 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
brian
Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 643
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 11:07 am Post subject: T&SI vs. TC (was: EFIS Comparisons) |
 |
|
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
| Quote: | I am going to take the liberty of sending you something off list that tries
to explain why I think we should be teaching people to stop the turn instead
of leveling the wings.
The short version is that when we get vertigo, it takes a lot of discipline
to believe the attitude style presentation of the TC and/or the attitude
indicator.
|
But we are trained to ignore vertigo and to go with the instruments. We
are also trained to cross-check the instruments to ensure that they are
telling us the right thing.
| Quote: | With the turn needle, there is no need to believe the instrument over what
your senses are telling you. All that is needed is to stop the turn! Since
the turn needle tells you nothing directly about your attitude, there is no
confusion. Stop the turn by centering the needle and you will survive. It
makes no difference at all whether you think you are sideways or whether you
think you are right side up.
I repeat -- Stop the turn and you will survive!
|
If the wing is flying the only way you can stop the turn is to level the
wings. When the lift vector is not vertical, the aircraft is going to
turn. The only time this might not be true is when the wing is stalled
or partially stalled as in a spin where you could be in a relatively
flat attitude. Certainly the ailerons are not going to work in a spin
and they are only going to make things worse. This is where the T&SI
becomes critical along with your rudders.
Also, older aircraft had much more effective rudders. You really could
pull a wing up just with the rudder. Modern airplanes tend to have much
less rudder effectiveness and you might have to unstall the wing to make
the ailerons effective again in order to really stop the turn.
Bob, you have a V35B (I am guessing from your email address). How
effective is the ruddervator in stopping the turn? My guess is that you
really need to break the stall in order to recover with that airplane.
When flying partial panel (needle-ball and airspeed for us old-timers)
we infer attitude from the behavior of other things, that is, airspeed
and altitude give us clues as to whether the nose is up or down relative
to the horizon. We infer that the wings are not level by the fact that
the airplane is yawing. But none of these instruments actually tell us
the airplane's attitude. Only an AI can do that directly.
But I do agree with you on one thing: if the airplane departs normal
flight, I want a Turn and Slip Indicator (T&SI) because it will tell me
what to do with the rudder and I need to know that to stop or prevent a
spin.
But since I spend a lot more time in a clag with the wing flying and not
stalled/spinning, I want a second AI to help me stay that way. So give
me both an extra AI and a T&SI. Belt and suspenders.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
_________________
Brian Lloyd
brian-yak at lloyd dot com
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 11:43 am Post subject: T&SI vs. TC (was: EFIS Comparisons) |
|
|
In a message dated 1/18/2006 1:09:15 P.M. Central Standard Time,
brian-yak(at)lloyd.com writes:
"But we are trained to ignore vertigo and to go with the instruments. We
are also trained to cross-check the instruments to ensure that they are
telling us the right thing."
Good Afternoon Brian,
I agree that we were all taught to do that, but Carnahan and his son were
both experienced pilots and they still lost the airplane. John Kennedy had a
whole lot of modern training, but he lost it as well. He had more flying time
when he was killed than I had when I was teaching instrument flight.
My premise is that we should not worry about which way is up. Just stop the
turn.
| Quote: | I repeat -- Stop the turn and you will survive! <
|
You said: "If the wing is flying the only way you can stop the turn is to
level the
wings. When the lift vector is not vertical, the aircraft is going to turn."
No argument here either. Doing it my way will actually get the wings level.
I also teach using coordinated control to stop the turn, not to just boot
the rudder.
The idea is that I don't care if the pilot knows which way is up or not. If
the turn is stopped and the ball is in the middle, the wings will be level
whether we know it or not. If the ball is not in the center and the needle is,
we will still survive.
I have no access to good data, but I have been an active pilot since 1946
and an active flight instructor since 1949. (Darn, I hate it when people tell
me how long they have been flying, but it seems to fit here!) During the first
twenty or so years, I recall very few instances of any IFR rated pilot
losing the airplane while on instruments.
As I noted in my 'off list' message, it wasn't until after we had been using
the TC for IFR training that I started to notice a loss in partial panel
proficiency during flight checks given to pilots who had been trained using the
TC.
We also started to read about IFR rated pilots who were losing control after
a failure of attitude instrumentation.
Over the next ten years I decided to go back to the T&B in all of my own
airplanes and for any trainer I was associated with.
