Teaching Partial Panel IFR
 

I'm looking for some advice on teaching partial panel IFR technique. We use a Frasca 141 sim with dual 430's, and the partial panel set-up is with the AI, HSI, and both GPS's failed. Any suggestions for how to help a student increase proficiency with single nav holding and VOR approaches?

The trick is that they have to learn new references for pitch, bank, and heading.

Have them start with one axis at a time...the Frasca should be able to selectively freeze them.

Freeze everything else, then let them practice bank with the TC. Repeat for pitch and heading.

Once they have that down, add a second axis, and then all three.

HOPEFULLY they already know VOR nav and are not GPS-babies.

For the mag compass, make sure they memorize the corrections...if they can't recite those cold they will not be able to use a mag compass for heading control.

Yes, absolutely teach the stick and rudder skills just like you are doing... and make sure they learn this stuff cold.

But please, while they are suffering through the torture chanber, inquire how they would handle such a situation in real life.... if the answer is anything less than declare and emergency and get no gyro vectors to either VFR or the nearest ILS above minimums then they need some more schooling in ADM.

I remember one of the best things that my instructor told me during partial panel was, "hey, you've now got fewer instruments so you need to pick up the pace of your scan." That really helped me a lot. I would also stress how being properly trimmed and anticipating is even that much more important during partial panel IFR.

another thing that i found helpful was to not always fail the same instruments. This really give them an understanding of where to grab the information that they need.

The biggest challenge I found when teaching someone anything in the Frasca was getting them over the bs "this thing is too sensitive" "its not realistic" "this sim sucks". The captain i was paired with on my last PC failed and wouldnt shut up about how sensitive and unrealistic the sim was. Who cares? Shouldnt we be able to hop in a completely different airplane and still do BAI?

If you are able to hop in the sim and do stuff PP with no problems, explaining to them that you are not good at the sim because you are proficient at it (cause really you get less sim time then youre students) but you are good because your scan is good, that will go a long way. It is also difficult for students to understand that it is a good thing that the sim doesn't move because you are going to be blocking out those feelings completely anyway when you're in the soup.

One of the things you find is that different people need different areas that need more work than others. One pilot may have scan issues of not understanding the relationship of the "replacement" instruments. Another might have control problems during turns. A third might have trouble with the simple math of knowing how many degrees there are between the current heading and the new one.

After an overview on the ground on the basis - replacement instruments, scan techniques (which should be related to the student's full panel scan), the role of the mag compass - I'd just go fly and keep a close lookout for the problem areas in flight and do a full debrief on the ground to get the student's own impressions of where he found the most trouble. And find ways of overcoming those issues.

BTW for the scan/mag compass issue, I've found it a good technique in an early lesson to cover or fail the mag compass for a substantial period of straight flight, both level and with climbs and descents. The idea is to give the student confidence that if he keeps the wings and ball level in the TC, the airplane will tend to remain on heading and that he can indeed fly with it instead of the AI.

And, please, don't allow the student who is good at this to come to the conclusion that partial panel is not an emergency.

Man, those were the days in those Frasca's. The number one thing in my teachings is the Scan. If their scan sucks from the start, then they are done once you start failing items. If their scan is based off of one instrument too often, then there's your first target to fail. Then just keep going on whatever they are relying on the most and whittle them down to minimum instruments. I don't think you can accomplish this in just one lesson. But developing the scan that works best for them is also a hard part, because instructors always teach what works best for them, without consideration to what might work best for your student.

Take some notes their next session, see what their crutch is, and try and balance the student out on their scan so that "when" something happens they can adjust without any complication.

Good Luck

**Btw, is there going to be a fly-in again this year? I didn't make it last year because the weather went to crap and I didn't feel like taking a pleasure flight without it being fun.

