JamesNoBrakes

I've watched many instrument rated pilots struggle to use the standby round-attitude indicator in a glass cockpit when the G1000 displays were displayed. And by "struggle", I mean fly into a mountain or lose control in the sim. When those of us that learned in a 6 pack think back to our training, it's hard for us to comprehend, because a back-up attitude indicator, ANYWHERE in the cockpit, would have been a godsend compared to the effective-attitude indicator of combining the turn-rate indicator with the altimeter and re-directing your 90% scan to those two instruments.


The instructor tries to teach you scanning "technique" and how to divide up your time, but you really don't learn this much with a glass display and everything co-located. As mentioned above, you CAN isolate the correct parameters and teach HOW to scan instruments with a glass display, but it takes a lot more understanding on the instructor's part and this sadly is not the rule, more the exception. It's also just as much about inputting and maintaining control inputs as it is "scanning". What I've seen over and over again when the "glass-trained" instrument pilot is given 6-pack instrument failures (and even without failures) is they tend to "bounce" their scan around randomly or try to spend an equal time on each instrument. When you get to the advanced level, where you should end up in either cockpit-setup, you move your eyes to the place they should go for whatever it is you are doing. You "know" that you can estimate and bank on the AI so you set your estimates then check back with your supporting instruments like your altimeter/vsi and turn rate or heading. You know if you are turning for a while, you don't have to look at the heading right away, or that if nothing has changed there's no need to scan certain instruments nearly as frequently, the longer you look away from attitude, the worse it gets.

TiredSoul

You can get equally poor instruction in an analog cockpit.
Instructors need to be taught how to teach differently on glass.
In any case, question for the “no-glass for IFR” group:
What would you find an acceptable instrument combo?
Heading Indicator and two “swing needle” VOR indicators/ rotating card RMI
HSI and fixed card RMI plus secondary swing needle VOR?
HI + RMI + G430?530? With NAV display?
How about HI+ 2 VOR+ RMI plus Ipad?
No iPad?

My point is there is way to much equipment variation in GA to generally state that analog is better then glass.
Would you call the following analog or glass:

November Seven

Anybody can response, please:


This is interesting because someone in one of my threads did bring up a very good point.

He pointed out that you can still have backup instruments in the form of Glass that combines Attitude, Airspeed, Vertical Speed, Slip and even DG - in a smaller, more compact all-in-one type of indicator. So, of the PFD goes out, the backup All-In-One runs off its dedicated inputs - effectively removing the need for multiple conventional backup instruments and cleaning up the panel at the same time.

How do you feel about this?

I'm still dealing with this exact same question in many respects and I still don't know how to configure my Private and Instrument Training platform, which will be some kind of SEL airplane.

Also, wouldn't the "Scanning" requirements be dramatically cut using Composite Glass Instruments where multiple indicators are co-located in the same piece of Glass? Doesn't that help, not hurt?




This is very interesting as well.

To your point about Instrument Failures and subsequent scanning problems you've encountered in Pilot (I assume you are an Instructor), I just watched a video where for the very first time I heard all Instruments being categorized as being either:

- Pitch Instruments
- Bank Instruments
- Power Instruments

The video defined them as:

Pitch Instruments

Attitude Indicator
Altimeter
Airspeed Indicator
Vertical Speed Indicator

Bank Instruments

Attitude Indicator
Turn & Bank Indicator
Heading Indicator

Power Instruments

Tachometer
Airspeed Indicator


Using the color codes I include here, a failure in the Attitude Indicator seems to have the least effect numerically speaking. A failure in the Airspeed Indicator seems to have the second least effect numerically speaking. However, losing the Attitude Indicator leaves three (3) other Pitch Indications and two (2) Bank Indications. Losing the Airspeed Indicator leaves three (3) Pitch Indications and one (1) Power Indication. Losing the Altimeter or Vertical Speed Indicator leaves three (3) Pitch Indications respectively. Losing Turn & Bank Indicator or Heading Indicator leaves one (1) Bank Indication. Finally, losing the Tachometer leave one (1) Power Indication.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I reprint those results using highlights this way:

Using the color codes I include here, a failure in the Attitude Indicator seems to have the biggest effect numerically speaking. A failure in the Airspeed Indicator seems to have the second biggest effect numerically speaking. However, losing the Attitude Indicator leaves three (3) other Pitch Indications and two (2) Bank Indications. Losing the Airspeed Indicator leaves three (3) Pitch Indications and one (1) Power Indication. Losing the Altimeter or Vertical Speed Indicator leaves three (3) Pitch Indications respectively. Losing Turn & Bank Indicator or Heading Indicator leaves one (1) Bank Indication. Finally, losing the Tachometer leave one (1) Power Indication.

