Question:
If you’re VFR and call Appr. Control with intention of landing, I think you might expect some limited vectoring.
Yes. I’m trying to find out just how much you can legally deviate from an assigned heading. Not really relevant but I have this terrible curiousity problem. 
I think you mis-interpret the meaning there of "no-gyro". It doesn’t mean you don’t have one, like in a Cub, it means your gyro just gave up the ghost! Bruce
Hehe, yes. To be honest I wasn’t really suggesting that this is the way it’s USUALLY done. I just found it amusing to note the trust ATC have in the ability of A/C to follow vectors while flying on a whiskey compass. "Just turn until we say it’s enough, OK?" Cheers, /ft
Response:
Hi Bruce, Sorry if I came off as having a bad attitude. I’m not namecalling here, so I’m not sure how you interpret debate/discussion as a bad attitude. Perhaps the trouble is that I left too much open for assumption. Such as your comment below regarding going up and covering the instruments. My initial trouble when I began to fly was looking at the panel too much; it was the first thing we "fixed". And your "worst example" comment is a bit ridiculous, considering how little you know about how I apply simulation to my logged time flying. In fact, when I got started, the first thing I learned – and perhaps the most important – was not to assume anything. May I respectfully suggest that you do the same? Regards, Andrew – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Andrew, I suppose Ill get a sarcastic answer for my trouble, but what the Hell— assuming that, although you have a very bad attitude, maybe you’re not hopeless, ask your instructor[or maybe a different one!] what he thinks of the idea of going up with you on a nice day and covering all the instruments and see if you can get the idea of attitude flying{no pun intended]. You sound to me like the worst example of the down-side of sim flying as far as applicability to RL. Bruce Before you buy.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If you’re VFR and call Appr. Control with intention of landing, I think you might expect some limited vectoring. Yes. I’m trying to find out just how much you can legally deviate from an assigned heading. Not really relevant but I have this terrible curiousity problem. I think you mis-interpret the meaning there of "no-gyro". It doesn’t mean you don’t have one, like in a Cub, it means your gyro just gave up the ghost! Bruce Hehe, yes. To be honest I wasn’t really suggesting that this is the way it’s USUALLY done. I just found it amusing to note the trust ATC have in the ability of A/C to follow vectors while flying on a whiskey compass. "Just turn until we say it’s enough, OK?" Cheers, /ft Fredrick, there’s a terrific ng of RL pilots who can tell you for
sure, it’s been many years since I flew last, but I seem to recall that when you’re VFR, app. asks you if you’d like vectors! Can’t remember for sure. As far as the "turn-stop turning" thing, remember this is a circumstance where there’s no other choice. The mag. compass is useless in turns, of course, so they’re stuck with the aforesaid procedure. Regards, Bruce Before you buy.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi Bruce, Sorry if I came off as having a bad attitude. I’m not namecalling here, so I’m not sure how you interpret debate/discussion as a bad attitude. Perhaps the trouble is that I left too much open for assumption. Such as your comment below regarding going up and covering the instruments. My initial trouble when I began to fly was looking at the panel too much; it was the first thing we "fixed". And your "worst example" comment is a bit ridiculous, considering how little you know about how I apply simulation to my logged time flying. In fact, when I got started, the first thing I learned – and perhaps the most important – was not to assume anything. May I respectfully suggest that you do the same? Regards, Andrew Andrew, I suppose Ill get a sarcastic answer for my trouble, but what the Hell— assuming that, although you have a very bad attitude, maybe you’re not hopeless, ask your instructor[or maybe a different one!] what he thinks of the idea of going up with you on a nice day and covering all the instruments and see if you can get the idea of attitude flying{no pun intended]. You sound to me like the worst example of the down-side of sim flying as far as applicability to RL. Bruce Before you buy.
Andrew, sorry, I meant a bad attitude toward flying, nothing else. As an ex high-time CFI, I was trying to figure out why you want to depend so much on guages, and "assumed" it was from sim flying, since I never encountered that attitude before, and my instructing days were pre computers. Regards, Bruce Before you buy.
Response:
Oh, darn, and I wanted to get into a really long flame war that ended up on some obscure topic like Tahitian Vanilla, or asbestos, or folding chairs or something. ;) In the short time I’ve been learning (from a gentleman, as I mentioned, 72 years + ??? hours), I have literally changed the way I approach (get it? – approach? – ha, ha) just about everything in life. He is a big proponent of using "all available information"… This isn’t to say we should overload, just that, I think, to use what we have efficiently and within reason. I figure that if there is a tiny bit of info which could end up making a big difference in whether my day turns out nice or not, I’ll take it. I depend on gauges not because I need to, but because I *might* need to. (You know, be prepared, all that.) Regards, Andrew – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi Bruce, Sorry if I came off as having a bad attitude. I’m not namecalling here, so I’m not sure how you interpret debate/discussion as a bad attitude. Perhaps the trouble is that I left too much open for assumption. Such as your comment below regarding going up and covering the instruments. My initial trouble when I began to fly was looking at the panel too much; it was the first thing we "fixed". And your "worst example" comment is a bit ridiculous, considering how little you know about how I apply simulation to my logged time flying. In fact, when I got started, the first thing I learned – and perhaps the most important – was not to assume anything. May I respectfully suggest that you do the same? Regards, Andrew Andrew, I suppose Ill get a sarcastic answer for my trouble, but what the Hell— assuming that, although you have a very bad attitude, maybe you’re not hopeless, ask your instructor[or maybe a different one!] what he thinks of the idea of going up with you on a nice day and covering all the instruments and see if you can get the idea of attitude flying{no pun intended]. You sound to me like the worst example of the down-side of sim flying as far as applicability to RL. Bruce Before you buy. Andrew, sorry, I meant a bad attitude toward flying, nothing else. As an ex high-time CFI, I was trying to figure out why you want to depend so much on guages, and "assumed" it was from sim flying, since I never encountered that attitude before, and my instructing days were pre computers. Regards, Bruce Before you buy.
Response:
Martin, After all, static lines do freeze and then where are your primary instruments? Connected to your vaccum system.
Nope, ASI and altimeter don’t need vacuum. The gyro instruments do unless they’re electric, but I should hope that neither ASI nor altimeter are attached or the readings may be quite interesting. If you get water in your pitot tube and/or it freezes you’ll have no ASI. This happened to the club’s Grob 103 during a wet spell this summer but is far from unknown in cold winter conditions in both powered aircraft and gliders. If, as I seem to remember, the altimeter is connected to the static line, any blockage there will take it out, though I grant you that a static line blockage is less likely. But I think we are generally talking about powered flight in this thread.
I understood that. The point I’m making is that basic, ’self-powered ‘ instruments (ASI and altimeter) can and do fail and that you’ll be very glad you can fly and land without them when it comes to the crunch. but here in the UK you won’t be allowed to solo in a glider until you’ve done a checkride (cable launch, circuit and landing) with ASI and altimeter covered and (probably) the yaw string stuck to the canopy. There are no other useful instruments for flying circuits in a glider.
Amplification; in gliding we are encouraged not to use the altimeter in the circuit. Its main use is to make sure we don’t enter height restricted airspace at the wrong height . In the circuit I’ll take a glance at it at high key and again at low key point but what the altimeter says is not important; the ‘picture’ I’m seeing of the airfield is really all that matters. This is also practise for landing out. After all any field landing you make is certainly on an uncontrolled field. This means you won’t know its altitude so anything the altimeter says is downright misleading. I doubt I will be flying a glider in controlled airspace! I really would like to take a ride in a glider, though.