The longer I championed and trained with the T&B, the more I became
convinced that part of the problem (There is more, but I am getting boring!) was our
insistence that the student must disregard his/her feelings and just believe
the instruments. I now feel, totally unsupported by any scientific data,
that what we really should be doing is just train the pilot to stop the turn and
stop telling them to believe the instruments instead of their senses. If
they stop the turn and have the ball in the center, the wings will be level
unless there is something else wrong with the airplane.
Forget about trying to figure out whether or not the wings are level.
Just stop the turn and you WILL survive!
Do Not Archive!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brian
Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 643
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 2:20 pm Post subject: T&SI vs. TC (was: EFIS Comparisons) |
|
|
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
| Quote: | "But we are trained to ignore vertigo and to go with the instruments. We
are also trained to cross-check the instruments to ensure that they are
telling us the right thing."
Good Afternoon Brian,
|
Before I reply I want to add that I think we are probably saying the
same things different ways. I happen to agree with you but think it may
be just a bit simplistic. This is why people need to add upset recovery
to their repitoire.
So, things we already agree upon:
1. the T
2. stopping the turn is critical to all recovery.
I think we diverge elsewhere but only slightly.
| Quote: | I agree that we were all taught to do that, but Carnahan and his son were
both experienced pilots and they still lost the airplane. John Kennedy had a
whole lot of modern training, but he lost it as well. He had more flying time
when he was killed than I had when I was teaching instrument flight.
|
And he made bad decisions that cost him his life. Not exactly the
example I would choose. I can think of many ways that JFK jr could have
saved his life and that of his passengers but we digress.
| Quote: | My premise is that we should not worry about which way is up. Just stop the
turn.
>I repeat -- Stop the turn and you will survive! <
You said: "If the wing is flying the only way you can stop the turn is to
level the
wings. When the lift vector is not vertical, the aircraft is going to turn."
No argument here either. Doing it my way will actually get the wings level.
I also teach using coordinated control to stop the turn, not to just boot
the rudder.
|
And if the wing isn't flying the ailerons aren't going to work anyway.
Just "boot the rudder" is the right thing to do in that case.
But if the wing is flying you want to unload the airframe and roll
right-side-up. Coordinated flight is good in this case. If you are
making a coordinated movement of the controls, both rudder and aileron,
and you stop the turn you have, in fact, rolled to wings level. I think
we are saying the same thing.
| Quote: | The idea is that I don't care if the pilot knows which way is up or not. If
the turn is stopped and the ball is in the middle, the wings will be level
whether we know it or not. If the ball is not in the center and the needle is,
we will still survive.
|
Well, you can be in that state with the aircraft inverted and the nose
60 degrees down. If the ball and the needle are centered and you happen
to recover inverted then you are going to end up pulling through a
vertical down-line and grossly exceed the aircraft's Vne so up is a
significant concept here.
| Quote: | I have no access to good data, but I have been an active pilot since 1946
and an active flight instructor since 1949. (Darn, I hate it when people tell
me how long they have been flying, but it seems to fit here!)
|
You have me beaten by two decades. I have only been flying since 1968
and only have amassed about 7000 hours.
| Quote: | During the first
twenty or so years, I recall very few instances of any IFR rated pilot
losing the airplane while on instruments.
|
In general I think you are right. Training then required more
understanding and less rote. In the FAA's attempt to standardize
training I think that fewer pilots now really understand how their
airplanes fly. But the accident statistics have shown a steady downward
trend so I guess they got something right.
| Quote: | As I noted in my 'off list' message, it wasn't until after we had been using
the TC for IFR training that I started to notice a loss in partial panel
proficiency during flight checks given to pilots who had been trained using the
TC.
|
I don't think you sent that one to me.
| Quote: | We also started to read about IFR rated pilots who were losing control after
a failure of attitude instrumentation.
|
We have become far more dependent on the AI. There are people who used
to fly IFR using only needle-ball and airspeed and were very proficient.
That is less the case now.
| Quote: | Over the next ten years I decided to go back to the T&B in all of my own
airplanes and for any trainer I was associated with.
The longer I championed and trained with the T&B, the more I became
convinced that part of the problem (There is more, but I am getting boring!) was our
insistence that the student must disregard his/her feelings and just believe
the instruments. I now feel, totally unsupported by any scientific data,
that what we really should be doing is just train the pilot to stop the turn and
stop telling them to believe the instruments instead of their senses. If
they stop the turn and have the ball in the center, the wings will be level
unless there is something else wrong with the airplane.
|
We agree. But if I read you correctly, you *ARE* telling them to believe
the instruments. You are telling them to believe the T&SI over all other
instruments. They must believe that over what their senses are telling
them. You will not stay alive by trusting your senses over your instruments.
