Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

IFR
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2882

Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:24 pm Post subject: IFR

Can't you just rivet in a small piece of angle?  I cut my tabs

off and did that anyway because the tabs were a pain to deal with

during some of the panel face trim addition I did for the lower

switch panel.



Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD

do not archive

Dave Leikam wrote:

[quote] 

 

 I too am in the last stages of earning my IFR ticket.  It is one of the 

 most challenging things I have ever done.  I am doing it in a 172 with 

 no GPS or AP.  It has an ADF    I appreciate all the posts on the 

 subject.  But I have a building question.

 

 Stein is building me a fine G900 panel.  However, the panel does not 

 have the small flanges on the lower sides to rivet onto the side skins.  

 Have others with this panel made brackets or not connected it at all?  

 Christer at Steinair said he has not heard how or if anyone is 

 accomplishing this.

 

 Dave Leikam

 RV-10 #40496

 N89DA

 Muskego, WI

 

 

 ---

jesse(at)saintaviation.co
Guest

Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:25 pm Post subject: IFR

Since we're on the subject of checkrides, I took mine in an Archer with an autopilot.  The examiner expected me to fly one approach with the autopilot (and not the partial panel one) and even recommended that I use the autopilot to recover from unusual attitudes at least once, which I declined.  The most common wisdom around here (take that for what it's worth) is to mark the ADF "INOP" for the checkride and thereafter.



Those rivets on the outboard ends of the lower bracket are just for a little stability of the bottom of the panel.  There can't be a whole lot of structural integrity from two 3/32 rivets.  You can make a bracket that attaches to the c-channels there or can brace the bottom of the panel to the subpanel somehow.  If you have the throttle quadrant that adds a fair bit of stability to the lower end of the panel in itself by the way it attaches to the subpanel.  You could make a couple of braces out of aluminum angle.



do not archive



Jesse Saint

Saint Aviation, Inc.

jesse(at)saintaviation.com

Cell: 352-427-0285

Fax: 815-377-3694



On Dec 2, 2009, at 11:05 PM, Dave Leikam wrote:



[quote] 

 

 I too am in the last stages of earning my IFR ticket.  It is one of the most challenging things I have ever done.  I am doing it in a 172 with no GPS or AP.  It has an ADF    I appreciate all the posts on the subject.  But I have a building question.

 

 Stein is building me a fine G900 panel.  However, the panel does not have the small flanges on the lower sides to rivet onto the side skins.  Have others with this panel made brackets or not connected it at all?  Christer at Steinair said he has not heard how or if anyone is accomplishing this.

 

 Dave Leikam

 RV-10 #40496

 N89DA

 Muskego, WI

 

 

 ---

daveleikam(at)wi.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:53 pm Post subject: IFR

Yeah I can make a fix for it.  When I asked Christer about it he commented 

that he thought some may have just left them off.  I didn't think that 

sounded plausible so I just wanted to hear what others have done.



Dave Leikam



---

dave.saylor.aircrafters(a
Guest

Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:44 pm Post subject: IFR

Jesse, thanks!  This has been a great thread with lots of things I can relate to.  I thought I'd toss in my two cents.



I got my IFR rating just before I started building my 10.  Like a lot of people I didn't fly much while I was building, and certainly no IFR.  I always figured the panel I was building would make IFR a breeze compared to the steam gauge 172 single axis AP I learned in.  I was wrong about that, at least initially.

  

Tim pointed out that figuring out all the button pushing is a job in itself and I couldn't agree more.  My panel is pretty typical if even on the light side these days:  Single AFS EFIS, 530, VSGV (recently became an AFS AP), D10A and mechanical AS for backups.  We recently went from a 496 to a 696.

  

One of the most important mods we made was to install autotrim.  I'd say that cut the workload on approach by at least 30%.  Totally worth the effort.



I wasn't at all prepared for how much learning the equipment required.  I tried to get IFR current as soon as phase I was finished but soon realized that between sorting out bugs and configuring things like I wanted it, the plane was changing too fast for me to keep up.  The changes were mostly in how the EFIS interacted with the autopilot.  My CFI made me do a lot of hand flying, which was very valuable, but I scared myself once attempting an approach and decided I wouldn't go IFR without knowing exactly how the autopilot worked and how to tell if it was lying to me.  I was so far in the dark that a lot of times I couldn't tell the difference.