We don’t like controlled airspace either, and stay out. Try gliding – you might like it! The main differences are that co-ordinated turns are rather harder due to the much greater aileron adverse yaw effect, we make a habit of steep thermalling turns at 5-10 Kts above stall, and we fly the approach faster than normal cruise. Oh yeah, its much quieter too. — gregorie | Martin Gregorie @logica | Logica Ltd com | +44 020 76379111
Response:
I depend on gauges not because I need to, but because I *might* need to. (You know, be prepared, all that.)
Actually, NOT depending on them is even more useful. After all, static lines do freeze and then where are your primary instruments? I can’t talk about powered training, but here in the UK you won’t be allowed to solo in a glider until you’ve done a checkride (cable launch, circuit and landing) with ASI and altimeter covered and (probably) the yaw string stuck to the canopy. There are no other useful instruments for flying circuits in a glider. My final pre-solo check ride was done under these conditions. — gregorie | Martin Gregorie @logica | Logica Ltd com | +44 020 76379111
Response:
Martin, Actually, NOT depending on them is even more useful.
That’s not what I heard. After all, static lines do freeze and then where are your primary instruments?
Connected to your vaccum system. I can’t talk about powered training,
Sure you can! Feel free. But I think we are generally talking about powered flight in this thread. but here in the UK you won’t be allowed to solo in a glider until you’ve done a checkride (cable launch, circuit and landing) with ASI and altimeter covered and (probably) the yaw string stuck to the canopy. There are no other useful instruments for flying circuits in a glider.
I doubt I will be flying a glider in controlled airspace! I really would like to take a ride in a glider, though. Regards, Andrew
Response:
Fredrick, there’s a terrific ng of RL pilots who can tell you for sure, it’s been many years since I flew last, but I seem to recall that when you’re VFR, app. asks you if you’d like vectors!
Probably another case where the PIC makes the call. ATC will probably give vectors to VFR traffic if they feel that it is the best way of working towards that often-mentioned "smooth and expeditious flow of traffic". FAAO 7110.65 said, in regards to vectoring VFR traffic, that limited vectoring should be provided workload permitting. If they give you vectors and you don’t feel you can safely comply – unable. If they STILL feel they need to have you on a specific heading, well, that’s when it’s time for "turn-stop turning". Of course they’ll much rather go with vectoring IFR traffic around a bit, then they know what will happen. I asked around in another forum and an ex-controller replied that in ATC they don’t really care how exactly you hold the magnetic heading given. They just look at what way you’re headed and give a correction. One of those "d’oh!" situations, I knew that from previous "close encounters" with ATC. It’s always "say heading – fly heading". They’re concerned about course and track, not heading. If they see you flying a course of 135, you report a heading of 045 and they want you on 180 they’ll tell you to fly a heading of 090 and that’s that. I’d expect a few questions regarding winds and calibration though. He also said that if you are asked your heading you’re supposed to say the heading you were given last, not what you see on your DG. As for flying on mag compass only, well… It’s doable, they did it for years. I’ve even tried shooting a few approaches in solid IFR with turbulence in simulator without DG (I had forgotten to turn failures off to be honest so it started drifting – I sure was proud of catching that one in time!) and it worked out allright. Although it wasn’t easy and I certainly was glad that the approach speed was 80K rather than 130… and that it wasn’t for real. It sure is annoying when you initiate a turn and the compass initially goes the other way. Now, onto the official word. I found the FAA Practical Test Standards online, http://afs600.faa.gov. In the PPL PTS [FAA-S-8081-12A] they consistently demand the required heading, plus/minus ten degrees. The IFR PTS [FAA-S-8081-12A] also consistently states that the required level of performance is to hold a heading within 10 degrees. I seriously doubt you’ll pass if you fly with the gyro constantly indicating 9 degrees off however… Finally, it was suggested that you do not try defending having flown up to ten degrees of course in front of an FAA or NTSB investigation board as it is apparently still unclear what their position is on this. So if anyone was considering THAT research method… don’t! Cheers, /ft
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi Fredrik! Ok, one point at a time.. Ah, yes. Indeed. What I meant was that from your description I really couldn’t see it being anything but an IFR trainer. Sorry, my fault. I should have been more clear in my description. When would you need to depend on the AI while in VMC? The only conditions I can think of (e g flat, snowcovered ground with bright overcast blending together) are so rare that it’s probably a better idea just staying on the ground for those very short periods. The FARs do not require an AI for VFR BTW. First, as far as the example of the snowcovered ground with bright overcast blending together, don’t forget that many different types of conditions and visibility can and will obscure the horizon, and ground reference points. More dangerous perhaps is the situation in which a low lying cloud or haze layer slopes, creating a false horizon. In learning to fly, I have found that I cannot rely on the visual cues of the horizon over the instrument panel because so many different people fly "my" 172. Therefore, the seat is *always* in a different position horizontally AND vertically. There is no way for me to know how to position the seat exactly the same each time I fly. Plus, some days I slouch over, some days I sit upright. Therefore, the only constant factors I have for determining pitch attitude are a) looking out the side at the angle of the wing surface in relation to the horizon (if I can see it) and 2) the AI. I don’t trust my estimation of angle, or my view of what I *think* is the horizon, enough to use it as a sole reference. But I know if I "put the little dot just under the line", I can hold my best rate of climb with a great deal of precision. If you have the choice of checking your attitude using either visual cues or an AI that might just go out on you ever so subtly? Well, it’s a non-choice if you ask me. Many pilots have found themselves in bad situations because they
based their actions on – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – what they saw out the window… I still can’t quite grasp how a scanning procedure could be used in a VFR situation. To me, scanning is going over the currently relevant instruments in sequence, stopping on each one long enough to register what it indicates, interpret the information and at least decide on a course of action. Exactly. Key phrase here is "long enough"… different for everyone! Then moving on to the next instrument and repeating the procedure, following a scanning pattern. Exactly some more. I just can’t see how you could fit in checking enough instruments between your peeks at the outside to call it an instrument scan without spending far too much town with your head down. Well, then, how do you take the time to tune and retune radios, look at charts, kiss your girlfriend, or cross-check your Nav 1 to Nav 2? Believe me, you cannot do these things in a short glance. Jeppesen’s texbook recommends a 70% out-the- window to 30% on-the-panel viewing time division. I’ve heard the term "snapshot" used to indicate what you do when checking instruments in VFR. Glance down long enough to register any needle or indicator that is in a place where it shouldn’t be, then scan the outside while processing the information and deciding if there’s any instrument you need to take another look at. Yes, my instructor can do this. I can’t. It’s the ideal goal of
instrument scanning. The hardest part here isn’t to see that things are pointing the way they should – that’s a relatively easy skill to develop, and I can do it. The challenge is to detect small changes at a glance – a needle moving away from a "hold point", or two, or three. What do you think? Am I making myself clear so far? Do you see where my problem with the way you describe things are? Could be that we are saying the same thing differently. Well, your descriptions are quite clear. English is your first
