Originally Posted by
galaxy flyer
That video is over-complicated and wrong. There are two types of instruments—Control and Performance.
This kind of confusion at the level of teaching and instructing is exactly why I'm doing the homework up front before selecting a CFI. These basic skills would seem to logically carry over into the rest of one's flying career.
Originally Posted by
galaxy flyer
When you want to climb, add a set pitch angle, add power, THEN, check the airspeed to see the added power is holding the required speed; the VSI to see you are climbing, them the altimeter to see you are at the desired altitude.
I've read a retired career Flight Instructor say that one of the major reasons why Student Pilots find themselves in trouble during the DPE check-ride has much to do about this exact issue. He went on to say that too many CFI's learned the wrong way and they end up handing down their errors to their Students.
He specifically says too many Students were never properly focused or grounded in using a holistic approach to gaining constant positive control of the aircraft. He talks about Input Control Groups. First, he defines terms:
Control Group A
Pitch
Power
Trim
Control Group B
Power
Pitch
Trim
Control Group C
Roll
Pitch
Power
Trim
He then identifies the Aircraft Controls providing the Input, and the Aircraft Instruments providing the Output. So, he brilliantly reduces Positive Aircraft Control to a simple I/O function. He then identifies Normal Flight Attitudes by name:
Normal Flight Attitudes
Straight & Level
Level Turn
Climbing Straight
Climbing Turn
Descending Straight
Descending Turn
He then logically links each Control Group required to achieve any given Normal Flight Attitude:
Straight & Level
Constant Neutral Pitch + Constant Power + Trim
Level Turn
Roll + Offset Positive Pitch + Offset Positive Power + Trim
Climbing Straight
Positive Pitch To Airspeed + Climb Power + Trim
Positive Pitch To Rate of Climb + Climb Power + Trim
Where, altitude increases = positive pitch decreases + Trim
Climbing Turn
Roll + Positive Pitch To Airspeed + Climb Power + Trim
Roll + Positive Pitch To Rate of Climb + Climb Power + Trim
Descending Straight
Descent Power + Pitch To Airspeed + Trim
Descent Power + Pitch To Rate of Descent + Trim
Where, altitude decreases = positive pitch increases + Trim
Descending Turn
Descent Power + Roll + Pitch To Airspeed + Trim
Descent Power + Roll + Pitch To Rate of Descent + Trim
He walks through scenarios in the book where failure to consistently demonstrate Positive Control of the Aircraft by the Student Pilot was directly caused by the Student's failure to understand one or more connections between Control Group and achieving Normal Flight Attitude, when being interrupted by the DPE.
As far as what these Instruments are called and how they are defined in the mind of the Student, it would seem to be a rather important subject for the Student to master - making the OP's question even more relevant, given the discrepancy in the way the industry goes about explaining it.
I like the
Control Group approach. Its logical, coherent, structured information easily transformed into applied knowledge. Given the Control Group method however, I'm still left wondering how a Glass Panel is better than a Conventional Panel, or why a Conventional Panel is more appropriate than a Glass Panel.
I'm starting to get the feeling that from the standpoint of learning how to maintain Positive Aircraft Control, or learning how to move the aircraft in and out of Normal Flight Attitudes on-demand, it really won't matter which Panel (Glass or Conventional) you use to develop those initial skills - as long as you develop them correctly.
And, I remain undecided on the question myself. I want the old school tradition of Conventional because of its roots. Yet, as a systems engineer, I can clearly see the advantages of the integrated Glass. Thus, I remain still torn between the two for my initial training.