Sign in to follow this  
Guest Adverse Yawn

1 instrument

Recommended Posts

Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

>If you are flying say a 737-700 and everything instument in>the panel fails and you had the chance for only one instrument>to work, which would it bemy cellphone so i can call my lawyer and sue boeing (provided i survive).

Share this post


Link to post

Are we VMC or IMC? VMC, give me my airspeed indicator. IMC, give me my attitude indicator, I'll get my speed readout from the controller.

Share this post


Link to post

Don't care either way, I can usually judge my speed near enough so I'll take the AI every time.

Share this post


Link to post

Just keep that radio working so you can find out all that missing info :-)If I have to pick one.. In heavy metal, I guess I'd take the airspeed indicator.

Share this post


Link to post

I did say the ASI, but just edited to say the AI (Attitude Indicator). After a little reflection you could just the approach speed because the stick shaker operates as 5% + Vs so you should be able to avoid the stall. The Q-feel system will load the controlls at a high TAS. The AI will also give you airspeed clues. There is no way you could remain alive in IMC without an AI though. Not a chance IMO. Just hope that without the altimeter, that you can drop out of IMC before you hit the ground!!

Share this post


Link to post

Under IFR conditions with only 1 instrument you'd be dead if you tried to land, end of. It would not matter which instrument you had working, best bet is to get that nose up, get up, and go somewhere with some visibility and no mountains nearby.

Share this post


Link to post

Probably, but if you were an incredibly resiliant and positive individual with average skill I think there would still be hope.

Share this post


Link to post

>Under IFR conditions with only 1 instrument you'd be dead if>you tried to land, end of. It would not matter which>instrument you had working, best bet is to get that nose up,>get up, and go somewhere with some visibility and no mountains>nearby.Testing is already being done with synthetic vision based on terrain data, such as we have with MSFS meshes, that will allow a pilot to fly the complete instrument approach with no forward view, no charts, and with mountains nearby. Give it a few years, and this might even be available for hand-held GPS units. When it is, that will be my "one" instrument!L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post

You and your gadgets. I bet you will be one of the first to get cyborg implants. I can see it now, Garmin GNX 5300 integrel GPS and Mode S eyeball or MkII eyeball as it will come to be known :D

Share this post


Link to post

You mean kinda like this?Already using it in my plane with a tablet pc-the slickest package I have ever seen-checklists,all approach plates,vfr/ifr/wac charts precalibrated, xm weather, and vector moving map along with this hits display that can overlaythe 3d display with a sectional ,taws on a sectional, and even sat. data.Pretty amazing!http://www.flightprep.com/rootpage.php?page=CCPro3H768http://www.flightprep.com/rootpage.php?page=HomeEFBSWhttp://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

As it appears to be a self contained unit, where does it get its altitude data from? I wouldn't like the idea of GPS altitude, that would make the TAWS/terrain aspects worthless IMO.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes-gps derived-there have been lots of debates on this but there is sentiment that a good gps with a +-100 (actually my experience has been +- 50) altitude that is derived from space can actually in many cases be more accurate than a pressure set altimeter-not that anyone in their right mind would rely on it.Purely for backup purposes-but what a backup. Not to mention saves lots of money on charts!I had an emergency once where my static system got clogged up and both the altimeter and vsi were jumping erratically +- 1500 ft. rapidly in each direction. I was in imc only about 2000 ft. above the smokies-I turned to my garmin 195 at the time-used the altitude it was showing and asked atc to inform me if I ever got +- 100 ft. off my transponder sent altitude. They never had to call me once and I flew for 45 minutes this way into vfr conditions-so I certainly don't feel GPS altitude is worthless!http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

so I certainly don't feel GPS altitude>is worthless!At least for us in the U.S. who have WAAS correction.L.AdamsonBTW--- The synthetic vision I spoke of, is something like your software, but it's a project that NASA and others are working on.

