Instrument Teaching

Blackhawk

Blackhawk

Well-Known Member
Anyone still use primary/supporting method? I've been teaching control performance for years and have not run into anyone teaching the P/S method until recently. He did not like my attitude/power chart for the airplane.
 
Even if someone favored the primary/supporting concept for understanding BAI, I don't know why he wouldn't like your attitude/power chart.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WS
Said attitude indicator did not matter. Fly pitch off airspeed.
He is not some new instructor but I don't think I had heard this before
 
I remember learning primary/supporting, but with aspects of control/performance, like on an ILS.

c/p helps you hit the right ballpark on the approaches, but must be backed up. (It's the old what's the standard descent rate on an ILS? 500fpm? No! Whatever it takes to keep needles centered.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: WS
Primary supporting is way too confusing for many students (or me for that matter). I've been teaching almost nothing but instruments for the past year and have had the best results using control/performance. In fact, Pitch+power=performance is how I've always taught flying, both visual and by reference to flight instruments.
 
I think that most of us do a combination of both in real life. I have explained both, but never emphasized either in the limited instrument teaching I have done.
 
ahw01 said:
Ah gotcha, in that case I never realised there was a control/performance method

Doing some checking, I think it is starting to appear in the FAA handbooks.

http://www.avweb.com/news/airman/184208-1.html

Alex.
Click to expand...
"Starting?" An article from 13 years ago. :) C/P has been in military training for a long time. I take it this instructor thinks our military pilots don't know how to fly!

But it sounds to me like the instructor is missing something. Two things actually.

1. Primary/Supporting and Control/Performance are differing methodologies for the process of interpreting instruments and detecting when one is not providing accurate information. They are not scan techniques.

2. I can't tell from the original post, but if "didn't like" your very standard attitude/power chart it sounds like he is trying to get you to change a technique that works for you just because he prefers another way. If that's correct, it is, IMO, the very, very wort thing a instructor can do.

(He must absolutely hate glass screens since he can't avoid seeing the attitude indicator!)
 
I taught primary and supporting by explaining the primary instrument is the one that doesnt move. Students seemed to understand that pretty well.
 
Blackhawk said:
Said attitude indicator did not matter. Fly pitch off airspeed.
He is not some new instructor but I don't think I had heard this before
Click to expand...

It's not like it's required or anything... :sarcasm: If it doesn't matter, I wonder why it's like a foot wide in those newfangled glass setups? Even on the analog setups, It's usually right smack dab in the middle of the panel in front of your face. It's almost like they did that on purpose!

I personally like both methods. C/P gets everything in the ballpark right away, where P/S is kind of more trial and error. I teach both. C/P works great to get a climb or descent established at a certain speed etc. If you know the pitch and power setting, why wouldn't you set that? Saves workload, then use the P/S method all day long to keep it there. P/S also works great for partial panel, but why fly the airplane as if you were partial panel when you're not? SRM man, use the resources available to you!

That was a pretty boneheaded thing for that guy to say IMHO.
 
..and let's not forget what the "primary" instrument is when making a change in attitude, even in the P/S methodology.
 
WS said:
It's not like it's required or anything... :sarcasm: If it doesn't matter, I wonder why it's like a foot wide in those newfangled glass setups? Even on the analog setups, It's usually right smack dab in the middle of the panel in front of your face. It's almost like they did that on purpose!

I personally like both methods. C/P gets everything in the ballpark right away, where P/S is kind of more trial and error. I teach both. C/P works great to get a climb or descent established at a certain speed etc. If you know the pitch and power setting, why wouldn't you set that? Saves workload, then use the P/S method all day long to keep it there. P/S also works great for partial panel, but why fly the airplane as if you were partial panel when you're not? SRM man, use the resources available to you!

That was a pretty boneheaded thing for that guy to say IMHO.
Click to expand...
I feel like there is a misconception when it comes to the attitude indicator when dealing with the Primary/Supporting method.

While it's not really primary for anything that doesn't mean it's not integral. I always taught it was a transition instrument. Any time one attitude is transitioning to another that action is being done with the AI. The reason it's not primary or supporting is because it really doesn't give you any hard data. A dot high could mean you are either climbing, descending, or level. All it means is you are a dot high...you other instruments tell you what the plane is actually doing.

For some reason people take that to mean the AI is pointless and should be avoided.
 
poser765 said:
I feel like there is a misconception when it comes to the attitude indicator when dealing with the Primary/Supporting method.

While it's not really primary for anything .
Click to expand...
Ah, but it is. For at least 6 things as a matter of fact.

So I guess you are right. There's definitely a misconception when it comes to the attitude indicator when dealing with the Primary/Supporting method. :D
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
Ah, but it is. For at least 6 things as a matter of fact.

So I guess you are right. There's definitely a misconception when it comes to the attitude indicator when dealing with the Primary/Supporting method. :D
Click to expand...
Right. I think what it comes down to is a semantics debate. I know when I got through with my primary training and started training students of my own The impression I was left with is that it is just a secondary or tertiary instrument at best. That was the way i was taught! I figured out pretty fast that that was stupid.

While not technically "primary" that doesn't mean it is without use. I think the problem with "primary/supporting" is that those words have certain connotations. In a climb primary for pitch is airspeed...thus that is the instrument I use...period, then back it up with supporting instruments. None of which were the AI.

That was just a stupid way of doing it. Instrument flying is nothing more than just a series of attitude transitions. Going from one attitude to another then back again. And while not a Primary instrument, the AI was primary in making those transitions.
 
poser765 said:
Instrument flying is nothing more than just a series of attitude transitions. Going from one attitude to another then back again. And while not a Primary instrument, the AI was primary in making those transitions.
Click to expand...

That's it right there!
 
poser765 said:
Right. I think what it comes down to is a semantics debate. I know when I got through with my primary training and started training students of my own The impression I was left with is that it is just a secondary or tertiary instrument at best. That was the way i was taught! I figured out pretty fast that that was stupid.
Click to expand...
I agree with your sentiments. I was being very specific. Despite how your CFII chose to use the concept, the FAA's Instrument Flying Handbook, probably the "bible" of the P/S methodology, describes 6 times the attitude indicator is the "primary" instrument, all of which Involve initiating a change. For example, in its description of leveling off from turn in primary/supporting terms the IFH tells us.

During the transition from the turn back to straight flight, the attitude indicator becomes the primary instrument for bank. Once the wings are level, the heading indicator becomes the primary instrument for bank.​

It similar for the other 5 transitions in which the AI is "primary."

As you said, there is a huge misunderstanding of what P/S is, much of it by instructors trying to teach it. That may be its biggest failing - it's too theoretical, a bit too complex, and a bit divorced from the practical application of scan and cross-check, leading CFIs to mis-teach it. Control/performance is less complicated and the application of theory to practice a lot easier to understand, for both teacher and student.

So, to take another part of your post and "correct" it:
And while not a Primary instrument, the AI was primary in making those transitions.
Click to expand...
The first half is incorrect. Even according to the FAA, "as the Primary instrument, the AI was primary in making those transitions."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top