  

 I can't say enough about how AFS has supported their products.  They've been responsive to problems, sometimes providing new software the same day, and now with their AP working well, it's everything (and more) that was promised. 



Six months ago I got serious about an IPC.  I just recently finished that, and I feel good about flying IFR, although I have to admit that all the actual since then has been with other current IFR pilots on board.  I'm based in perfect IFR training country.  We have a nice, gentle, predictable marine layer 3-5 days a week, and 6 approaches to three different airports within 20 miles.  And we can talk to Approach from the runup area.  Plug Warning!!  Instrument Flight Solutions is where I train (next door).  They're Experimental-friendly and up to speed on several different EFIS and TruTrak products.  Give them a call if you need a good CFII.



Last weekend we returned from Yuma, AZ, knowing there was weather in Central CA.  We (my wife and I--she's a B767 capt) filed in flight 20 miles from the IMC.  We could see a lot of the route, but we going in and out of the tops at 12000.  I had my first encounter with rime ice, which would attach as we passed through the tops and then sublimate after we were in the clear.  That was a little hairy but it didn't seem to affect performance.  Our home base was VFR so we didn't need to do an approach.

  

It took me a solid six months of frequent training to get comfortable with my glass panel.  I can tell now when something's not set up right, or when the hardware is misbehaving.  That was not the case at first.  As the builder and designer of the panel, it's very tempting to try to troubleshoot as soon as something seems wrong.  I'm trying to break that habit and just fly the airplane.

  

Everybody, take your time, fly safe, and don't expect all those gizmos to feel natural right out of the box.  They take some getting used to, but once you put in the effort it does finally start to feel right.

  Dave Saylor

AirCrafters LLC



N921AC  540 hours, down this week for the 500 hour mag inspection, wow, already??

  [quote][b]

MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 6:15 am Post subject: IFR

I love the sound of flying RV10s!



My experience conforms to Dave and Tim's - learning the equipment is a 

big deal.  I'm flying a very basic G300XL panel in the Maule and I found 

that took an inordinate amount of time to learn and re-learn the proper 

button pushing sequence for real life IFR flying.  I did an 

'accelerated' multi rating (i.e. minimal) with a G430.  Didn't even come 

close to learning that box in a meaningful way.  In both instances, 

falling back to basic Nav Comms and needles worked fine but the 

un-mastered GPS is like a sick, whining passenger with grabby hands - 

you have to put 'em in the back seat and select isolate on the audio 

panel lest you be led into chaos.  But the panels we are putting in now 

don't even allow that.



I'm looking forward to the big learning curve involved in learning to 

fly my new panel.



I just don't know how a non-IFR trained pilot can easily design a good 

experimental panel.  Getting the rating and ideally flying some real 

flights before spec'ing the panel would help but it's tough to do while 

building.  Getting a Garmin G900 bundle is one solution.  Building a 

basic panel with the intent to upgrade and refine is another.  Copying a 

design that is known to work well is another.  Trying to design a good 

custom IFR panel from the fantastic grab bag of equipment out there 

seems really tough.



Bill "looking forward to seeing my old Maule panel builder tonight at 

KRDU" Watson



Dave Saylor wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Jesse, thanks!  This has been a great thread with lots of things I can 

 relate to.  I thought I'd toss in my two cents.



 I got my IFR rating just before I started building my 10.  Like a lot 

 of people I didn't fly much while I was building, and certainly no 

 IFR.  I always figured the panel I was building would make IFR a 

 breeze compared to the steam gauge 172 single axis AP I learned in.  I 

 was wrong about that, at least initially.



 Tim pointed out that figuring out all the button pushing is a job in 

 itself and I couldn't agree more.  My panel is pretty typical if even 

 on the light side these days:  Single AFS EFIS, 530, VSGV (recently 

 became an AFS AP), D10A and mechanical AS for backups.  We recently 

 went from a 496 to a 696.



 One of the most important mods we made was to install autotrim.  I'd 

 say that cut the workload on approach by at least 30%.  Totally worth 

 the effort.



 I wasn't at all prepared for how much learning the equipment 

 required.  I tried to get IFR current as soon as phase I was finished 

 but soon realized that between sorting out bugs and configuring things 

 like I wanted it, the plane was changing too fast for me to keep up.  