language, isn’t it? : ) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If not, let me just say that it is excellent and I am embarrased in my limited foreign language capability. Hmm… Do you think our mental pictures of what is really going on correspond if we include the otside view as a frequent part of the scanning procedure? Naturally. I never said you can’t look out the window. (Section removed) I was under the impression that VFR flights could not legally be vectored. Now I don’t know how I got that idea. However, as for the demands on being able to hold an exact heading under VFR this is what I found. The FAR says that —— (3) Magnetic direction indicator. —— is the only direction indicator needed for VFR. [Sec. 91.205 Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S. airworthiness certificates: Instrument and equipment requirements.] In the same section it is stated that for IFR flight you need —— (9) Gyroscopic direction indicator (directional gyro or equivalent). —— I e no gyro for VFR. That to me means that the precision ATC expects from vectored VFR traffic is no better than that of the whiskey compass and certainly worse than from IFR traffic. Certainly that allows for quite a few degrees of variation, just imagine flying around on whiskey compass only in turbulence. No, sorry. ATC expects you not to get in their airspace if you said you wouldn’t, and basically expect you to be right where you promise. It doesn’t matter if an infinite aluminum Buddha on toast shines down upon your worldly aircraft, if you don’t have a real good reason for not being where
you should be, you’re – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – in trouble. BTW, I have flown on a whiskey compass only, and in turbulence, and under the hood. I’d prefer a working gyro, thank you. I eventually found this: —— Sec. 23.1327 Magnetic direction indicator. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section– (1) Each magnetic direction indicator must be installed so that its accuracy is not excessively affected by the airplane’s vibration or magnetic fields; and (2) The compensated installation may not have a deviation in level flight, greater than ten degrees on any heading. (b) A magnetic nonstabilized direction indicator may deviate more than ten degrees due to the operation of electrically powered systems such as electrically heated windshields if either a magnetic stabilized direction indicator, which does not have a deviation in level flight greater than ten degrees on any heading, or a gyroscopic direction indicator, is installed. Deviations of a magnetic nonstabilized direction indicator of more than 10 degrees must be placarded in accordance with Sec. 23.1547(e). —— Clearly you’re not expected to hold a given heading to a precission better than within ten degrees while operating under VFR. If that were the case, you could be off by 10 degrees, and in a case with two aircraft, there could be a perceived heading variance of 20 degrees total! This could be disastrous. You are expected to keep your headings on the money, by ATC anyway. If you bust class B airspace, they will not excuse it because you’re using a compass / DG / combo. (Section removed) Please don’t call it an instrument. Charts on the seat next to you in lieu of a person is not a copilot. Calling the windscreen an "instrument" was a joke of course. You’ve never heard of frustrated instructors demanding that their students start using "the big glass instrument on top of the panel" before? Sorry! Never heard that! I’ve only had a few instructors, I suppose I will hear it one of these days. You’re not looking at the altimeter ALL the time during your climbout, are you? Or when descending into the pattern? I sure hope not. Not without looking out the windows. But significant points in climbout/departure must be recognized, such as 750 feet at my airport (pattern egress / continue point), and every 1,000 feet for level off and traffic checks. Pros may be able to eyeball this. My instructor (72 years old) can. I can’t. No, I think it is outside our capabilities as a species. I have to ascribe the fact that your instructor and other aviators with lots and lots of experience can do it to a never researched phenomena – midlife evolution. They’re a whole new species with certain superior abilities. I still don’t see how (for us mere humans) this would require instrument SCAN as opposed to occasional (albeit perhaps frequent) PEEKS at the altimeter. The fact that we seem to agree again leads me to believe that we have a difference in vocabulary rather than opinion. Yes, I think so… to me, any time you reference your instruments, you are scanning. I have never heard my instructor say, "remember to peek"… Nice talking with you BTW. I’m enjoying this. Me too, where are you from? Andrew
Andrew, I suppose Ill get a sarcastic answer for my trouble, but what the Hell— assuming that, although you have a very bad attitude, maybe you’re not hopeless, ask your instructor[or maybe a different one!] what he thinks of the idea of going up with you on a nice day and covering all the instruments and see if you can get the idea of attitude flying{no pun intended]. You sound to me like the worst example of the down-side of sim flying as far as applicability to RL. Bruce Before you buy.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi Fredrik! Ok, one point at a time.. Ah, yes. Indeed. What I meant was that from your description I really couldn’t see it being anything but an IFR trainer. Sorry, my fault. I should have been more clear in my description. When would you need to depend on the AI while in VMC? The only conditions I can think of (e g flat, snowcovered ground with bright overcast blending together) are so rare that it’s probably a better idea just staying on the ground for those very short periods. The FARs do not require an AI for VFR BTW. First, as far as the example of the snowcovered ground with bright overcast blending together, don’t forget that many different types of conditions and visibility can and will obscure the horizon, and ground reference points. More dangerous perhaps is the situation in which a low lying cloud or haze layer slopes, creating a false horizon. In learning to fly, I have found that I cannot rely on the visual cues of the horizon over the instrument panel because so many different people fly "my" 172. Therefore, the seat is *always* in a different position horizontally AND vertically. There is no way for me to know how to position the seat exactly the same each time I fly. Plus, some days I slouch over, some days I sit upright. Therefore, the only constant factors I have for determining pitch attitude are a) looking out the side at the angle of the wing surface in relation to the horizon (if I can see it) and 2) the AI. I don’t trust my estimation of angle, or my view of what I *think* is the horizon, enough to use it as a sole reference. But I know if I "put the little dot just under the line", I can hold my best rate of climb with a great deal of precision. If you have the choice of checking your attitude using either visual cues or an AI that might just go out on you ever so subtly? Well, it’s a non-choice if you ask me. Many pilots have found themselves in bad situations because they
based their actions on – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – what they saw out the window… I still can’t quite grasp how a scanning procedure could be used in a VFR situation. To me, scanning is going over the currently relevant instruments in sequence, stopping on each one long enough to register what it indicates, interpret the information and at least decide on a course of action. Exactly. Key phrase here is "long enough"… different for everyone! Then moving on to the next instrument and repeating the procedure, following a scanning pattern. Exactly some more. I just can’t see how you could fit in checking enough instruments between your peeks at the outside to call it an instrument scan without spending far too much town with your head down. Well, then, how do you take the time to tune and retune radios, look at charts, kiss your girlfriend, or cross-check your Nav 1 to Nav 2? Believe me, you cannot do these things in a short glance. Jeppesen’s texbook recommends a 70% out-the- window to 30% on-the-panel viewing time division. I’ve heard the term "snapshot" used to indicate what you do when checking instruments in VFR. Glance down long enough to register any needle or indicator that is in a place where it shouldn’t be, then scan the outside while processing the information and deciding if there’s any instrument you need to take another look at. Yes, my instructor can do this. I can’t. It’s the ideal goal of
instrument scanning. The hardest part here isn’t to see that things are pointing the way they should – that’s a relatively easy skill to develop, and I can do it. The challenge is to detect small changes at a glance – a needle moving away from a "hold point", or two, or three. What do you think? Am I making myself clear so far? Do you see where my problem with the way you describe things are? Could be that we are saying the same thing differently. Well, your descriptions are quite clear. English is your first