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe I've not caught up with the latest advanced in GPS. However, my understanding is that GPS altitude is derived from a mathematical approximation of the Earth that cannot account little warps in the elipsoid/geoid here and there. In other words, in many places it will be accurate enough, in other places it can several hundred feet out. I don't think WAAS will help in this regard. The geoid data is held on the receiver. WAAS merely corrects and relays a satellite signal. The receiver derives altitude from a minimum of four satellites, so the mathematical geoid approximation altitude remains a problem. Clearly this would be exacerbated when relying solely on uncorrected satellites, and you would need to have a minimum of four to play with at any one time. Also, for me, RAIM (Receiver Autonamous Integrity Monitoring) would also be a minimum requirement, I don't see it mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post

People much more knowledgeable than me have debated this-but in a nutshell from what I can tell-the gps can actually be more accurate in giving a true altitude picture. Reason why-a pressure sensitive altimeter is being calibrated to a local station-and we all know that between stations things can change quite a bit-especially in the mountains where stations can be further spaced and conditions can change more dramatically. The gps altitude-while may be +-50 ft. off (and closer with waas correction), can actually be closer in giving what our real altitude is than an old altimeter setting in conditions that have changed.This was debated on my Anywhere Map forum where some of us were pushing to be able to "calibrate" the gps altitude to our altimeter setting so the 2 would read the same (like my kln94). It was decided by the experts that the gps altitude is for the most part probably closer, and more useful to have its' "real" altitude rather than a calibrated possibly more innacurate one. My argument was that atc however expects us to fly with this possibly more innacurate altimeter altitude-however the consenses was that in an emergency-you would actually be better off with the gps altitude which would be giving you a truer picture of reality.In any case, my kln94 which you do "calibrate" to local altimeter setting is usually spot on with the altimeter-and I have never seen my handheld more that 30-50' off-usually it runs only 10'-12'off my altimeter setting-probably about the same accuracy as an altimeter setting you got 5 minutes ago with conditions that have changed subtly.Of course I would not do an approach using this-but for enroute it is very useful. If in imc in the mountains, and the display is turning yellow or red-that is a good enough warning-even if for some reason it was even 100' off.I think of the recent crash of the business jet in the smokies last year and wonder if they had had this simple and relatively inexpensive unit I have, whether running into the mountain would have been averted. I tend to think so...For a backup and additional information-I can think of nothing more valuable in the cockpit.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

You maybe correct, but those were the reasons given for GPS altitude not being permitted with GPS approaches. But the JAA still advises that GPS altitude are not used and that barometric altitude is. However, the JAA is known for being a bit behind the times and anti-GPS for political reasons, i.e. to promote Europes their Galileo solution.>>I think of the recent crash of the business jet in the smokies last >>year and wonder if they had had this simple and relatively inexpensive >>unit I have, whether running into the mountain would have been averted. >>I tend to think so...Yes. Probabaly. But certainly airspace busts still occur with the same monotonous regularity inspite of everybody haveing GPS moving maps. Replace a Class A airspace boundary with a mountain and you have the same category of error. For some reason intelligent and well trained people still get confused even with a GPS placing a little aeroplane right where they don't think they are. There seems to be other factors at play.

Share this post


Link to post

Well-this is what I like it for.This summer I flew from Michigan to Asheville, Nc.-an airport that is notorious for people running into mountains. Being basically from flatland Michigan this always gets my hair up. The mea's are 7000-8000 ft. so when atc told me to descend to 5000 when these shots were taken-and in breaks in the clouds I saw what you see here-again the pucker factor goes up. I know atc persons are of the highest caliber-but still you start thinking...Now look at my unit in the same area on a simulated trip-I sure would have liked to have had it for this approach-even if one realizes it could be 100' off!(Not to mention to be able to see my aircraft flying on the actual approach plate) :-)http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/141473.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/141474.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/141475.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/141476.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/141477.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/141478.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for that Geofa. I now see where you are comming from. An excellent example of real-life overriding theory and where a picture is woth a thousand words. Not something I've experienced nor considered fully :)My point about the airspace busts is real too. The UK CAA are sick of them. I am perplexed as to how they happen with all these moving map gizmos, but they do!

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this