Lidle's final maneuver is focus in crash investigation

BrianNC said:
Agreed, but unless you are talking about all pilots flying with ded reckoning, everything we use is "technology", including VORs. It is just a matter of how advanced it is. Just about everything gets replaced by something else eventually.
Click to expand...

In this case, SA (I'm in a tight corridor) and experience (I can't do this maneuver here) would have helped extremely, so much to the extreme that it could have possibly prevented the accident:)
 
Bandit_Driver said:
I was always told that if an engine making power when the prop strikes an object the prop tips will bend forward. If it isn't making power then they will bend back. I am not sure if it is true but thought I would throw it out there and see if anyone else has heard the same.
Click to expand...

In a very simplied way, yes. It's actually airspeed/impact angle versus prop speed. The faster the airplane is going when it hits, the more likely the prop blades will be bent back, however, even if the engine is developing power. A better clue to finding out if the engine was spinning the prop is to look at overall scratching on the blades and compare that to the engine's impact angle.
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
VORs will always be around because of how reliable and simple they are.
Click to expand...

People used to say the same about NDBs back in the day. Mark my words, once the system becomes reliable, those VORs will be replaced by the intensely more accurate GPS (or whatever other system might be out at the time). I seriously doubt they will always be around.

Its not like its training on obsolete equipment -- theres not many people who train people for ADFs anymore. Thats pretty much only good for listening to Rush Limbaugh.
Click to expand...

See above. NBDs and ADFs used to be as widespread as VORs. Then VORs replaced them, more or less. Like it or not, every piece of tech will eventually become replaced and obsolete.

We can argue ad nasuem (and have) over whether it's good to train in an a/c with bells and whistles or not. Here's my take: if you know how to use it and it enhances SA, then why not use it? Doug says nothing is a substitue for SA, and I agree. But just b/c you CAN get there with dual VORs and a DME doesn't mean you SHOULD dump the in-flight wx, the moving map displays and the other tools at your disposal if they're available. If it starts hurting more than helping, THEN start dumping them until you can handle the workload. Until then, I see it as increasing SA, not hindering it. I'd rather be tracking a magenta line (or white) line on a moving map that show me all the airports around me, some of the traffic and an overly of that level 4 off to my right than just tracking a VOR HOPING I don't hit anything that's gonna make me roll sideways.
 
BrianNC said:
Well, you better get used to if FADEC becomes the norm as many think it will. It is considered an improvement by many.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I like the idea of one lever to use versus three. Push forward for more power, pull back for less. No more fussing with the mixture and the prop.
 
Doug Taylor said:
nothing can match the power of a clean windscreen, a yoke and a pilot who knows where the hell he is.
Click to expand...

That's a really good point.

I guess I meant my statement more towards having the equipment in the aircraft for any situation/emergency. When I saw the statement...

"Some GA aircraft have WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY to much stuff out there for pilots starting out."

...I was thinking beyond the fundamentals of aviating.
 
Reminds me of a story when I had to bust a guy on his Instrument Compentency Check because he'd spend an inordinate amount of time playing with his digital engine monitor instead of reaching MDA, blowing altitudes and missing the LOC.

"The engine, the engine!"

"Altamonte Pass dingleberry! You're going to have a perfectly leaned engine at the crash site at ALTAM but the powerplant specialist from the NTSB is going to be proud."

To hell with the toys, fly the freeking airplane.
 
Doug Taylor said:
To hell with the toys, fly the freeking airplane.
Click to expand...

The avionics in the newer airplanes (light singles), IMO, create a comical paradox. They're all decked out with FMS & autopilot & the like...but put the freezing level below 3000' and you're ground bound if clouds are in the future.
 
Glass cockpits are EXCELLENT for Situational Awareness, but should NEVER be relied on for initially learning SA because once you move into a plane that doesn't have the nice toys, then you're SOL. The technology is absolutely beneficial, but only when used by someone with experience and that can maintain the same level of SA with or without the toys. Though you guys might disagree with me, I think only pilots with adequate and quality experience should make the move to better toys. That's not to say that an inexperienced pilot shouldn't and could not learn on a glass cockpit, but mostly that the inexperienced pilot will become too dependant on the toys such that when in the absence of those toys, he/she will be in trouble.
 