language, isn’t it? : ) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If not, let me just say that it is excellent and I am embarrased in my limited foreign language capability. Hmm… Do you think our mental pictures of what is really going on correspond if we include the otside view as a frequent part of the scanning procedure? Naturally. I never said you can’t look out the window. (Section removed) I was under the impression that VFR flights could not legally be vectored. Now I don’t know how I got that idea. However, as for the demands on being able to hold an exact heading under VFR this is what I found. The FAR says that —— (3) Magnetic direction indicator. —— is the only direction indicator needed for VFR. [Sec. 91.205 Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S. airworthiness certificates: Instrument and equipment requirements.] In the same section it is stated that for IFR flight you need —— (9) Gyroscopic direction indicator (directional gyro or equivalent). —— I e no gyro for VFR. That to me means that the precision ATC expects from vectored VFR traffic is no better than that of the whiskey compass and certainly worse than from IFR traffic. Certainly that allows for quite a few degrees of variation, just imagine flying around on whiskey compass only in turbulence. No, sorry. ATC expects you not to get in their airspace if you said you wouldn’t, and basically expect you to be right where you promise. It doesn’t matter if an infinite aluminum Buddha on toast shines down upon your worldly aircraft, if you don’t have a real good reason for not being where
you should be, you’re – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – in trouble. BTW, I have flown on a whiskey compass only, and in turbulence, and under the hood. I’d prefer a working gyro, thank you. I eventually found this: —— Sec. 23.1327 Magnetic direction indicator. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section– (1) Each magnetic direction indicator must be installed so that its accuracy is not excessively affected by the airplane’s vibration or magnetic fields; and (2) The compensated installation may not have a deviation in level flight, greater than ten degrees on any heading. (b) A magnetic nonstabilized direction indicator may deviate more than ten degrees due to the operation of electrically powered systems such as electrically heated windshields if either a magnetic stabilized direction indicator, which does not have a deviation in level flight greater than ten degrees on any heading, or a gyroscopic direction indicator, is installed. Deviations of a magnetic nonstabilized direction indicator of more than 10 degrees must be placarded in accordance with Sec. 23.1547(e). —— Clearly you’re not expected to hold a given heading to a precission better than within ten degrees while operating under VFR. If that were the case, you could be off by 10 degrees, and in a case with two aircraft, there could be a perceived heading variance of 20 degrees total! This could be disastrous. You are expected to keep your headings on the money, by ATC anyway. If you bust class B airspace, they will not excuse it because you’re using a compass / DG / combo. (Section removed) Please don’t call it an instrument. Charts on the seat next to you in lieu of a person is not a copilot. Calling the windscreen an "instrument" was a joke of course. You’ve never heard of frustrated instructors demanding that their students start using "the big glass instrument on top of the panel" before? Sorry! Never heard that! I’ve only had a few instructors, I suppose I will hear it one of these days. You’re not looking at the altimeter ALL the time during your climbout, are you? Or when descending into the pattern? I sure hope not. Not without looking out the windows. But significant points in climbout/departure must be recognized, such as 750 feet at my airport (pattern egress / continue point), and every 1,000 feet for level off and traffic checks. Pros may be able to eyeball this. My instructor (72 years old) can. I can’t. No, I think it is outside our capabilities as a species. I have to ascribe the fact that your instructor and other aviators with lots and lots of experience can do it to a never researched phenomena – midlife evolution. They’re a whole new species with certain superior abilities. I still don’t see how (for us mere humans) this would require instrument SCAN as opposed to occasional (albeit perhaps frequent) PEEKS at the altimeter. The fact that we seem to agree again leads me to believe that we have a difference in vocabulary rather than opinion. Yes, I think so… to me, any time you reference your instruments, you are scanning. I have never heard my instructor say, "remember to peek"… Nice talking with you BTW. I’m enjoying this. Me too, where are you from? Andrew
Hi Fredrick, very well done! I enjoyed your posts on this and I admire your research. A couple of minor thoughts occur — If you’re VFR and call Appr. Control with intention of landing, I think you might expect some limited vectoring. I think you mis-interpret the meaning there of "no-gyro". It doesn’t mean you don’t have one, like in a Cub, it means your gyro just gave up the ghost! Bruce Before you buy.
Response:
I can’t seem to find the FAR part that regulates this from an ATC POV (does FAR 10.65 sound correct?) online. Is anyone able to point me in the right direction? It certainly would be interesting to see what it has to say.
FAAO 7110.65, http://www.ivpa.com/vta/faao7110/7110.htm#TOC Hasn’t found much relevant information there yet though, apart from (of course) confirmation that VFR traffic CAN indeed be vectored (the words "limited radar vectoring" seem common, as well as "workload permitting" or something to that sense) and that (again of course) VFR traffic is still responsible for maintaining visual separation even when being vectored and that it is the responsibility of ATC to keep IFR traffic separated from the VFR traffic. Nothing very new or groundbreaking to sum that behemoth of a sentence up. Cheers, /ft
Response:
Hi Fredrik, There is no need to turn this into a petty flame war.
I agree - sorry if I was testy. You DID describe an instrument flying trainer.
No, you just interpreted it that way. Sure, you use your IAS, altimeter and DG occasionally while VFR.
More than occasionally. But the AI?
Yes. Scanning? Hmm, no.
Actually, yes. Then you pop the "I’m talking VFR" statement on us as we had all settled in thinking we were talking about IFR training which I assume is why you got the slightly exaggerated "no instruments" comment back.
Sorry if I misled you. Oh, and before anyone asks. No, not a pilot myself yet but I have been around aviation enough to begin having a good idea of what I’ll have to do once I can afford it. Just so we can try having a conversation instead of the usual qualification war.
No problem. Hope you get to, it’s great. He probably wants you to turn by about the right number of degreess more or less by feel, checking your gyro every now and then but spending most of the time making sure you’re not flying into anyone or anything.
Absolutely not. He always knows more or less precisely where we are; I don’t. If he says turn to 135, he means 1-3-5. That is *my* guess. I dunno, but somehow I believe that he’ll rather have you on 208 degrees in the clear than perfectly on 210 right away – with your primary VFR flight instrument (the big glass one above the panel) full of another plane.
We always clear the airspace before a turn. BTW, you are aware that as soon as you’re not flying straight ahead your DG probably isn’t showing your true heading anymore due to turning and gimbal errors, right?
Naturally. The 172 I fly had a dying DG on one flight. Interesting stuff! But nonetheless, if I am told to turn to a heading, I cannot guess, nor should I. I’m guessing controllers don’t want me taking my best guess, either. Just guessing. They want you to make sure you’re maintaining visual separation and remain in the airspace they’ve cleared you to use. Other than that they don’t really care about VFR traffic.
Wrong. If a controller tells you to turn to a heading, it’s because that’s exactly what he/she would like you to do. You can certainly ignore them. It’s your ticket. But since you cannot know with certainty why a controller has *asked* you to turn to a heading, it’s generally in your best interest to do so if asked. It doesn’t matter if you’re VFR or not, controlled airspace is controlled. They care about VFR traffic because you can ruin their day if you don’t know what you’re doing. Now, will the DG or the previously mentioned big glass instrument above the panel be more useful for avoiding midairs?
Please don’t call it an instrument. Charts on the seat next to you in lieu of a person is not a copilot. Funny thing, too – when I’m told to climb to 2700 feet, I can *never* seem to find those damn altitude signs. You’re not looking at the altimeter ALL the time during your climbout, are you? Or when descending into the pattern? I sure hope not.
