Flying skills on limited panel in IMC

[oggers]

KRviator

Knowing the student did not have an aircraft with a traditional 6-pack, [the instructor] decided to proceed with what was essentially a box-ticking exercise, rather than impart any meaningful education to the student.

The instructor suggested practice based on the panel the sim actually had. To my mind that is quite reasonable. I don't agree that it was pointless for this student to practice partial panel, given that his license would permit him to fly types that required it and he so clearly lacked the ability. Nor do I think any meaningful education was to be had in pretending this 6-pack was actually a dual EFIS.

I would ask you read Volume 2 of the Part 61 MOS, specifically the requirement to perform limited panel flight based upon the failure of the primary AH, DG or ASI.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CASA MOS Part 61, Vol 2
IFL Limited instrument panel manoeuvres
1 Unit description
This unit describes the skills and knowledge required to perform normal flight manoeuvres and recover from unusual attitudes in each of the following non-normal situations:
(a) without reference to the primary attitude indicator or display;
(b) without reference to the primary heading indicator or display;
(c) without reference to reliable airspeed indications.

Nothing in there any more about having to fly without using a full set of standby instruments, either traditional or EFIS. The regulations have (sensibly) changed, but this discussion shows people aren't up to speed with them.

This is not about people being up to speed with regulations. It is about a tyro who did not wish to acquire an essential generic skill for the class of aircraft he was licensed to operate. If it has really become possible to get an IR without demonstrating that skill I respect the instructor all the more for trying to address this shortcoming.

[Centaurus]

Just read the following link on Air Facts Journal (USA aviation website)
For those flying sophisticated light singles and twins and who have reservations on the need to keep current on limited panel, the article in Air Facts is a real eye opener. In all cases described the aircraft went in out of control. The part of the article referring to vacuum pump failures and their fatal result is embedded in the main story about airframe failures

Airframe failure: not just V-tails - Air Facts Journal

[Tankengine]

I agree totally with the need for limited panel skills, on "old school" vac pump A/H aircraft and new glass panel ones. However why do we not have modern, electric (with rechargable battery backup) AHRS type artificial horizons as a backup - you can get them for gliders so why not as IFR backups, better than an old turn and bank.

[Centaurus]

Saw a photo in a magazine of a Cessna 182 cockpit. It had an EFIS panel. It also had a standard looking suction driven AH presumably as a standby AH.

The trouble was the standby AH was not only placed at the lowest centre part of the instrument panel but the parallax error would be significant. It would guarantee any pilot a real instrument flying problem if forced to fall back on it if the EFIS failed in flight.

[Capt Fathom]

If it was a 182 with the dual Garmin 1000, assuming the screen in front of the pilot fails, the ADI transfers to the other screen.
To have to use the STBY AH, you would have to lose both screens! A bad day indeed.
Then you have to use the STBY AH.. If you are in IMC? Lot of ifs there!

[outlandishoutlanding]

Tankengine, you can get electric with battery backup AHs. There are certified ones which run around $4K USD, or LCD experimental ones like the Dynon D2.