So I'm out of KVNY heading to KLGB. I'm briefed and prepped for KLGB. KSNA is my alternate. I've got the charts pulled and am ready for KSNA, too. I'm even ready to return to KVNY, but that approach is over the rocks. It's IMC practically everywhere, the storm system we're in has IMC even at the usual out, the desert airports. I go partial panel, a vacuum failure, just south of POM (on the TEC route KVNY-KLGB for pistons). I'm approximately 5000' AGL over a bunch of airports. Should I dump my plan and dive for the nearby airports, struggling to keep control of the plane while pulling out the approach charts, briefing them, and hoping I miss the mountains that are on downwind, or should I proceed as planned and briefed, getting into KLGB or KSNA, whichever has the better chance of me landing successfully depending on weather and controller workload?

It's a great training scenario as closer is not always better. Partial panel, one may be better off sticking to the plan versus trying to pull a rabbit out of the hat.

For partial panel, a high scan rate is needed, but a high scan rate of the proper instruments. Assuming a vacuum failure that kills DG and AI, the TC and VSI are working:

If the TC is working, and one holds zero rate of turn, can the heading change?

If the VSI is working, and one holds zero rate of climb or descent, can the altitude change?

If one holds zero rate of turn, zero rate of climb or descent, and keeps the power the same, can the airspeed change? (Yes, but over a long period of time or in turbulence, we're talking about short term, next 30 seconds, kind of changes in somewhat smooth air. It's better to practice in smooth air and turn the turbulence on later.)

So if the heading, altitude, and airspeed can't change, why waste time constantly looking at those instruments? You can get faster information off of the TC and VSI. One also needs some good practice in making sure the plane is in trim, that will greatly reduce the IFR workload. It will also make an instrument failure easy to detect, the one that has failed is the one that is moving. (BTW, FRASCAs are great for learning to recognize instrument failures!)

Now the aircraft is under control, how does one navigate with a VOR? Turn in the direction the needle is moving until it stops. That is the reference heading. Roll out. Does the needle stay? If yes, turn 3 seconds at standard rate (approximately 10 degrees of heading change) towards the needle. That should get it drifting back towards center. If the needle starts moving, turn in the direction the needle is moving until it stops. When the needle is centered, take out the 3 seconds of heading change one did earlier. If that starts the needle drifting again, turn 3 seconds at half standard rate in the direction the needle is drifting.

The same technique works well for ILS localizers, except use half-standard rate turns or one wingtip low turns inside the outer marker if the needle is drifting. Once the course is set and the reference heading is found, one no longer needs to worry about a compass or what the heading is. Nor do we care about the winds.

The above is a quick and dirty summary of two books, four two-hour WINGS seminars, Lessons 1-14 in the instrument rating course that I teach, and several hours of proper practice in the FRASCA simulators. Once the students can trim, fly hands off, scan, and navigate, holding patterns become really easy. It's also in the holding patterns that many of the weaknesses of the previous pieces show.

Of course, when in actual IMC with a partial panel, someone had better be actively dying in order for me to accept a holding pattern, and then I'm demanding 10 mile legs, controller calling my turns, the no-gyro vectors, finding out where the alternates are and their weather, and so on. Even though I think I can handle it, there is no reason to not ask for the additional levels of monitoring and assistance. Pilots regularly die when partial panel.

Partial Panel Holding??? I have one word for that: "Unable"

Make them give you vectors. I think most controllers are savvy enough not to assign holds to an airplane with an instrument emergency.

But that's a good graduate-level scenario, and I fully agree that sticking with a briefed plan (or an approach you are familiar with) is a far better answer than improvising in IMC.

Agreed. And you'd likely declare an emergency if you couldn't get the handling you wanted.

But that's 90+% of the real world, not the training environment where overload and scenarios that test the limits is the name of the game.

and ive got 3 words for that....Radar Contact Lost. Are you gonna rely on BBF airport to have radar coverage? Not saying that you have to hold, but a hold as a procedure turn is not outside the realm of realistic possibilities.

As instructors, we need to constantly be training for the absolute worst case scenario. This not only makes a real emergency much more manageable, but also teaches decision making skills. Think Sully could do a PP hold if it were necessary...probably.

