Instrument scan

[dasleben]

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.

It's true. So many people over-complicate the hell out of instrument flying. The airplane flies with pitch and power whether you're IMC or VMC; just treat instrument flying the same way and all the drama stops.

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

Whether or not you were serious, that's the most common criticism of an AI-centric scan. Personally, I don't feel that the very small risk of AI failure outweighs the benefits of the technique. In fact, someone would be very hard pressed to fly higher-performance aircraft (particularly jets) using other methods.

 

[Blip16]

Whether or not you were serious, that's the most common criticism of an AI-centric scan. Personally, I don't feel that the very small risk of AI failure outweighs the benefits of the technique. In fact, someone would be very hard pressed to fly higher-performance aircraft (particularly jets) using other methods.

100% serious. the AI is a valuable tool, and i do focus my scan there 90% of the time just like you stated. but when it fails, it takes some time to readjust.

 

[dasleben]

100% serious. the AI is a valuable tool, and i do focus my scan there 90% of the time just like you stated. but when it fails, it takes some time to readjust.

Well, you're running significantly oversquare. There's your problem. :bandit:

 

[Ayork62493]

Thanks for all of the advice.
So, I understand the attitude indicator shoud be the primary focus of the scan. However, in the aircraft I'm training in there are no marks on it relating to pitch, and half of the time it's off. My scan incorporates the altimeter, the heading, and Airspeed a lot more than the attitude indicator. I have zero issues flying partial panel because I can just as easily interpret the instruments without the Gryos.
I can understand using it a lot more as you get into aircraft in which it is larger, and easier to obtain information from. (Glass cockpits) Or even an attitude indicator with pitch marksing.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Thanks for all of the advice.
So, I understand the attitude indicator shoud be the primary focus of the scan. However, in the aircraft I'm training in there are no marks on it relating to pitch, and half of the time it's off. My scan incorporates the altimeter, the heading, and Airspeed a lot more than the attitude indicator. I have zero issues flying partial panel because I can just as easily interpret the instruments without the Gryos.
I can understand using it a lot more as you get into aircraft in which it is larger, and easier to obtain information from. (Glass cockpits) Or even an attitude indicator with pitch marksing.

First, I assume there is a level position - are you adjusting it for level flight (yes, the pitch on most AIs are adjustable enough to take care of this).

Second, I'm not completely sure about what you mean by "no pitch markings." I've seen plenty with very limited pitch markings but don't recall seeing one with a working AI old enough to have none. Maybe you can post a photo, even one already online that looks like it. I know the 172 I did my instrument training was pretty limited - no degree numbers on the pitch markings. I didn't use them; my CFI had me use the center dot that represents the nose of the airplane. Pitch attitudes were in terms of 1 dot up, 1/2 dot down.

 

[Ayork62493]

First, I assume there is a level position - are you adjusting it for level flight (yes, the pitch on most AIs are adjustable enough to take care of this).

Second, I'm not completely sure about what you mean by "no pitch markings." I've seen plenty with very limited pitch markings but don't recall seeing one with a working AI old enough to have none. Maybe you can post a photo, even one already online that looks like it. I know the 172 I did my instrument training was pretty limited - no degree numbers on the pitch markings. I didn't use them; my CFI had me use the center dot that represents the nose of the airplane. Pitch attitudes were in terms of 1 dot up, 1/2 dot down.

Yeah, I do adjust it. However, the bank is off.

As for the attitude indicator, there is a horizon mark and that is it. There are no other markings, so I prefere to focus more on the altimeter and ASI for pitch information.

 

[dasleben]

As for the attitude indicator, there is a horizon mark and that is it. There are no other markings, so I prefere to focus more on the altimeter and ASI for pitch information.

Do the best you can with that AI. Even without markings, you can still see the relation of the pitch bar to the horizon. Using altimeter and airspeed for primary pitch information will lead to a poor scan as you progress into faster aircraft.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Yeah, I do adjust it. However, the bank is off.

As for the attitude indicator, there is a horizon mark and that is it. There are no other markings, so I prefere to focus more on the altimeter and ASI for pitch information.

I'll agree with dasleben. Do the best you can.

Maybe you're lucky - you're training to PTS standards in an airplane that I probably woudn't take on an actual IFR flight. If you are able to effectively use the AI in that one, think how easy it will be in an airplane with a real AI.