than T&Bs.
Click to expand...
This helps explain my humble opinion as to the underlying reason for the 'display' change, which I actually experienced, since the TC wasn't invented when I started teaching instruments decades and thousands of hours ago...
...and the primary training vehicle was a tailwheel, even in the military.

...in those days, rudder was Primary Directional Control. On the ground, in the air, and 'on the guages'.

When the airplane turned, or you turned the airplane, you used rudder to control yaw and aileron to control roll, (or bank).

You didn't, repeat, You did NOT use aileron to stop a turn or start a turn. You used rudder to start and stop turns coordinating with the stick.

Now, this coordination thing was important. We learned all about it in Primary Directional Control training. Holding the heading constant with rudder (down the centerline of the runway, or on the instrument heading), and holding wings level or at a specific angle or pressure rate while turning to keep the ball centered, or 'coordinated' with the turn rate, whether looking outside or at the panel, keeping control of rate of roll and rate of yaw was simply 'stick & rudder' skills that have been lost since the intro of the yoke.

Yes, the stick. Which were the ailerons, but a stick did not cause student pilots to try to 'drive' the airplane like a car and use the 'yoke' to correct yaw.

The change in display came about with the introduction of the 'yoke' instead of the 'stick', along with replacing the tailwheel with the nosewheel, and marketing the new little Cessna 150s and Piper Cherokees as Family Aircars, ("As easy to fly as driving your car!") or as 'Airline Trainers".

So the little TC with the 'wings level' display that a student could 'drive' back to 'level' with the yoke was a marketing tool.

Like the nosewheel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top