Not without looking out the windows. But significant points in climbout/departure must be recognized, such as 750 feet at my airport (pattern egress / continue point), and every 1,000 feet for level off and traffic checks. Pros may be able to eyeball this. My instructor (72 years old) can. I can’t. When descending into the pattern? Same thing, especially if I’m crossing other airspace above local airfields to get down to my pattern altitude. A problem I can see with your suggested IFR trainer (if we assume it indeed IS for IFR training) is that the instrument scan has to be adapted to the phase of flight you are in.
Definitely. Regards, Andrew
Response:
You DID describe an instrument flying trainer. No, you just interpreted it that way.
Ah, yes. Indeed. What I meant was that from your description I really couldn’t see it being anything but an IFR trainer. But the AI? Yes.
When would you need to depend on the AI while in VMC? The only conditions I can think of (e g flat, snowcovered ground with bright overcast blending together) are so rare that it’s probably a better idea just staying on the ground for those very short periods. The FARs do not require an AI for VFR BTW. If you have the choice of checking your attitude using either visual cues or an AI that might just go out on you ever so subtly? Well, it’s a non-choice if you ask me. Scanning? Hmm, no. Actually, yes.
I still can’t quite grasp how a scanning procedure could be used in a VFR situation. To me, scanning is going over the currently relevant instruments in sequence, stopping on each one long enough to register what it indicates, interpret the information and at least decide on a course of action. Then moving on to the next instrument and repeating the procedure, following a scanning pattern. I just can’t see how you could fit in checking enough instruments between your peeks at the outside to call it an instrument scan without spending far too much town with your head down. I’ve heard the term "snapshot" used to indicate what you do when checking instruments in VFR. Glance down long enough to register any needle or indicator that is in a place where it shouldn’t be, then scan the outside while processing the information and deciding if there’s any instrument you need to take another look at. What do you think? Am I making myself clear so far? Do you see where my problem with the way you describe things are? Could be that we are saying the same thing differently. Hmm… Do you think our mental pictures of what is really going on correspond if we include the otside view as a frequent part of the scanning procedure? I think that the fact that it was left out was my primary reason for not being comfortable with the way you originally described your idea and my assumption that you were talking about IFR training. I’m guessing controllers don’t want me taking my best guess, either. Just guessing. They want you to make sure you’re maintaining visual separation and remain in the airspace they’ve cleared you to use. Other than that they don’t really care about VFR traffic.
I was under the impression that VFR flights could not legally be vectored. Now I don’t know how I got that idea. However, as for the demands on being able to hold an exact heading under VFR this is what I found. The FAR says that —— (3) Magnetic direction indicator. —— is the only direction indicator needed for VFR. [Sec. 91.205 Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S. airworthiness certificates: Instrument and equipment requirements.] In the same section it is stated that for IFR flight you need —— (9) Gyroscopic direction indicator (directional gyro or equivalent). —— I e no gyro for VFR. That to me means that the precision ATC expects from vectored VFR traffic is no better than that of the whiskey compass and certainly worse than from IFR traffic. Certainly that allows for quite a few degrees of variation, just imagine flying around on whiskey compass only in turbulence. I eventually found this: —— Sec. 23.1327 Magnetic direction indicator. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section– (1) Each magnetic direction indicator must be installed so that its accuracy is not excessively affected by the airplane’s vibration or magnetic fields; and (2) The compensated installation may not have a deviation in level flight, greater than ten degrees on any heading. (b) A magnetic nonstabilized direction indicator may deviate more than ten degrees due to the operation of electrically powered systems such as electrically heated windshields if either a magnetic stabilized direction indicator, which does not have a deviation in level flight greater than ten degrees on any heading, or a gyroscopic direction indicator, is installed. Deviations of a magnetic nonstabilized direction indicator of more than 10 degrees must be placarded in accordance with Sec. 23.1547(e). —— Clearly you’re not expected to hold a given heading to a precission better than within ten degrees while operating under VFR. Man, I’m getting lots of reading done through this. Great. Now if only I could find the JAR requirements instead of your FAR. Even though they’re supposed to be fairly similar… I can’t seem to find the FAR part that regulates this from an ATC POV (does FAR 10.65 sound correct?) online. Is anyone able to point me in the right direction? It certainly would be interesting to see what it has to say. Wrong. If a controller tells you to turn to a heading, it’s because that’s exactly what he/she would like you to do. You can certainly ignore them. It’s your ticket.
Agreed. That was my mistake. This was a good day. I learned something. Please don’t call it an instrument. Charts on the seat next to you in lieu of a person is not a copilot.
Calling the windscreen an "instrument" was a joke of course. You’ve never heard of frustrated instructors demanding that their students start using "the big glass instrument on top of the panel" before? You’re not looking at the altimeter ALL the time during your climbout, are you? Or when descending into the pattern? I sure hope not. Not without looking out the windows. But significant points in climbout/departure must be recognized, such as 750 feet at my airport (pattern egress / continue point), and every 1,000 feet for level off and traffic checks. Pros may be able to eyeball this. My instructor (72 years old) can. I can’t.
No, I think it is outside our capabilities as a species. I have to ascribe the fact that your instructor and other aviators with lots and lots of experience can do it to a never researched phenomena – midlife evolution. They’re a whole new species with certain superior abilities. I still don’t see how (for us mere humans) this would require instrument SCAN as opposed to occasional (albeit perhaps frequent) PEEKS at the altimeter. The fact that we seem to agree again leads me to believe that we have a difference in vocabulary rather than opinion. Nice talking with you BTW. I’m enjoying this. Cheers, /ft
Response:
Of course I found something somewhat relevant and if nothing else amusing and indicative of the precision they expect from aircraft being vectored w/o a DG just as I had posted my last addendum: [From FAAO 7110.65 section 5-6-2] —– 3. For NO-GYRO procedures, the type of vector, direction of turn, and when to stop turn. PHRASEOLOGY- THIS WILL BE A NO-GYRO VECTOR, TURN LEFT / RIGHT. STOP TURN. —– Nice and exact, huh? Now imagine that done on a center controllers radar screen with 12 seconds between the sweeps… I bet they’ll rather vector a lot of IFR traffic around you if you state you are "no-gyro". 
Cheers, /ft
Response:
Hi Fredrik! Ok, one point at a time.. Ah, yes. Indeed. What I meant was that from your description I really couldn’t see it being anything but an IFR trainer.
Sorry, my fault. I should have been more clear in my description. When would you need to depend on the AI while in VMC? The only conditions I can think of (e g flat, snowcovered ground with bright overcast blending together) are so rare that it’s probably a better idea just staying on the ground for those very short periods. The FARs do not require an AI for VFR BTW.
First, as far as the example of the snowcovered ground with bright overcast blending together, don’t forget that many different types of conditions and visibility can and will obscure the horizon, and ground reference points. More dangerous perhaps is the situation in which a low lying cloud or haze layer slopes, creating a false horizon. In learning to fly, I have found that I cannot rely on the visual cues of the horizon over the instrument panel because so many different people fly "my" 172. Therefore, the seat is *always* in a different position horizontally AND vertically. There is no way for me to know how to position the seat exactly the same each time I fly. Plus, some days I slouch over, some days I sit upright. Therefore, the only constant factors I have for determining pitch attitude are a) looking out the side at the angle of the wing surface in relation to the horizon (if I can see it) and 2) the AI. I don’t trust my estimation of angle, or my view of what I *think* is the horizon, enough to use it as a sole reference. But I know if I "put the little dot just under the line", I can hold my best rate of climb with a great deal of precision. If you have the choice of checking your attitude using either visual cues or an AI that might just go out on you ever so subtly? Well, it’s a non-choice if you ask me.
