Instrument scan

Ayork62493

Ayork62493

GBR
I'm starting to prepare for my instrument checkride within a few months. However, as I go through the information I'm finding that I don't use one of the scanning methods that is "Reccomended" by the FAA. I use my own, and it seems to work fine for me. Havn't had any issues yet. My question is, should I work on changing my scan to one of the preferred methods or should I leave it. I don't know if this is going to come up later and bite me or not. Just a question for some of you who have considerably more experience than me.

Thanks!
 
Id say that if its not broke...dont fix it.


Another favorite quote of mine: "If its stupid but it works, its not stupid."
 
Yeah, I would say everyone develops their own instrument scan which best suits them. However, realize it or not, you're most likely using some of the general techniques from the two "recommended" methods
 
The "Recommended" scans are for new students who are still learning BAIF. After several hours under the hood you figure out a technique that works for you. If you're ready for your checkride I'm guessing you're already able to hold airspeeds and altitudes. Be ready to explain preferred scan techniques to the DPE, and then explain what you do and how it works for you.
 
7700 said:
Yeah, I would say everyone develops their own instrument scan which best suits them. However, realize it or not, you're most likely using some of the general techniques from the two "recommended" methods
Click to expand...

Keep the little magenta trend arrows from moving, and keep finger on the button to stop the annunciator from beeping ever 30 seconds for whatever is inevitably broken but not required, that about sums up my scan.
 
I think what you will find is most people have totally random scans. I do. Mine is all over the place. Don't worry about it. But ask yourself this. Are you safe? Thats all that really matters. That and passing your checkride to prove that you are safe.
 
Pitch, heading, airspeed. If they're all doing what you want, you're doing it right. A competent CFI should have told you by now whether you are or are not. Aside from that, I think most folks setup each phase of flight with "benchmark" settings first (i.e., "pitch + power = performance") and then make corrective inputs based on what they see on the instruments. The whole primary/supporting concept looks great on paper and gets you to think about the important stuff for each phase, but I don't know any pilot who flies a plane that way. Ask anyone with more than 200 hrs what the primary/supporting instruments are for [XX] phase of flight, and I guarantee a five-mile stare in response.

-A.S>
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
Hmmm.... I wasn't aware that the FAA recommended a specific scanning technique.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming that the OP is referring to the two methods in the instrument flying handbook. I have a student in the beginning stages of instrument training and I told him the same, just develop your own scan. Since I prefer the control performance method we just talked about how pitch + power = performance and how to interpret the various instruments and cross check. Beyond that I left it up to him to get comfortable scanning and cross checking however he wanted to do so.
 
at1024 said:
I'm assuming that the OP is referring to the two methods in the instrument flying handbook. I have a student in the beginning stages of instrument training and I told him the same, just develop your own scan. Since I prefer the control performance method we just talked about how pitch + power = performance and how to interpret the various instruments and cross check. Beyond that I left it up to him to get comfortable scanning and cross checking however he wanted to do so.
Click to expand...

Neither "primary/supporting" nor "control/perfromance" are scanning techniques (although C/P definitely looks more like one which accounts of part of its attraction). Both are instrument interpretation techniques. Scaning is how you utilize either interpretation method in the cockpit (wheel/spoke; inverted-V; radial) and doesn't depen on which interpretation methodology you use.
 
my opinion is do whatever works for you but for the purposes of explaining to an examiner, "if he asks", I think the easiest to understand and the one that makes the most sense to me would be the selective radial scan or the "spoke/wheel" like some people call it.
 
+1 to pretty much everything everyone else has said. The proof is in the pudding, as they say (or they used to say about a hundred and fifty years ago!). If your altitude and airspeed is correct and you are on your desired course... your scan is probably fine. I also prefer the control and performance concept to primary/supporting... I found it easier to understand that way when I was learning it, and most of my students find it easier to learn as well. Unfortunately, though, you need to learn the primary/supporting to pass the CFI test, if you ever want to do that.
 
fish314 said:
+1 to pretty much everything everyone else has said. The proof is in the pudding, as they say (or they used to say about a hundred and fifty years ago!). If your altitude and airspeed is correct and you are on your desired course... your scan is probably fine. I also prefer the control and performance concept to primary/supporting... I found it easier to understand that way when I was learning it, and most of my students find it easier to learn as well. Unfortunately, though, you need to learn the primary/supporting to pass the CFI test, if you ever want to do that.
Click to expand...

If you can have a good scan in the T-37 and can comfortably and efficiently fly instruments in that thing, you can do it in anything!
 
I just rely heavily in the attitude indicator + power... as long as I manage to keep the attitude where I want, all the rest will usually just fall within a few feet, degrees, or knots of the desired performance, then is just making little adjustments looking at the attitude indicator while using the periferal vision to maintain everything under control. I like primary, supporting. Using the AI during transitions and then looking at the desired primary works fine for me.
 
MikeD said:
If you can have a good scan in the T-37 and can comfortably and efficiently fly instruments in that thing, you can do it in anything!
Click to expand...

No kidding! Especially cross cockpit!

Me: "So wait... you mean to tell me that whatever heading I'm seeing in the right seat is actually 2 degrees to the left of the aircraft's actual heading?"
PIT IP: "Yep, and if you want to be on centerline then the needle has to be 1/3 to 1/4 of a dot deflected to the left from this seat...."
Me: "What about airspeed?"
PIT IP: "Airspeed is airspeed... but about 10 feet low is ON ALTITUDE. "
Me: "GRRRR...."
 
Ayork62493 said:
I'm starting to prepare for my instrument checkride within a few months. However, as I go through the information I'm finding that I don't use one of the scanning methods that is "Reccomended" by the FAA. I use my own, and it seems to work fine for me. Havn't had any issues yet. My question is, should I work on changing my scan to one of the preferred methods or should I leave it. I don't know if this is going to come up later and bite me or not. Just a question for some of you who have considerably more experience than me.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

I probably spend 90% (or more) of my time on the attitude indicator. However you scan from there is your own personal technique, but the attitude indicator should be the major focus of your scan.
 
dasleben said:
I probably spend 90% (or more) of my time on the attitude indicator. However you scan from there is your own personal technique, but the attitude indicator should be the major focus of your scan.
Click to expand...
True story:

I had a pilot come to me for some instrument refresher work. He was going to sped the summer flying around the country with his son and, while he had a great autopilot, he wanted to make sure he was proficient on the gauges.

His biggest problem was that he was great partial panel but really lousy with a full one. Watching his eyes, I finally figured out that he was still trying to do a partial panel scan with a full panel and was getting overloaded - he had no idea where to look next.

I told him that a survey had been done and airpline pilots spend more than 70% of the time on the AI. His scan calmed down and his altitude and heading deviations stopped immediately.
 
dasleben said:
I probably spend 90% (or more) of my time on the attitude indicator. However you scan from there is your own personal technique, but the attitude indicator should be the major focus of your scan.
Click to expand...

works great till the damn thing fails (happened to me last week)

partial approach w/ T&S is much more difficult than with Coordinator
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top