 The changes were mostly in how the EFIS interacted with the 

 autopilot.  My CFI made me do a lot of hand flying, which was very 

 valuable, but I scared myself once attempting an approach and decided 

 I wouldn't go IFR without knowing exactly how the autopilot worked and 

 how to tell if it was lying to me.  I was so far in the dark that a 

 lot of times I couldn't tell the difference.



 I can't say enough about how AFS has supported their products.  

 They've been responsive to problems, sometimes providing new software 

 the same day, and now with their AP working well, it's everything (and 

 more) that was promised.



 Six months ago I got serious about an IPC.  I just recently finished 

 that, and I feel good about flying IFR, although I have to admit that 

 all the actual since then has been with other current IFR pilots on 

 board.  I'm based in perfect IFR training country.  We have a nice, 

 gentle, predictable marine layer 3-5 days a week, and 6 approaches to 

 three different airports within 20 miles.  And we can talk to Approach 

 from the runup area.  Plug Warning!!  Instrument Flight Solutions is 

 where I train (next door).  They're Experimental-friendly and up to 

 speed on several different EFIS and TruTrak products.  Give them a 

 call if you need a good CFII.



 Last weekend we returned from Yuma, AZ, knowing there was weather in 

 Central CA.  We (my wife and I--she's a B767 capt) filed in flight 20 

 miles from the IMC.  We could see a lot of the route, but we going in 

 and out of the tops at 12000.  I had my first encounter with rime ice, 

 which would attach as we passed through the tops and then sublimate 

 after we were in the clear.  That was a little hairy but it didn't 

 seem to affect performance.  Our home base was VFR so we didn't need 

 to do an approach.



 It took me a solid six months of frequent training to get comfortable 

 with my glass panel.  I can tell now when something's not set up 

 right, or when the hardware is misbehaving.  That was not the case at 

 first.  As the builder and designer of the panel, it's very tempting 

 to try to troubleshoot as soon as something seems wrong.  I'm trying 

 to break that habit and just fly the airplane.



 Everybody, take your time, fly safe, and don't expect all those gizmos 

 to feel natural right out of the box.  They take some getting used to, 

 but once you put in the effort it does finally start to feel right.



 Dave Saylor

 AirCrafters LLC



 N921AC  540 hours, down this week for the 500 hour mag inspection, 

 wow, already??

 *

 *

Kelly McMullen

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 1188
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 6:39 am Post subject: IFR

This discussion has been most helpful in putting some things in

perspective for making panel and equipment choices. I have found that

GPS in my IFR flying is extremely demanding of mental processing time,

and when the chips are down it is much easier to revert to the

ingrained training with VORs and ADF. No buttons to push, no screens

to select..just twist knobs, verify station and follow the needle.

So choice of EFIS and MFD are going to focus on ease of logic and

minimum button pushing. I don't want to have to rely on an autopilot

to fly the plane while I sort out all the buttons. I can just see

flying along with 12:00 flashing on the panels like so many VCRs.

No question the EFIS displays reduce how much panel real estate has to

be scanned. Looks like need 2nd battery just to power the avionics for

programing session prior to engine start. I guess that makes kick the

tires and light the fires methods somewhat obsolete. Reminds me of one

IFR fight done on last minute decision over very familiar route, with

near zero preparation. Launch and start figuring the numbers for first

reporting point, as yes, I was flying a non-transponder airplane over

a route that was 2/3 non-radar anyway. E6B and chart for fast figuring

estimates between reporting points. Good thing that had VFR at both

ends of flight and a lot of enroute was in on top conditions. Yeah,

the "good" old days more than 25 years ago.



On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Bill Mauledriver Watson

<MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com>



 I love the sound of flying RV10s!



 My experience conforms to Dave and Tim's - learning the equipment is a big

 deal.

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor
KCHD

gengrumpy(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:14 am Post subject: IFR

You're correct Marcus.



Without auto trim, you do have to occasionally re-trim when you change  

airspeeds by 20-30 kts.