Many pilots have found themselves in bad situations because they based their actions on what they saw out the window… I still can’t quite grasp how a scanning procedure could be used in a VFR situation. To me, scanning is going over the currently relevant instruments in sequence, stopping on each one long enough to register what it indicates, interpret the information and at least decide on a course of action.
Exactly. Key phrase here is "long enough"… different for everyone! Then moving on to the next instrument and repeating the procedure, following a scanning pattern.
Exactly some more. I just can’t see how you could fit in checking enough instruments between your peeks at the outside to call it an instrument scan without spending far too much town with your head down.
Well, then, how do you take the time to tune and retune radios, look at charts, kiss your girlfriend, or cross-check your Nav 1 to Nav 2? Believe me, you cannot do these things in a short glance. Jeppesen’s texbook recommends a 70% out-the-window to 30% on-the-panel viewing time division. I’ve heard the term "snapshot" used to indicate what you do when checking instruments in VFR. Glance down long enough to register any needle or indicator that is in a place where it shouldn’t be, then scan the outside while processing the information and deciding if there’s any instrument you need to take another look at.
Yes, my instructor can do this. I can’t. It’s the ideal goal of instrument scanning. The hardest part here isn’t to see that things are pointing the way they should – that’s a relatively easy skill to develop, and I can do it. The challenge is to detect small changes at a glance – a needle moving away from a "hold point", or two, or three. What do you think? Am I making myself clear so far? Do you see where my problem with the way you describe things are? Could be that we are saying the same thing differently.
Well, your descriptions are quite clear. English is your first language, isn’t it? : ) If not, let me just say that it is excellent and I am embarrased in my limited foreign language capability. Hmm… Do you think our mental pictures of what is really going on correspond if we include the otside view as a frequent part of the scanning procedure?
Naturally. I never said you can’t look out the window. (Section removed) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I was under the impression that VFR flights could not legally be vectored. Now I don’t know how I got that idea. However, as for the demands on being able to hold an exact heading under VFR this is what I found. The FAR says that —— (3) Magnetic direction indicator. —— is the only direction indicator needed for VFR. [Sec. 91.205 Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S. airworthiness certificates: Instrument and equipment requirements.] In the same section it is stated that for IFR flight you need —— (9) Gyroscopic direction indicator (directional gyro or equivalent). —— I e no gyro for VFR. That to me means that the precision ATC expects from vectored VFR traffic is no better than that of the whiskey compass and certainly worse than from IFR traffic. Certainly that allows for quite a few degrees of variation, just imagine flying around on whiskey compass only in turbulence.
No, sorry. ATC expects you not to get in their airspace if you said you wouldn’t, and basically expect you to be right where you promise. It doesn’t matter if an infinite aluminum Buddha on toast shines down upon your worldly aircraft, if you don’t have a real good reason for not being where you should be, you’re in trouble. BTW, I have flown on a whiskey compass only, and in turbulence, and under the hood. I’d prefer a working gyro, thank you. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I eventually found this: —— Sec. 23.1327 Magnetic direction indicator. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section– (1) Each magnetic direction indicator must be installed so that its accuracy is not excessively affected by the airplane’s vibration or magnetic fields; and (2) The compensated installation may not have a deviation in level flight, greater than ten degrees on any heading. (b) A magnetic nonstabilized direction indicator may deviate more than ten degrees due to the operation of electrically powered systems such as electrically heated windshields if either a magnetic stabilized direction indicator, which does not have a deviation in level flight greater than ten degrees on any heading, or a gyroscopic direction indicator, is installed. Deviations of a magnetic nonstabilized direction indicator of more than 10 degrees must be placarded in accordance with Sec. 23.1547(e). —— Clearly you’re not expected to hold a given heading to a precission better than within ten degrees while operating under VFR.
If that were the case, you could be off by 10 degrees, and in a case with two aircraft, there could be a perceived heading variance of 20 degrees total! This could be disastrous. You are expected to keep your headings on the money, by ATC anyway. If you bust class B airspace, they will not excuse it because you’re using a compass / DG / combo. (Section removed) Please don’t call it an instrument. Charts on the seat next to you in lieu of a person is not a copilot. Calling the windscreen an "instrument" was a joke of course. You’ve never heard of frustrated instructors demanding that their students start using "the big glass instrument on top of the panel" before?
Sorry! Never heard that! I’ve only had a few instructors, I suppose I will hear it one of these days. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You’re not looking at the altimeter ALL the time during your climbout, are you? Or when descending into the pattern? I sure hope not. Not without looking out the windows. But significant points in climbout/departure must be recognized, such as 750 feet at my airport (pattern egress / continue point), and every 1,000 feet for level off and traffic checks. Pros may be able to eyeball this. My instructor (72 years old) can. I can’t. No, I think it is outside our capabilities as a species. I have to ascribe the fact that your instructor and other aviators with lots and lots of experience can do it to a never researched phenomena – midlife evolution. They’re a whole new species with certain superior abilities. I still don’t see how (for us mere humans) this would require instrument SCAN as opposed to occasional (albeit perhaps frequent) PEEKS at the altimeter. The fact that we seem to agree again leads me to believe that we have a difference in vocabulary rather than opinion.
Yes, I think so… to me, any time you reference your instruments, you are scanning. I have never heard my instructor say, "remember to peek"… Nice talking with you BTW. I’m enjoying this.
Me too, where are you from? Andrew
Response:
Hi Bruce,
No problem at all. Like I said in my original post, "Then in flight, you have no panel, but each instrument "pops up" for a moment, possibly with a selectable duration." Selectable duration is the key here. Also, as far as maintaining out-the-window visual reference, this doesn’t work well in low visibility, situations with no or similar landmarks or landforms, or over water, or at night. I’ll pick a landmark if I can, but I’m always on the compass/dg. No reason to disregard any additional information. Since a screwy DG can also indicate vaccum trouble, hey, you know. I just know that I don’t have a choice in my training; even if I did, I love looking at the panel. So because I’m encouraged (told) to scan my instruments (albeit differently, at different times, as you mentioned earlier) by my instructor, I’ll take any "tool" I can to help me learn what I need to. Regards, Andrew – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Andrew, I really didn’t want to start an argument. I just meant the term "scan" implies continouous, and is not appropriate for visual flight. Obviously you want to glance from time to time at engine instruments, altimeter, etc. Once you set a course, you should get in the habit of maintaining it by visual reference outside the airplane, like a hill, a lake, a rr track, any prominent object might do. Bruce Before you buy.
Response:
First off. Come on. There is no need to turn this into a petty flame war. Shake hands and make up now instead of after two hundred more posts. He made the comment that an IFR style instrument scan isn’t really something you should be doing VFR which is a valid comment. If you spend enough time down on the panel to worry about your scan technique you’re not spending enough time looking out for traffic – a few seconds spent on the panel translates into a lot of distance. You both know that and that is what Bruce was pointing out since it somehow wasn’t made clear before. You DID describe an instrument flying trainer. Sure, you use your IAS, altimeter and DG occasionally while VFR. But the AI? Scanning? Hmm, no. Then you pop the "I’m talking VFR" statement on us as we had all settled in thinking we were talking about IFR training which I assume is why you got the slightly exaggerated "no instruments" comment back. Oh, and before anyone asks. No, not a pilot myself yet but I have been around aviation enough to begin having a good idea of what I’ll have to do once I can afford it. Just so we can try having a conversation instead of the usual qualification war. Maybe I should speak with my flight instructor. I have a funny feeling that when he asks me to turn to a heading, he’d like me to use my DG or compass. He’s never really said, "lets turn left to, oh, whatever you feel might be about 210 degrees." Maybe I’m misinterpreting what he really wants me to do.