#1 on Radar Contact Lost: Are you serious? In that event, I really doubt controllers are going to "play" that game. Then all you do is call for an emergency. If you do this in the Sim, you are going beyound what is reasonable. I just don't see this being realistic unless you were already in an area of lacking coverage. But in this same situation, the controllers would give notice of this, and I would imagine try to see if A. you're comfortable w/o their help, or B. Vector and/or climb you so they can get you where they will see you to XXX airport.

#2 on Worst Case Scenarios: I agree to an extent. I've never seen an airplane that's lost all gyro's(air driven) and it's electrical, plus down to one com/nav. So there is a limit on what should be failed at times too IMO. It's self-control on the instructors part. Now if our Ace student gets cocky, or is really just that good and needs a good challenge, then it's time to add things on, but just loading someone up out of the blue doesn't teach them much if they haven't learned the basic's already.

#3 If Sully had to hold PP in an Airbus, I'd feel sorry for him, because it'd be his 2nd worst day in flying! Transition him back to a 6-pack airplane, I don't know, is he current in them, or has he only flown glass in the last umpteen years? I'm sure at one time he was very current in that regard

First, I completely agree that there is a limit and it is up to the instructor to judge what training the student needs to accomplish the training objective. With that said, a partial panel hold can be part of an instrument approach procedure. Even if 999 out of 1000 times that you could possibly have an instrument failure you will be in RADAR and radio contact, that one time when you're not, you need to be able to deal with it.

There is precedent for being able to fly without ATC assistance. Our entire instrument system was developed from, and continues to have procedures for, a non-RADAR environment. ZLA has lost RADAR numerous times and radio a few times. SoCal TRACON has lost RADAR and radio multiple times. ZOA and ZFW are not immune. Whatever is causing the failure can be causing multiple failures. A short-circuit or fire can cause a progressive failure. So can a engine that is spewing fuel out of a major leak.

Now, myself, a few clients, and two instructor friends have experienced instrument failures while IMC. Four times, ATC RADAR was unavailable, twice, RADAR and Radio was not available, the controller stating "call me when you land to cancel IFR". I've been in IMC and lost pretty much everything except the radio (two FAA ramp checks followed that flight, the first as the Inspector happened to be on final when I came in, the second 'cause he called his boss). Hopefully you will be one of the majority of pilots that never experiences a serious in-flight failure. We train so that if you are one of the "chosen few" that will be put to the test, you will survive.

I don't understand.

I would still not hold unnecessarily for delay purposes, but radar coverage is not everywhere and you might need to do a PT (or HILPT) to reverse course and get down. Emergency authority? There's a good chance that if you do a home grown self vector for an approach outside radar coverage in some parts of the US you will end up with a far greater emergency than a vacuum failure.

Did I misunderstand the comment?

Thanks for the help everybody. I'll let you know how it goes next week.

Ewfflyer: I haven't heard anything about the fly-in for this year, but I'll try to find out. It sure is nice out right now though!

I don't think I'm understanding your argument. It seems like you think that the individual ATC decides when they have radar coverage and not. If he can't see you, he can't see you. Also, like someone else said, the whole point of instrument training is to be able to do EVERYTHING without ATC's help. We don't train radio out and full procedure approaches for nothing.

Also, there are ENDLESS aircraft incidents that have not been trained for. Have you ever practiced ditching? Have you practiced what happens when the top of your 737 rips off? Have you practiced when your 3rd engine blows up and severs all control to all 3 axis'? As instructors, we cannot start to imagine all the things that could possibly go wrong, however, we can train students in nearly improbable scenarios because it teaches decision making skills that will transfer to all emergency situations.

I think we're all misunderstanding each other here. When your response to Rickair's "unable" was "radar contact lost" I was assuming it in the regards that the instructor in this case is basically leaving the student hung out to dry.

I'm not saying you shouldn't give them the worst case scenario eventually, my points are you have to build someone up to these experiences, because w/o a base knowledge and partial panel skills. There are always the prodigy students(which I definately enjoy) who you can push very hard and really see what they are capable, but this is always up to the discretion of the instructor(whom we're trying to help out in this situation)