It's all just historic, T&Bs were electric, AHs were pneumatic.:rolleyes:

The rules on instruments are very old, don't expect the department of hanging names to keep up.:hmm: ( or manufacturers):ugh:

T@B were once pneumatic as well Tanky, very few GA aircraft having electrics in the 50s, 60s, powered by a venturi stuck out in the breeze.

The T@B has its uses over and above an AH. Clem Atkins at the RVAC in the 60s used to teach spin recovery under the hood in Chipmunks using the T@B, the AH would have toppled during the gyrations, so of no use. Do people practice partial panel these days?

Which Aircraft is that from?

Sorry Ixixly, I have to call you on this. The OP asked a series of simple questions and you reply with:

in a smart ass way.

Then you carry on with garbage about the TC being preferable to an AH because you can fly a balanced rate one turn. How about pitch attitude? What do you think the chances are of someone who can't fly something approximating a rate one turn on an AH maintaining level flight on limited panel? Hey, at least the spiral dive would be balanced.

I understand the name turn and bank indicator is sometimes used but really is a misnomer because the thing doesn't indicate bank. A turn indicator indicates rate of turn. A turn co-ordinator indicates rate or turn and rate of roll (due offset gyro axis) but neither directly display roll or pitch attitude.

Agree that the rule is there for inadvertent VFR into IMC and really is outdated. When the thing was written, aeroplanes had turn indicators more than AHs.

As I mentioned Scavenger, that comment was made in relation to a VFR Aircraft entering into Inadvertent IMC and executing a turn back onto a reciprocal track, I never meant you should ignore the AH or your other instruments, at no point did I say "Hey, just go ahead and ignore everything else sitting in that cockpit and use only your T+B and your Watch". At no point did I say that a T+B was totally superior to an AH, I talked about situations in which it may be preferable so don't go putting words into my mouth or my posts.

Neither does it mention scanning the other instruments, such as the VSI and ASI, HSI or engine power indicator...that doesn't mean you wouldn't use them.

The CASA issued VFR (Day) syllabus - Aeroplanes:

GFPT requires 2 hours of IF using the full panel
The PVT Licence requires 2 hours of IF using the full panel

Full panel is "Flight instrument array of at least an Artificial Horizon (AH), stabilised Heading Indicator, an Air Speed Indicator (ASI), Vertical Speed Indicator, Altimeter, Turn and Balance Indicator/Turn Co-ordinator and an engine power indicator.

Ixxily, what you are suggesting is Limited Panel, and that only gets around 2 hours out of 10 hours in the CPLA training. A private pilot is not even required to have completed Limited Panel..

If they hold a CPL they will have completed 14 hours of IF training, 12 using the AH.

At PPL level they will have completed 4 hours using the AH.

And no, I wasn't advocating ignoring a perfectly valid source of information, that seemed to your point.

What I was advocating was that the primary information source should be the AH with the other instruments as supportive.

And that is how I taught the sequences in Restricted/GFPT, Unrestricted/PPL, CPL and CIR and how the syllabus was written for it to be taught.

Anyway, do it how you want to, its your 178 seconds, not mine.

Interesting thread. Prompted me to wonder if the current PPL Night Rating insists on any additional partial panel training. As far as I can see from the CASA syllabus, it doesn't. When I did a night rating (Class IV inst) a long time ago, I recall practicing flying and UA recovery using only the (electric) TC, ASI, altimeter and compass. Not sure if this was then a requirement, or a local enhancement. The scenario of dread was, of course, a vac pump failure on a pitch black night, taking out the DG and AH.

Don't know if there are any of those Venturi systems mentioned by Brian A. still out there but even as a student it struck me that you'd have to be a bit of an optimist to blast off NVFR with that system. I guess there was no vac pump to fail but hurtling down the strip on a dark night, un-caging the gyro, and hoping it all worked seemed a bit optimistic. I have no doubt, though, that there are plenty of folks here who managed it well on a routine basis!

Pitch control.... Well you have an ASI,VSI and Altimeter...
Or people only capable of using one instrument these days?

How about something that is much more simple. The AH is not required in VFR flight.
T&B can be used for co-ordination in turns, engine failure in multi-engine, some spin stuff, rate of turn, and recovery from the emergency situations noted before.

An AH is just an instrument that helps co-ordinate all the above information and the picture outside the plane into one place. If that fails, you still have all the information from other sources.

Planning IFR, sure. I use the AH as my primary instrument.
VFR, I barely use it. But I still use the balance ball.

lilyflyboy262...2

you may have missed the point ........ the discussion (well the last page or so of the thread that some of us have managed to hijack..sorry OP :) ) relates to getting out of inadvertent IMC and back into VMC.

That is not VFR flying, that is IFR flying and if done by a non IFR rated pilot is extremely life threatening.

That pilot will need all the assistance at hand and to suggest that a non rated pilot could simply use just the T&B, ASI, VSI and Altimeter (and the watch for the timing!!!) to get out of dodge is quite a stretch.

The AH every time will contribute more to saving said VFR inadvertent IMC pilots life than to scanning a T&B, ASI, VSI, ALT and watch and using the AH as a backup device.

You state:
Well said, however I take issue with the word "just", it does belittle the AH somewhat.

Anyway, if one is a current IFR pilot, agreed, flying limited panel is quite doable, but for this non hero, it would be very taxing and tiring.

Anyway...what is that about old and bold pilots :).

Cheers

I got what you guys were talking about.

What I was getting at was two points.

1) In that event of inadvertent IMC, and the AH fails, you have multiple other sources that give you the same information that the AH gives you, but just in a different format. The T&B is going to give you information that is needed for co-ordinated flight and can help you get out of the inadvertent IMC a lot faster.

In IFR/IMC, the AH is an amazing luxury to have, but it is not essential to safe flight. It is beneficial to increasing the overall safety of said flight though.

2) And more at the OPs original point.
In the VFR charter world, the T&B is used a heck of a lot more than the AH as you have visual reference with the outside world. This outside reference gives you all the information that is presented on the AH.
Information from the T&B is not readily available from other means, and is used in other situations outside of IMC.
The reason for the T&B indicator is not purely for an inadvertent IMC encounter as I pointed out in the previous post.

Personally, I would have the AH if it was functioning properly and just either climb or descend and ask for radar vectors out of there. Or just do a very rough compass turn until pointing roughly 180 degrees.... but thats just me. Using just a T&B is a heck of a lot of work. But I go back to point 2. The whole reason it is there is not for us to go bombing through bravely into ****e weather that ends with us IMC. But for the VFR pilot to use it in a raft of other situations....