AngelFuree said:
Glass cockpits are EXCELLENT for Situational Awareness, but should NEVER be relied on for initially learning SA because once you move into a plane that doesn't have the nice toys, then you're SOL. The technology is absolutely beneficial, but only when used by someone with experience and that can maintain the same level of SA with or without the toys. Though you guys might disagree with me, I think only pilots with adequate and quality experience should make the move to better toys. That's not to say that an inexperienced pilot shouldn't and could not learn on a glass cockpit, but mostly that the inexperienced pilot will become too dependant on the toys such that when in the absence of those toys, he/she will be in trouble.
Click to expand...

I agree with this 100%, and don't know how anyone could disagree. If there is great SA technology out there, why in the hell would you not want it in your aircraft. I just don't understand. Making this statement does not imply that a pilot has no ability to fly by pilotage or dead reckoning. If anything, I would say that pilots who fly less would want more help in their cockpit for inadvertant situations. Not everyone flies 120 hours a month and has honed skills in every aspect of navigation.
 
I agree with this 100%, and don't know how anyone could disagree. If there is great SA technology out there, why in the hell would you not want it in your aircraft. I just don't understand. Making this statement does not imply that a pilot has no ability to fly by pilotage or dead reckoning. If anything, I would say that pilots who fly less would want more help in their cockpit for inadvertant situations. Not everyone flies 120 hours a month and has honed skills in every aspect of navigation.
Click to expand...

Who is going to be "regressing" from glass to steam as a standard? Seems as if it will be the other way around as a norm. I've been informed glass helps in better ascertaining situational awareness inside the cockpit moreso than steam. I can't personally attest to it, for I started steam, and I don't have enough experience to make a personal comparison, but the jist is to fly the airplane first and utilize whatever tools available to you most effectively. . .whatever those tools are.
 
No one is regressing anywhere. There is just a debate about what is too much in terms of technology or "junk" as some would say, in the GA cockpit, and also a bit about reliance on instruments that do the work for you.
 
I'm still waiting to hear what work WX overlays and TIS do "for you" in solid IMC that you would be able to do without them......

Reliance on GPS and AP I can see, and I could see (and HAVE seen) getting lazy with TIS in VMC.
 
Well....

I think it all boils down to what you are using it for and how you are using it. If you take the downloadable WX for face value while trying to sneak through small holes it isn't worth much since that delay exists. TIS in GA aircraft would be just like all of the other technological stuff in the airplane. It's not meant to be relied upon to the point you are just sitting there yanking your pud. They're supposed to be there as tools to help you, not do the work for you. TIS I think would be great in busier areas. I bet it's a real eye opener to how many aircraft you actually miss.
 
Agree, but in the case of the WX, it's nice to know where some of that heavy precip that Center never sees actually is before you hit it. :) I'd never recommend using it to penetrate small holes in a line. It's got at LEAST a 5 min delay, like you said.
 
I feel that if one is going to learn to fly for a career they should learn on steam guages. I think if the schools all start teaching on glass the freight world and some airlines may start hurting for pilots.
 
Bandit_Driver said:
I feel that if one is going to learn to fly for a career they should learn on steam guages. I think if the schools all start teaching on glass the freight world and some airlines may start hurting for pilots.
Click to expand...

I just dont understand why Garmin and Avidyne just dont make a steam guage screen to switch to for PPL instruction. I heard that Avidyne was working on it but it has been months since I have heard anything.

If SWA can do it with their 737s why can't Cessna, Piper, Cirrus, and others?
 
I think they will soon enough. They may even be experimenting with different types, but it's just not out yet. I know a lot of companies do that.
 
Yeah, that would be a great idea. I don't know exactly how those things work, but maybe you could buy an add-on card like how you upload a new GPS database so that not everyone had to pay for that option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top