He probably wants you to turn by about the right number of degreess more or less by feel, checking your gyro every now and then but spending most of the time making sure you’re not flying into anyone or anything. That is *my* guess. I dunno, but somehow I believe that he’ll rather have you on 208 degrees in the clear than perfectly on 210 right away – with your primary VFR flight instrument (the big glass one above the panel) full of another plane. BTW, you are aware that as soon as you’re not flying straight ahead your DG probably isn’t showing your true heading anymore due to turning and gimbal errors, right? I’m guessing controllers don’t want me taking my best guess, either. Just guessing.
They want you to make sure you’re maintaining visual separation and remain in the airspace they’ve cleared you to use. Other than that they don’t really care about VFR traffic. Now, will the DG or the previously mentioned big glass instrument above the panel be more useful for avoiding midairs? Funny thing, too – when I’m told to climb to 2700 feet, I can *never* seem to find those damn altitude signs.
You’re not looking at the altimeter ALL the time during your climbout, are you? Or when descending into the pattern? I sure hope not. A problem I can see with your suggested IFR trainer (if we assume it indeed IS for IFR training) is that the instrument scan has to be adapted to the phase of flight you are in. I have two GIF-files scanned from IFR training literature showing the appropriate instruments to include in your scan during various phases of flight. If anyone is interested I’ll be happy to mail them. They’re 480k or so total. Cheers, /ft
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Maybe I should speak with my flight instructor. I have a funny feeling that when he asks me to turn to a heading, he’d like me to use my DG or compass. He’s never really said, "lets turn left to, oh, whatever you feel might be about 210 degrees." Maybe I’m misinterpreting what he really wants me to do. I guess if you were my flight instructor, I’d have multiple ratings by now. Wow! That would be a lot cheaper! I’m guessing controllers don’t want me taking my best guess, either. Just guessing. Funny thing, too – when I’m told to climb to 2700 feet, I can *never* seem to find those damn altitude signs. What do they look like? Andrew Hi Klaus, I wasn’t thinking of instrument flying here.. just instrument scan technique during VFR. It’s to get you (me) into the habit of looking at the right instruments for the right amount of time. I agree with your idea of modifying the instruments used based on situation! Andrew Andrew, you don’t need instruments for VFR flight. Your "scanning" should be outside, looking for traffic. Bruce 1) Programmable instrument scan. This would work 2 ways: a) No-panel method – you don’t have a panel. You select an order of instruments. For example: Attitude Heading Attitude Altitude Attitude Airspeed REPEAT. Then in flight, you have no panel, but each instrument "pops up" for a moment, possibly with a selectable duration. An alternative to this is a "reveal" method, where each instrument is progressively revealed, then hidden. I think that would be annoying though. b) Full-panel method – all instruments show; each one in a selectable progression is "highlighted", perhaps with a white outline or something. 2) Visible instruments in views other than forward. Basically, what I would like to see here is some sort of instrument reference. For example, if I’m looking out my left window, I want to be able to refer to my attitude indicator and altitude indicator, at least. That’s it. Andrew Hi Andrew, highly appreciate any new idea – and your striving for instrument proficiency. But as the aim of instrument flying is to understand whats going on by means of the summary of panel informations (that is e.g. comparing indications for plausibility) your first idea is imho counterproductive. That is for "pop ups" as well for hide/reveal of single instruments. Possibly your idea of instrument scan as looking at instruments in always same sequence is not exactly what it actually is. (See below). The "highlight" of instruments could make some sense however- if you develop this idea in the following direction: For different situations there are different primary instruments (details about this exceed way the frame of a posting, see any instrument flight handbook). If you simulate instrument flight lessons highlighting the appropriate primary indications could make some sense. On the other hand – at the end you have to know why it is primary – so that had to be explained by voice or by text simultaneously. Just my sentiment about this possible appreach: I like multimedia approaches, but would prefer a book again to understand about the basics of instrument flying. Klaus Before you buy. Andrew, I really didn’t want to start an argument. I just meant the
term "scan" implies continouous, and is not appropriate for visual flight. Obviously you want to glance from time to time at engine instruments, altimeter, etc. Once you set a course, you should get in the habit of maintaining it by visual reference outside the airplane, like a hill, a lake, a rr track, any prominent object might do. Bruce Before you buy.
Response:
Maybe I should speak with my flight instructor. I have a funny feeling that when he asks me to turn to a heading, he’d like me to use my DG or compass. He’s never really said, "lets turn left to, oh, whatever you feel might be about 210 degrees." Maybe I’m misinterpreting what he really wants me to do. I guess if you were my flight instructor, I’d have multiple ratings by now. Wow! That would be a lot cheaper! I’m guessing controllers don’t want me taking my best guess, either. Just guessing. Funny thing, too – when I’m told to climb to 2700 feet, I can *never* seem to find those damn altitude signs. What do they look like? Andrew – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi Klaus, I wasn’t thinking of instrument flying here.. just instrument scan technique during VFR. It’s to get you (me) into the habit of looking at the right instruments for the right amount of time. I agree with your idea of modifying the instruments used based on situation! Andrew Andrew, you don’t need instruments for VFR flight. Your "scanning" should be outside, looking for traffic. Bruce 1) Programmable instrument scan. This would work 2 ways: a) No-panel method – you don’t have a panel. You select an order of instruments. For example: Attitude Heading Attitude Altitude Attitude Airspeed REPEAT. Then in flight, you have no panel, but each instrument "pops up" for a moment, possibly with a selectable duration. An alternative to this is a "reveal" method, where each instrument is progressively revealed, then hidden. I think that would be annoying though. b) Full-panel method – all instruments show; each one in a selectable progression is "highlighted", perhaps with a white outline or something. 2) Visible instruments in views other than forward. Basically, what I would like to see here is some sort of instrument reference. For example, if I’m looking out my left window, I want to be able to refer to my attitude indicator and altitude indicator, at least. That’s it. Andrew Hi Andrew, highly appreciate any new idea – and your striving for instrument proficiency. But as the aim of instrument flying is to understand whats going on by means of the summary of panel informations (that is e.g. comparing indications for plausibility) your first idea is imho counterproductive. That is for "pop ups" as well for hide/reveal of single instruments. Possibly your idea of instrument scan as looking at instruments in always same sequence is not exactly what it actually is. (See below). The "highlight" of instruments could make some sense however- if you develop this idea in the following direction: For different situations there are different primary instruments (details about this exceed way the frame of a posting, see any instrument flight handbook). If you simulate instrument flight lessons highlighting the appropriate primary indications could make some sense. On the other hand – at the end you have to know why it is primary – so that had to be explained by voice or by text simultaneously. Just my sentiment about this possible appreach: I like multimedia approaches, but would prefer a book again to understand about the basics of instrument flying. Klaus Before you buy.