Suddenly, I note an interesting pattern. There is one failure scenario that leaves two (2) cross-check back-up indications. There are three failure scenarios that leave three (3) cross-check back-up indications. And, there are three failure scenarios that leave just one (1) cross-check back-up indication.

This seems to make the most "at-risk" scenarios related to instruments governing indications about Power and Bank. All others have two or more cross-check back-ups. Ergo, losing both Airspeed Indicator and Tachometer, at least according to this, would seem to be one of the worst kinds of composite failure scenarios given the resultant cross-checks that would remain available for Power - none!

Pitch, seems to be covered quite well in failure scenarios. However, losing Turn & Bank, Heading Indicator plus Attitude Indicator, you lose all Bank Indications - excluding what you can see out the window. These maximum extension grand failure scenarios go on and shows that multiple instrument failures of the wrong kind could be troubling in terms of cross-check back-ups.

So, based on my analysis (if it is correct), which cockpit is best for Failure Scenario Recovery: Glass or Conventional?

Where did my analysis go wrong, please?

galaxy flyer

That video is over-complicated and wrong.

There are two types of instruments—Control and Performance.

Two Control instruments:

Attitude Indication—artificial horizon or, later in “glass” panels, the Primary Flight Display. One sets the correct attitude—pitch and bank to achieve the desired outcome.

Power is a Control Instrument—set power, by whatever power indication, to correspond with desired performance. You should have an idea what power setting will work.

Heading indications are Control, fly a heading that will put the plane on the required navigation track.

The Performance Instruments are those that show what your control inputs have worked. Indicated Airspeed, VVI, Altimeter and Navigation indications (Course Deviation Indication) are performance indications that tell you how you are doing in meeting your desired flight path.

Back-ups are Turn and Bank (needle and ball), standby indicator combining an AI, altimeter and airspeed. These are more common in jets, but becoming available in small GA planes.

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.

GF

galaxy flyer

Actually, it maybe be over complicated, but not wrong. Airspeed is a pitch indication (speed increasing at constant power = descent) but that’s getting real basic “needle, ball and airspeed” flying. Again, as others have said, you’re getting ahead of yourself. Get 50-75 hours of basic aircraft handling-some basic stalls, a bit of unusual attitudes or acro, and pilotage nav, then start thinking about instruments.

Frankly, this is worrisome—you seem to want to embrace lots of “equipment” rather than skills. Equipment is NOT an answer to training and experience. Quite the opposite, earn the skills, get the experience; then you’ll be ready for the equipment.

GF

TiredSoul

A lot of things are worrisome.
Including his other thread.

November Seven

Roger That.

November Seven

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.


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.

November Seven

Which is why I posted the video. I had never seen it explained that way and wanted to know what the experts thought.


Yeah, no doubt the flight instruction is the next step. I'm trying to figure out what kind of Flight Instructor to go with. One who thinks the "Airspeed Indicator is a Pitch Indication," or one who thinks different, teaches different and believes different.

I'm going to put myself into the hands of the CFI and I will need to trust that what they are teaching is fundamentally sound and not something that's going to cause me trouble later on.


Does not worry me at all. I came looking for many different opinions, so that I can make a well reasoned decision about my Flight Training. So, asking questions about Basic Flying Skills before I begin Basic Flight Training, seems rather consistent and wise to me. However, I do very much appreciate the opinion and advice. That's what makes it valuable for me.

Here's a great answer to your question about why I'm doing this. In this video, a Student Pilot takes his Private check-ride for the first time. After watching the video, I was shocked that the DPE passed him, quite honestly. The reason I was shocked should be obvious in the video, but the Student had some fundamental problems with Positive Control of the Aircraft, he did not know how to execute a Forward Slip on Approach to Landing, he kept riding the brakes on take-off, he seemed to be initially confused about how to use a VOR, et-al.

After watching the video, I was sure the DPE would send him back to his CFI. I was wrong. The DPE let him through. I'm still trying to figure out how, when the Student clearly failed it some pretty basic things. You be the judge. But, this is why I am being so anal about my initial Flight Instruction. I don't want my check-ride to end up like this one:

USMCFLYR

You haven't even BEGUN flight training yet and you feel you have the expertise to question whether a DPE should have passed a student based on a video posted on YouTube?

I'm thinking that you are going to be sorely disappointed with a majority of your aviation experience.

Do you go through this level of inquisition with your doctors, accountants, therapists, or any other profession with which you search for a service?