In my habit pattern now to re-trim after takeoff before engaging  

autopilot, at level-off, and at FAF then re-engage autopilot if desired.



grumpy



do not archive

On Dec 2, 2009, at 9:45 PM, Marcus Cooper wrote:



[quote] 



 I'll add my 2 cents to the game.  I've flown a lot of IFR in single  

 seat

 fighters that couldn't use an autopilot on the approaches (or didn't  

 have

 one at all) so I'm not 100% sold on the necessity of an AP, but a  

 big fan of

 proficiency.  Having said that, the RV-10 on autopilot certainly is  

 a dream

 and personal minimums should be fluid based on currency and  

 familiarity with

 the departure and destination.



 I have the TruTrak with all the bells and whistles, and while it's a  

 great

 system I have noticed it gets overwhelmed while slowing and  

 configuring on

 the approach unless I feed in trim periodically.  The danger is  

 there is no

 indication of needing to add up trim and it will get off glidepath

 significantly and could be insidiously dangerous.  Just something to  

 be

 aware of.



 By the way, if it turns out I'm the only one with this issue and it's

 because I probably wired something wrong, please let me know.



 Marcus

 40286



 --

jesse(at)saintaviation.co
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 8:02 am Post subject: IFR

That's why I try to base my panel designs around a very well-proven and widely-used IFR GPS (like the 430 or the 530).  The most recent panel I did has a Dynon D-180 (with HS-34 and Ap-74 Autopilot), a GNS-430W that cross-fills onto a 696 in the stack.  Electrical system is a VP-200.  Garmin backup COM, Xpndr and Audio Panel.  Also a 496 for the copilot to fiddle with (apparently she likes to push buttons).  Input the flight plan into the 430 (CFI's everywhere know and training planes everywhere have this GPS/NAV/COM to train you in it), and you have it on the HSI on the Dynon, the 696 and the 496 automatically.  It is definitely a MUST to learn the equipment before you try to fly IMC behind it.  A good way to learn is to find someone who has your equipment and see when they are going to be going on a x-cty flight with an open copilot seat.  Ask if you can ride along and watch how they work the instruments (simulated or actual IMC).  Also, do plenty of simulated before you try actual.  I now have about 180 RV-10 hours, plenty under the hood and some right seat actual before I went off on my own.  I would like to think I know the instruments inside and out.  Knowing how to use the FPL button correctly is huge, then it is much easier to follow the needles (and magenta line) and know they are giving good information.

In short, I agree completely that knowing the instruments, and WELL, is absolutely crucial!

Jesse Saint

Saint Aviation, Inc.

jesse(at)saintaviation.com

Cell: 352-427-0285

Fax: 815-377-3694

On Dec 3, 2009, at 9:37 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 This discussion has been most helpful in putting some things in

 perspective for making panel and equipment choices. I have found that

 GPS in my IFR flying is extremely demanding of mental processing time,

 and when the chips are down it is much easier to revert to the

 ingrained training with VORs and ADF. No buttons to push, no screens

 to select..just twist knobs, verify station and follow the needle.

 So choice of EFIS and MFD are going to focus on ease of logic and

 minimum button pushing. I don't want to have to rely on an autopilot

 to fly the plane while I sort out all the buttons. I can just see

 flying along with 12:00 flashing on the panels like so many VCRs.

 No question the EFIS displays reduce how much panel real estate has to

 be scanned. Looks like need 2nd battery just to power the avionics for

 programing session prior to engine start. I guess that makes kick the

 tires and light the fires methods somewhat obsolete. Reminds me of one

 IFR fight done on last minute decision over very familiar route, with

 near zero preparation. Launch and start figuring the numbers for first

 reporting point, as yes, I was flying a non-transponder airplane over

 a route that was 2/3 non-radar anyway. E6B and chart for fast figuring

 estimates between reporting points. Good thing that had VFR at both

 ends of flight and a lot of enroute was in on top conditions. Yeah,

 the "good" old days more than 25 years ago.

 On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Bill Mauledriver Watson

 <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> wrote:

> 

> <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com>

> 

> I love the sound of flying RV10s!

> 

> My experience conforms to Dave and Tim's - learning the equipment is a big

> deal.

jesse(at)saintaviation.co
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 8:09 am Post subject: IFR

I guess I'll also add a shameless plug for Dynon.  I now have flown behind their EFIS in at least 8-10 planes and totaling over 250 hours and want to say that they are incredibly stable.  Even more impressively, they are accurate and stable right out of the box.  There are so few things that have to be calibrated because of the way they are made, that I recommend them to everybody I can.  There is a lot to be said for having TOO MUCH INFORMATION in front of you that you don't know how to interpret.  AFS is a close second in stability out of the box, but they do have a TON more information on them.  The G900X, while an amazing system, requires more of a scan, because of its size, than does a Dynon with 2/3 of a 7" screen without fancy information on it.  I do agree that things like HITS in the Chelton, when the pilot knows how to use it, can be very valuable in IMC.