Response:
Hi Klaus, I wasn’t thinking of instrument flying here.. just instrument scan technique during VFR. It’s to get you (me) into the habit of looking at the right instruments for the right amount of time. I agree with your idea of modifying the instruments used based on situation! Andrew
Andrew, you don’t need instruments for VFR flight. Your "scanning" should be outside, looking for traffic. Bruce – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 1) Programmable instrument scan. This would work 2 ways: a) No-panel method – you don’t have a panel. You select an order of instruments. For example: Attitude Heading Attitude Altitude Attitude Airspeed REPEAT. Then in flight, you have no panel, but each instrument "pops up" for a moment, possibly with a selectable duration. An alternative to this is a "reveal" method, where each instrument is progressively revealed, then hidden. I think that would be annoying though. b) Full-panel method – all instruments show; each one in a selectable progression is "highlighted", perhaps with a white outline or something. 2) Visible instruments in views other than forward. Basically, what I would like to see here is some sort of instrument reference. For example, if I’m looking out my left window, I want to be able to refer to my attitude indicator and altitude indicator, at least. That’s it. Andrew Hi Andrew, highly appreciate any new idea – and your striving for instrument proficiency. But as the aim of instrument flying is to understand whats going on by means of the summary of panel informations (that is e.g. comparing indications for plausibility) your first idea is imho counterproductive. That is for "pop ups" as well for hide/reveal of single instruments. Possibly your idea of instrument scan as looking at instruments in always same sequence is not exactly what it actually is. (See below). The "highlight" of instruments could make some sense however- if you develop this idea in the following direction: For different situations there are different primary instruments (details about this exceed way the frame of a posting, see any instrument flight handbook). If you simulate instrument flight lessons highlighting the appropriate primary indications could make some sense. On the other hand – at the end you have to know why it is primary – so that had to be explained by voice or by text simultaneously. Just my sentiment about this possible appreach: I like multimedia approaches, but would prefer a book again to understand about the basics of instrument flying. Klaus
Before you buy.
Response:
Hi Klaus, I wasn’t thinking of instrument flying here.. just instrument scan technique during VFR. It’s to get you (me) into the habit of looking at the right instruments for the right amount of time. I agree with your idea of modifying the instruments used based on situation! Andrew – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 1) Programmable instrument scan. This would work 2 ways: a) No-panel method – you don’t have a panel. You select an order of instruments. For example: Attitude Heading Attitude Altitude Attitude Airspeed REPEAT. Then in flight, you have no panel, but each instrument "pops up" for a moment, possibly with a selectable duration. An alternative to this is a "reveal" method, where each instrument is progressively revealed, then hidden. I think that would be annoying though. b) Full-panel method – all instruments show; each one in a selectable progression is "highlighted", perhaps with a white outline or something. 2) Visible instruments in views other than forward. Basically, what I would like to see here is some sort of instrument reference. For example, if I’m looking out my left window, I want to be able to refer to my attitude indicator and altitude indicator, at least. That’s it. Andrew Hi Andrew, highly appreciate any new idea – and your striving for instrument proficiency. But as the aim of instrument flying is to understand whats going on by means of the summary of panel informations (that is e.g. comparing indications for plausibility) your first idea is imho counterproductive. That is for "pop ups" as well for hide/reveal of single instruments. Possibly your idea of instrument scan as looking at instruments in always same sequence is not exactly what it actually is. (See below). The "highlight" of instruments could make some sense however- if you develop this idea in the following direction: For different situations there are different primary instruments (details about this exceed way the frame of a posting, see any instrument flight handbook). If you simulate instrument flight lessons highlighting the appropriate primary indications could make some sense. On the other hand – at the end you have to know why it is primary – so that had to be explained by voice or by text simultaneously. Just my sentiment about this possible appreach: I like multimedia approaches, but would prefer a book again to understand about the basics of instrument flying. Klaus
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 1) Programmable instrument scan. This would work 2 ways: a) No-panel method – you don’t have a panel. You select an order of instruments. For example: Attitude Heading Attitude Altitude Attitude Airspeed REPEAT. Then in flight, you have no panel, but each instrument "pops up" for a moment, possibly with a selectable duration. An alternative to this is a "reveal" method, where each instrument is progressively revealed, then hidden. I think that would be annoying though. b) Full-panel method – all instruments show; each one in a selectable progression is "highlighted", perhaps with a white outline or something. 2) Visible instruments in views other than forward. Basically, what I would like to see here is some sort of instrument reference. For example, if I’m looking out my left window, I want to be able to refer to my attitude indicator and altitude indicator, at least. That’s it. Andrew
Hi Andrew, highly appreciate any new idea – and your striving for instrument proficiency. But as the aim of instrument flying is to understand whats going on by means of the summary of panel informations (that is e.g. comparing indications for plausibility) your first idea is imho counterproductive. That is for "pop ups" as well for hide/reveal of single instruments. Possibly your idea of instrument scan as looking at instruments in always same sequence is not exactly what it actually is. (See below). The "highlight" of instruments could make some sense however- if you develop this idea in the following direction: For different situations there are different primary instruments (details about this exceed way the frame of a posting, see any instrument flight handbook). If you simulate instrument flight lessons highlighting the appropriate primary indications could make some sense. On the other hand – at the end you have to know why it is primary – so that had to be explained by voice or by text simultaneously. Just my sentiment about this possible appreach: I like multimedia approaches, but would prefer a book again to understand about the basics of instrument flying. Klaus
Response:
1) Programmable instrument scan. This would work 2 ways: a) No-panel method – you don’t have a panel. You select an order of instruments. For example: Attitude Heading Attitude Altitude Attitude Airspeed REPEAT. Then in flight, you have no panel, but each instrument "pops up" for a moment, possibly with a selectable duration. An alternative to this is a "reveal" method, where each instrument is progressively revealed, then hidden. I think that would be annoying though. b) Full-panel method – all instruments show; each one in a selectable progression is "highlighted", perhaps with a white outline or something. 2) Visible instruments in views other than forward. Basically, what I would like to see here is some sort of instrument reference. For example, if I’m looking out my left window, I want to be able to refer to my attitude indicator and altitude indicator, at least. That’s it. Andrew
Response:
1) Programmable instrument scan. This would work 2 ways: a) No-panel method – you don’t have a panel. You select an order of instruments. For example: Attitude Heading Attitude Altitude Attitude Airspeed REPEAT. Then in flight, you have no panel, but each instrument "pops up" for a moment, possibly with a selectable duration.
Well, different strokes for different folks. I want everything that really exists, and nothing that doesn’t. BTW, I never use it, but I think in a couple of sims the partial panel, or VFR panel, stays in view when you look out the side windows. Bruce – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – An alternative to this is a "reveal" method, where each instrument is progressively revealed, then hidden. I think that would be annoying though. b) Full-panel method – all instruments show; each one in a selectable progression is "highlighted", perhaps with a white outline or something. 2) Visible instruments in views other than forward. Basically, what I would like to see here is some sort of instrument reference. For example, if I’m looking out my left window, I want to be able to refer to my attitude indicator and altitude indicator, at least. That’s it. Andrew
Before you buy.
Response:
Most of our Manhattanites without cars tend to rent a car for the trip. I grew up in Suburban NJ; I can’t imagine not having a car. I live on City Island in The Bronx; it’s 25 minutes to HPN by car with no traffic. Alternatively, I figure I could walk to the Bx29 bus, take that to the 6 train, take that to 125th street, walk a couple of blocks to the Metro North station, get the train to White Plains, then grab a cab to the airport, and be there in well under three hours 