The problem with "believe the instruments" is that the instruments *can*
lie. A tumbled AI will definitely lead you astray. President Reagan
actually had it right when he said, "Trust but verify." That applies
here in spades. Trust your instruments but verify that they are telling
you the right thing. The great thing about the T&SI is that it is so
simple that it is unlikely to fail. If it doesn't agree with your AI,
you should serious consider what your AI is telling you. Your cross
check is that the HI (DG) should be telling you the same thing your T&SI
is even if it has tumbled. Sure the HI can tumble and tell you the wrong
heading but it will recover almost immediately and at least show you the
way you are rotating. This works well with your T&SI as a cross check.
| Quote: | Forget about trying to figure out whether or not the wings are level.
Just stop the turn and you WILL survive!
|
If you stop the turn by a coordinated application of aileron and rudder,
I agree -- mostly. 
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
_________________
Brian Lloyd
brian-yak at lloyd dot com
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brian
Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 643
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 2:42 pm Post subject: T&SI vs. TC (was: EFIS Comparisons) |
|
|
Brian Lloyd wrote:
| Quote: |
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>"But we are trained to ignore vertigo and to go with the instruments. We
>are also trained to cross-check the instruments to ensure that they are
>telling us the right thing."
>
>Good Afternoon Brian,
Before I reply I want to add that I think we are probably saying the
same things different ways. I happen to agree with you but think it may
be just a bit simplistic. This is why people need to add upset recovery
to their repitoire.
So, things we already agree upon:
1. the T
|
(wow, a whole line disappeared. It used to read "the T and SI or TandB
is a better instrument than the TC.")
| Quote: |
2. stopping the turn is critical to all recovery.
I think we diverge elsewhere but only slightly.
|
And after a further private exchange with Bob I think we agree 100%. We
were only disagreeing on how to get there.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
_________________
Brian Lloyd
brian-yak at lloyd dot com
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gcomfo(at)tc3net.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 5:38 pm Post subject: T&SI vs. TC (was: EFIS Comparisons) |
|
|
--
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brian
Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 643
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 6:22 pm Post subject: T&SI vs. TC (was: EFIS Comparisons) |
|
|
Gordon or Marge Comfort wrote:
| Quote: | Brian: Can the ball be centered in the above scenario except if the
aircraft is in positive "G" flight?
|
The aircraft must be in positive G flight for the ball to be centered.
That does not mean it isn't inverted.
| Quote: | If that is the case, it seems you will
soon be past the vertical down line.
|
Yes, but you might put the airframe well outside the envelope if you
aren't careful.
| Quote: | If in negative "G" flight and the ball
is not centered, what is the correct pilot response?
|
I was imagining an upset where the pilot "stops the turn" inverted and
possibly nose pointed "down", i.e. toward the earth. In that case he/she
will be positive G and accelerating.
Imagine you are at the top of a loop. At that point you are wings level,
inverted, and pulling positive G. As you pull through you remain
positive G with increasing airspeed. Your airspeed will not decelerate
until after you pulled through the bottom of the loop and the nose rises
above the horizon. Regardless you will be positive G the whole way but
you will gain lots of airspeed and lose a lot of altitude.
But you asked about what to do if in negative G flight. Here is the
recommendation for upset recovery. It works for an aircraft that has
ended up either positive or negative G, upright or inverted.
Upset recovery has the pilot getting the aircraft upright as quickly as
possible. Standard upset recovery has the pilot pushing or pulling as
necessary to "unload" the airframe so it is not pulling any significant
G, either positive or negative, regardless of orientation, i.e. inverted
or upright. The next response is to execute a roll to wings level. The
last response is to execute a smooth pull-out without overstressing the
airframe.
One other thing: if the airspeed is increasing it is a good idea to
reduce power/thrust to delay the arrival at Vne as long as possible.
It turns out that the load limit of the airframe is for acceleration on
one axis only. You can be pulling +3.8G (normal category aircraft) but
you can't be rolling at the same time. The goal here is to avoid
overstressing the airframe by pulling and rolling at the same time. So
you unload, roll, and pull to nose level (or even nose up if you are
going too fast).
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
_________________
Brian Lloyd
brian-yak at lloyd dot com
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