It definitely needs to be repeated again, since I haven't heard it in a while, while knowing your instruments is critical, making sure they are calibrated correctly (read back up on the experiences and comments of Dan Lloyd) is just as critical.  I have heard from more than one person about EFIS (and some very widely used ones) that did not agree with the horizon in VMC, and I mean by like 45 degrees or more.  You do NOT want to be in a cloud with an instrument like that.

do not archive

Jesse Saint

Saint Aviation, Inc.

jesse(at)saintaviation.com

Cell: 352-427-0285

Fax: 815-377-3694

On Dec 3, 2009, at 9:37 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 This discussion has been most helpful in putting some things in

 perspective for making panel and equipment choices. I have found that

 GPS in my IFR flying is extremely demanding of mental processing time,

 and when the chips are down it is much easier to revert to the

 ingrained training with VORs and ADF. No buttons to push, no screens

 to select..just twist knobs, verify station and follow the needle.

 So choice of EFIS and MFD are going to focus on ease of logic and

 minimum button pushing. I don't want to have to rely on an autopilot

 to fly the plane while I sort out all the buttons. I can just see

 flying along with 12:00 flashing on the panels like so many VCRs.

 No question the EFIS displays reduce how much panel real estate has to

 be scanned. Looks like need 2nd battery just to power the avionics for

 programing session prior to engine start. I guess that makes kick the

 tires and light the fires methods somewhat obsolete. Reminds me of one

 IFR fight done on last minute decision over very familiar route, with

 near zero preparation. Launch and start figuring the numbers for first

 reporting point, as yes, I was flying a non-transponder airplane over

 a route that was 2/3 non-radar anyway. E6B and chart for fast figuring

 estimates between reporting points. Good thing that had VFR at both

 ends of flight and a lot of enroute was in on top conditions. Yeah,

 the "good" old days more than 25 years ago.

 On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Bill Mauledriver Watson

 <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> wrote:

> 

> <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com>

> 

> I love the sound of flying RV10s!

> 

> My experience conforms to Dave and Tim's - learning the equipment is a big

> deal.

msausen

Joined: 25 Oct 2007
Posts: 559
Location: Appleton, WI USA

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 9:58 am Post subject: IFR

Hmm, I don't know if Dynon would even recommend their EFIS for IFR.  I have to be honest, I have a hard time swallowing recommendations when the EFIS you think is the best is also the lowest cost and would give you the greatest margin.  There are few systems out there that can give you all the information in a useful format that a G900 can and comparing it to a Dynon is ludicrous.  I would never take equipment into conditions where I have to rely on it and don't feel comfortable operating it.  Doesn't matter if it's avionics, airframe, or powerplant.



  I also need to chime in that personal minimums are what YOU should feel comfortable with, not an average of what everyone else uses.  At no point in my Instrument training, or in the almost 20 years since, have I ever wondered what someone else uses.  If you are behind the aircraft at any point after the FAF it should be a no thought reaction to go missed and get your head back around things.  There is no magic number that says at x altitude I'm going to miss, it should be based on many factors, not the least of which is currency and conditions.



Michael



--

msausen

Joined: 25 Oct 2007
Posts: 559
Location: Appleton, WI USA

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 10:03 am Post subject: IFR

John can chime in here but as far as I know it has always been SOP in a checkride for the candidate to exhibit a complete functional understanding of all onboard equipment (unless marked INOP and not on the MEL) and to be able to demonstrate the proper use of that equipment.  That would include using an AP for coupled approaches and recovery from unusual attitudes.



Michael



--

MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 10:28 am Post subject: IFR

My rust may be showing here but I think you are expected to proceed to 

the missed approach point before executing the miss procedure, even from 

inside the FAF.  Agreed that you can halt your descent as you see fit.



As a practical matter under radar control, you say 'miss' and you are 

probably going to get vectors for your next move.



RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		    If you are behind the aircraft at any point after the FAF it should be a no thought reaction to go missed and get your head back around things.  There is no magic number that says at x altitude I'm going to miss, it should be based on many factors, not the least of which is currency and conditions.

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2882

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 10:49 am Post subject: IFR

You are correct.  They want to to still hit that point

(although you don't have to keep descending down to

minimums), because then you have reference for the entire

flight path of the missed approach.  In practical use

I can see someone being so screwed up on the approach

path though that they maybe can't even hit the MAP,

which I'm sure would cause lots of headaches for ATC.

But yeah, you're supposed to fly the whole thing as

published.  If you didn't go to the MAP, you may

be inclined to do stupid things like ignore



"Climb to 4800, then climbing left turn to 9000

via TCH R-249 to STACO INT/TCH 20 DME and hold"



(clipped from SLC ILS or Loc RWY 34L)



And start a climb while turning too early to 9000

and smack a hill or something.



With a reference of being at the MAP, if you follow

the directions as published, they keep you in protected

airspace.

Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD

do not archive

Bill Mauledriver Watson wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com>

 

 My rust may be showing here but I think you are expected to proceed to 

 the missed approach point before executing the miss procedure, even from 

 inside the FAF.  Agreed that you can halt your descent as you see fit.

 

 As a practical matter under radar control, you say 'miss' and you are 

 probably going to get vectors for your next move.

 

 RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:

>  If you are behind the aircraft at any point after the FAF it should 

> be a no thought reaction to go missed and get your head back around 

> things.  There is no magic number that says at x altitude I'm going to 

> miss, it should be based on many factors, not the least of which is 

> currency and conditions.

>

>

msausen

Joined: 25 Oct 2007
Posts: 559
Location: Appleton, WI USA

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:01 am Post subject: IFR

Yep, sorry if it seemed I was implying something else.



--

dlm46007(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:55 am Post subject: IFR

For the miss on the Cheltons, hitting the miss soft key at any time will

provide HITS boxes at or above but along the published missed approach

course 



--

Bob Turner

Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Posts: 885
Location: Castro Valley, CA

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:17 pm Post subject: Re: IFR

A few comments:



Yes, on a missed approach, you are to proceed to the MAP and then execute the miss as published, except that you may climb immediately. There is a very good reason for this:  there are some missed approach procedures which take you up a valley, around a hill, etc. Turn too early and you hit the mountain.



The instrument PTS was changed a few years ago to require an autopilot coupled approach, if the aircraft has such an autopilot. And, most examiners are on to the "inop" trick with the ADF, and many don't like it. I still remember my ifr checkride, years ago. During the NDB approach (no moving maps then) I could feel the DE fidgeting next to me. Finally, he leaned over and turned off the alternator. The ADF needle jumped about 20 degrees. I glanced at him, and he just said, "You know, in the old days, that's all they had." (!!). But while a lousy instrument, ADF's are great for teaching position awareness (in case your gps goes south).



Finally, I cannot agree more with all the comments about really knowing your EFIS and avionics. If you read the NTSB report on the fatal RV-10 ifr accident, you'll see that they suggest the fact that the PIC had never flown behind an EFIS may have contributed to the accident.

_________________
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB

orchidman

Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 277
Location: Oklahoma City - KRCE

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:44 pm Post subject: Re: IFR

 	  Bob Turner wrote: 	
		  A few comments:



Yes, on a missed approach, you are to proceed to the MAP and then execute the miss as published, except that you may climb immediately. There is a very good reason for this:  there are some missed approach procedures which take you up a valley, around a hill, etc. Turn too early and you hit the mountain. 	


Bob,

VERY TRUE.  IFR pilots need to remember this.  In the design of an approach, the obstacle clearance is provided from the IAF(s) to the MAP along the designed flight path.  THEN from the MAP to the missed holding along the missed approach path.  DO NOT TAKE A SHORT CUT.

_________________
Gary Blankenbiller
RV10 - # 40674
(N2GB Flying)

jesse(at)saintaviation.co
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:45 pm Post subject: IFR

I never said Dynon is the best.  I said it is the easiest to install and get calibrated, and it is stable right out of the box.  I also said that I base the panel on a certified IFR GPS, and drive the autopilot with that.  Also, I believe Dynon does recommend their EFIS for IFR.



do not archive



Jesse Saint

Saint Aviation, Inc.

jesse(at)saintaviation.com

Cell: 352-427-0285

Fax: 815-377-3694



On Dec 3, 2009, at 12:58 PM, RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

  Hmm, I don't know if Dynon would even recommend their EFIS for IFR.  I have to be honest, I have a hard time swallowing recommendations when the EFIS you think is the best is also the lowest cost and would give you the greatest margin.  There are few systems out there that can give you all the information in a useful format that a G900 can and comparing it to a Dynon is ludicrous.  I would never take equipment into conditions where I have to rely on it and don't feel comfortable operating it.  Doesn't matter if it's avionics, airframe, or powerplant.

 

  I also need to chime in that personal minimums are what YOU should feel comfortable with, not an average of what everyone else uses.  At no point in my Instrument training, or in the almost 20 years since, have I ever wondered what someone else uses.  If you are behind the aircraft at any point after the FAF it should be a no thought reaction to go missed and get your head back around things.  There is no magic number that says at x altitude I'm going to miss, it should be based on many factors, not the least of which is currency and conditions.

 

 Michael

Dick Sipp

Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 215
Location: Hope, MI

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:21 pm Post subject: IFR

Just to throw another ditto on the stack; with several thousand hours flying 

sophisticated EFIS systems in Corp aircraft it took at least 50-60 hours 

before I felt I knew the Chelton system well enough to begin flying IFR. 

The more I use it the more I like the Chelton, it is easy to manage and edit 

flight plans on the fly which is the real test.  Too bad Cobham does not 

seem interested in marketing this great system.



What IFR RV-10 accident?



Dick Sipp

N110DV 200 hours

MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:37 pm Post subject: IFR

I've been a GPS person since before the first handhelds were really in 

common use.  That was due to a loop hole in the rules for racing 

sailplanes years ago.  Ground based navigation aids were prohibited 

which in effect, required pilotage for all cross country racing.  When 

GPS was first available, it was not specifically prohibited  by the 

rules so within a split second or two, we had purpose built GPS-driven 

glide computers for sailplanes.  Magic!  The rules were never changed 

and now sailplane racing is a sport I barely recognize any longer with 

GPS starts, finishes, turn areas and such.  No one knows what's going on 

until the loggers are processed.



But I still find it hard to break away from needle based, RF driven, 

analog navigation thinking.  I mean, yes, your electrical system can 

fail and yes your primary nav radio can fail, but practically speaking, 

will GPS fail?



Hard hat on: yes everything can fail.  But my '10 will have 3 

independent GPS receivers on 3 different electrical systems and 

batteries.  That's not counting my 396.  And while a VOR station in a 

critical location can fail, the GPS network is sort of a cellular 

network.  A couple of Sats go down, will I notice?  Can the entities 

running that network purposely fail it?  Can they afford to?  A lot of 

things can happen but I've never had a GPS failure or glitch in 20+ 

years or so.  I did get strange inaccuracies near the Aberdeen proving 

grounds on 2 occassions in 1999 - so I'm stretching the truth a bit.



A major challenge in staying current  is staying proficient with VOR 

navigation (forget the ADF which should be a hole in most of our 

panels).  Can you really do that VOR approach without the GPS?  Can you 

do it with one Nav?



I look at my backup guages (ASI, Alt, and ADI) and they make me feel 

safe.  But I wonder if old-fart-ism  is the only thing preventing me 

from considering a little Dynon to replace the 3 needles.



Where are the airlines on this stuff today.  Do they still include 

pneumatic, analog backups?  It's tough to think far outside the box but 

I guess that conservatism in the maintenance of long life is a good thing.



Bill "realizing that it's getting harder to shift paradigms, sleep 

soundly through the night, and put his pants on in the morning" Watson



Bob Turner wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   The instrument PTS was changed a few years ago to require an autopilot coupled approach, if the aircraft has such an autopilot. And, most examiners are on to the "inop" trick with the ADF, and many don't like it. I still remember my ifr checkride, years ago. During the NDB approach (no moving maps then) I could feel the DE fidgeting next to me. Finally, he leaned over and turned off the alternator. The ADF needle jumped about 20 degrees. I glanced at him, and he just said, "You know, in the old days, that's all they had." (!!). But while a lousy instrument, ADF's are great for teaching position awareness (in case your gps goes south).

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 3 of 4

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum