How not to train instrument students

[ALIMBO]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-0fGWC8uhI&feature=related

 

[avbug]

He appears to be doing okay.

 

[ALIMBO]

Appears but how the hell are you supposed to know where other traffic is? Also what if the VOR is inaccurate I've shot VOR approaches with a half dot deflection and looked up and noticed the runway was 30 degrees off from my VOR.

 

[PA-44Typed]

That appears to be a better sun shade then the USA today that I usually use!

 

[sqwkvfr]

He appears to be doing okay.

I'm not so sure....what I saw two minutes into the video would have been beyond my comfort level.

 

[J.Otto]

That appears to be a better sun shade then the USA today that I usually use!

Things are diffrent in the flight levels!

 

[avbug]

Appears but how the hell are you supposed to know where other traffic is? Also what if the VOR is inaccurate I've shot VOR approaches with a half dot deflection and looked up and noticed the runway was 30 degrees off from my VOR.

You want to know how one knows the VOR may be accurate? You're serious?

This may come as a shock, but approaches are frequently flown to minimums in actual conditions. Can you imagine that? How do you suppose this is done, save for one can trust the instrumentation, including the VOR or localizer?

Determining VOR accuracy is generally done before takeoff. You're familiar with the 30 day requirement?

You're also aware that the video was shot outside the USA, right?

Appears but how the hell are you supposed to know where other traffic is?

Well...let's see...how about looking for it?

If the pilot flying can't see out, general practice is to provide a safety pilot. If the safety pilot doesn't have adequate visibility to see, general practice is to augment the safety pilot with observers to supplement his vision.

Was the video not shot by an observer, supplementing the ability of the safety pilot to see out of the aircraft?

Because light past the sunshade prevented the camera from showing a good picture of the view outside, and because the window shade or view limiting device only extended part way up the window, you have no idea how much forward visibility the individuals in the front seat, or rear seat had.

You're jumping to conclusions.

Now, getting back to your original premise, that you've flown VOR approaches within half a dot...next time fly them with the needle centered. As for the runway being "30 degrees off from my VOR," do you mean to say the runway was 30 degrees off your nose, or that the ground VOR was off by 30 degrees?

If the runway was 30 degrees off your nose, you understand that offset approaches and circling procedures are normal, right? You understand that being a half-dot off, you were already off course, right? You understand that with any crosswind, the position of the runway with respect to the nose of the airplane will show an increased pronounced offset, right?

Either you're suggesting the aircraft equipment was in error, or you the ground equipment. Are you familiar with the accuracy requirements of the VOR equipment in the airplane? If your equipment was off by 30 degrees, what on earth were you doing using it to fly an approach?

If instead you're suggesting that the VOR was off by 30 degrees, an extremely gross error, and an extremely unusual one, did you report it? That's a very serious issue. You're suggesting one should not fly a VOR approach if one can't see out of the airplane, because the ground based navaid might be in error by 30 degrees?

A VOR transmitter self-monitors, and takes it's self offline if an accuracy error exceeds 1 degree. Accuracy is normally within less than half a degree. You, however, managed to fly an approach with a functioning VOR broadcasting a signal that was 30 degrees off?

If it wasn't the aircraft (and therefore pilot error for failing to properly preflight and monitor your equipment), and it wasn't the ground based navaid (you're not really going to try to claim the VOR ground based transmitter was 30 degrees in error, are you?), then the airport must have been moved. Hopefully you won't try to assert tha the airport was simply 30 degrees off.

Therefore, if you didn't fail in your duty to preflight, if the airport didn't magically get lost, if the VOR didn't mysteriously begin transmitting outside it's capability...the only remaining options are that you either had no idea what was going on, or flew the approach improperly and were therefore...lost. Which is it?

 

[SpauldingSmails]

He was probably just flying a VOR-A approach. LMAO

 

[Goffer]

If the pilot flying can't see out, general practice is to provide a safety pilot. If the safety pilot doesn't have adequate visibility to see, general practice is to augment the safety pilot with observers to supplement his vision.

Was the video not shot by an observer, supplementing the ability of the safety pilot to see out of the aircraft?

Because light past the sunshade prevented the camera from showing a good picture of the view outside, and because the window shade or view limiting device only extended part way up the window, you have no idea how much forward visibility the individuals in the front seat, or rear seat had.

You're jumping to conclusions.

You've got to be kidding. The sun shade was held in place by the sun visors, and it is higher on the right side. General practice is to augment the safety pilot with observers to supplement his vision? Get your boots on the s#!t is getting deep.

 

[ALIMBO]

For the sake of not quoting the whole thing Avbug you have come off as the biggest tool on FI once again. Your vast knowledge is just amazing you know that, I love when you jump to conclusions especially highly unaccurate ones.
1. Your saying you would do this with a student learning their instrument. Do you mean to tell me that its ok for someone in the backseat with no access to the controls to be a great safety pilot. As evidenced from the video do you think he could respond fast enough and then the pic respond fast enough to steer clear of traffic in the vicinity. Lets not even begin the debate as to which way to turn for traffic that you can't even see let alone being able to see out of the plane at all.
2. 30 day VOR check: so let me guess what your saying is the instrument can only fail on the 31st day? Or how about someone that isnt very knowledgeable at doing VOR checks? Is it possible that someone can ******************** that up? I mean if we were all as smart as you that would never happen , unfortunatly we don't have the brains that you have.
3. Before every IFR flight I do an instrument check. Which includes checking my basic 6 pack along with available navaids. Considering there is no navaids on the field you can do your best to pick up the VOR roughly 10-15 miles away. Ok heres where it gets good mr. brains while shooting the VOR 15 into KARR I noticed that while on the Final Approach Course of 150 and within a maximum dot deflection the whole time that the aircraft was continuosly off of course by 30 or so odd degrees. Well thinking to myself thats odd I decided to tune in my number 2 VOR to notice that I was infact off of course.

In conclusion Mr. Avbug you spread your stupid ideas of being smart and you just come off as a smug idiot jumping to conclusions and pointing fingers to look smart, but all you did was come across as an idiot. Good night

 

[DrProc]

Ok heres where it gets good mr. brains while shooting the VOR 15 into KARR I noticed that while on the Final Approach Course of 150 and within a maximum dot deflection the whole time that the aircraft was continuosly off of course by 30 or so odd degrees. Well thinking to myself thats odd I decided to tune in my number 2 VOR to notice that I was infact off of course.

So what was the #2 Nav initially tuned to? Nothing? Always back up your nav instruments. If you had tuned and identified both nav radios initially you may have noticed you had a problem earlier.

 

[avbug]

Your saying you would do this with a student learning their instrument.

I said no such thing. Put words in your own mouth, not mine. And learn to read. This thread is not about me, it's about a topic you introduced, criticizing a flight operation in another country, under different regulations, in different airspace to our own. You make numerous conclusions you can't back up, and admit to some ridiculously poor airmanship in the process. Let's discuss that.

Do you mean to tell me that its ok for someone in the backseat with no access to the controls to be a great safety pilot.

A safety pilot is an observer, not a controller. The person in the back seat need not be a pilot. You're obviously unfamiliar with this, and with the regulation in this country...so let's begin there. As the video is clearly not in the US, the regulation doesn't pertain...but you fly in the US, and you have very little exposure and very little experience, so we'll start with what you're *supposed* to know.

§ 91.109 Flight instruction; Simulated instrument flight and certain flight tests.

(b) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight unless—


(1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at least a private pilot certificate with category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown.


(2) The safety pilot has adequate vision forward and to each side of the aircraft, or a competent observer in the aircraft adequately supplements the vision of the safety pilot; and


(3) Except in the case of lighter-than-air aircraft, that aircraft is equipped with fully functioning dual controls. However, simulated instrument flight may be conducted in a single-engine airplane, equipped with a single, functioning, throwover control wheel, in place of fixed, dual controls of the elevator and ailerons, when—


(i) The safety pilot has determined that the flight can be conducted safely; and


(ii) The person manipulating the controls has at least a private pilot certificate with appropriate category and class ratings.

You see, while YOU might not understand the concept, the FAA certainly does, and provides for this in the regulation. This may be news to you.

As evidenced from the video do you think he could respond fast enough and then the pic respond fast enough to steer clear of traffic in the vicinity.

One can't tell from the video, as much of the external view is obscured by light interfering with the camera. However, you assume that there's a need to look out, and you assume it's training and not being conducted under IFR, every bit as much as you assume they don't have adequate vision for their purposes.

As you lack experience, you may not know that in many countries, if you're not up there under IFR, you're not up there at all. In many places there's little if any pleasure flying, and traffic collision isn't an issue; you're part of the system of you're not in the air, period. We don't know where this is taking place, or for what purpose. You simply assume.

Assumption is vague, unprofessional, and guesswork, the hallmark of unprofessionalism.

30 day VOR check: so let me guess what your saying is the instrument can only fail on the 31st day? Or how about someone that isnt very knowledgeable at doing VOR checks? Is it possible that someone can ******************** that up?

How is this relevant, exactly? You really shouldn't guess what I'm saying; you do so poorly when it comes go guesswork and assumption. Again, I said no such thing...best putting words in your own mouth...not mine.

A 30 day VOR check is a legal requirement. Ensuring one's equipment is functional is also a legal requirement separate and aside from the 30 day equipment check, and a responsibility of the pilot in command.

You appear to hold out the position that VOR equipment can't be trusted, that one should always be able to see out of the airplane, instead of trusting that equipment. Again, this may shock you to death, but approaches are flown in IMC, without the ability to see past minimums, all the time. I do it regularly myself. If one can't trust one's instruments and truly believes that they contain gross errors beyond comprehension, then perhaps one ought not be flyin at all.

We don't train to fly instruments simply to be able to do it only with a hood over our head and a safety pilot by our side, you know. Some of us actually do it for a living...and the equipment really works. I do it all over the world....and would get very little done if I waited for a nice, clear day with unlimited visibility every time.

What if your equipment fails on the 31st day, you ask. What if it fails during the approach? Should one not fly IMC or in reduced visibility, then? That really destroys the point of flying on instruments.

I preflight my nav equipment before every trip, as should you. You, on the other hand, arrive on an approach in error by 30 degrees and express bewilderment. Most enlightening.

Ok heres where it gets good mr. brains while shooting the VOR 15 into KARR I noticed that while on the Final Approach Course of 150 and within a maximum dot deflection the whole time that the aircraft was continuosly off of course by 30 or so odd degrees. Well thinking to myself thats odd I decided to tune in my number 2 VOR to notice that I was infact off of course.

Again with the poor airmanship. You really do sound like a future smoking grease spot on a hill side, somewhere.

You failed to tune in your second nav. Poor airmanship. You managed to arrive somewhere on the approach and find yourself "30 degrees" off course. Poor airmanship. You were "maximum dot deflection" during the approach, which is also poor airmanship (the needle is supposed to be in the center, you see. Didn't anybody tell you?).

Sounds like you really need to seek some remedial instruction before you hurt or kill yourself. Hopefully you didn't have a student on board when that happened. One can only imagine the poor example you set.

 

[FurloughedAgain]

Gimme a break. That reg was not designed for some clown who decides to cover the entire windshield!

These guys did something dumb and when we do dumb things we should be adult enough to admit it.

 

[avbug]

Gimme a break. That reg was not designed for some clown who decides to cover the entire windshield!

Perhaps you need a break.

The "reg" was certainly designed for any situation in which an additional observer is required to augment visibility for the safety pilot.

In this case, however, the "reg" is irrelevant because it's in a different country, different airspace, and you have no idea save for your assumption as to what rules and regulation pertain to this flight...you don't even know what type of control or airspace in which the flight is being operated.

Furthermore, I've seen a lot of crews cover all the windows with jepp enroute charts to keep the sun out of their eyes while operating. I've spent a lot of hours operating without being able to see out of the aircraft at all in snow, rain, cloud, fog, night over the ocean, blowing sand, and other conditions which require flight by reference to instruments.

You have no idea that what the people in this aircraft did was illegal...becuase you don't know what regulations governed them. So far as safety, you also have no idea what these people were doing, be it training or other operation. You assume. Whereas many areas have no other traffic aside from that under positive control, you have no idea of knowing the level of safety present in the video, and because of the light wash-out, you have no idea of the actual visibility or visual ability from the cockpit. You assume.

You really ought not.

These guys did something dumb and when we do dumb things we should be adult enough to admit it.

One should be adult enough to admit that there is not enough information presented in the video to do more than guess and assume; to which end you presently excell.

 

[ALIMBO]

Again with the poor airmanship. You really do sound like a future smoking grease spot on a hill side, somewhere.

You failed to tune in your second nav. Poor airmanship. You managed to arrive somewhere on the approach and find yourself "30 degrees" off course. Poor airmanship. You were "maximum dot deflection" during the approach, which is also poor airmanship (the needle is supposed to be in the center, you see. Didn't anybody tell you?).

See you keep saying I am the one assuming things yet the one that is assuming is you. Did you look up the VOR 15 at KARR? Apparantly not because you would have seen what the #2 Nav was tuned to. But instead you assumed that it was tuned to nothing obviously. Furthermore it is common that you get off from a centered needle. Thats why I was practicing and given the windy conditions of the day along with turbulence the fact that it was only a dot off at most isn't really that bad. But you go and assume things an think your gods gift to aviation.

 

[ALIMBO]

One can't tell from the video, as much of the external view is obscured by light interfering with the camera. However, you assume that there's a need to look out, and you assume it's training and not being conducted under IFR, every bit as much as you assume they don't have adequate vision for their purposes.

As you lack experience, you may not know that in many countries, if you're not up there under IFR, you're not up there at all. In many places there's little if any pleasure flying, and traffic collision isn't an issue; you're part of the system of you're not in the air, period. We don't know where this is taking place, or for what purpose. You simply assume.

Assumption is vague, unprofessional, and guesswork, the hallmark of unprofessionalism.

If you look in the video the flight was conducted in what looks like pretty clear weather. So in that case which I'm going to assume is it was an IFR flight conducted in VFR conditions. Now for legal purposes if your not in IMC and given a report of traffic its your responsibility to see and avoid. I can't foresee that being to different in other countries because it avoids lawsuits. Take your own advice on assumption. I bet your a hoot to fly with.

 

[ALIMBO]

As for not trusting ones instrument you seem to be always assuming that its going to work. Not once did I say anything you listed about equipment failing. The fact that it did means yes trust them but they are not immune to failure and to be ready for it. Hence another good reason for training. But my avbug someone needs to squash you and I think this is your downfall here. You try an spread some wealth of your own knowledge and back it up by saying I do this an that all the time look how BA I am. When in fact you use your experience as the sole justification to being right. Old dogs can be taught new tricks maybe you should realize your not always right. Video was shot in Brazil btw.

 

[say again]

Avbug ALWAYS has an answer for everything, no matter how ridiculous is may be. Look, covering the windshield like that is asinine, and I really hope you can understand why. I'm not gonna get into the whole explanation of why, you should be able to figure it out.

 

[ALIMBO]

Thanks sayagain at least we understand why. Should is the keyword though just like he should probably off himself he wont.

 

[socal_pilot]

I'm not completely disagreeing with ALIMBO but I'm tired of listening to him think that his S#@* dont stink. When you total posts out number your total time I think its about time that you need to take a step back, get some experience and then your 2 cents will matter a little more.

 

[ALIMBO]

This is coming for mr. bigshot with the 17 posts. I don't need a million hours to know something. The simple fact of the matter here is what was done may not be illegal but is clearly bad practice. That was my point in showing it. People on here came on to try an bash it which only made them look dumb not me. Nothing I have done to explain myself has made me look any more stupid. So please mr socal pilot explain to me how my ******************** doesn't stink from my points. If you think it does that your opinion that no one asked for.

 

[avbug]

So in that case which I'm going to assume is it was an IFR flight conducted in VFR conditions. Now for legal purposes if your not in IMC and given a report of traffic its your responsibility to see and avoid. I can't foresee that being to different in other countries because it avoids lawsuits.

Yes, you do assume. Far too much.

You cite legal purposes, but this takes place in a foreign country, and you really have no idea what the legalities are there. Therefore, you are in error. You guess. You assume.

Assumption does not say good things about you. You understand this?

Law suits? Have you ever been out of the country?

You're assuming the legal liability in a country which you know not, in a legal system you know not, an an operation of which you don't know the type, operating rules, or if it's even instructional, in which you can't determine the visibility, have a grainy, inadequate video, in a different language...and assuming you know something, anything, about what's going on.

As you're merely talking out your backside with no information, and doing nothing but assuming, let's transfer this scenario to the US. Again, you'd have no idea the purpose of operation of the flight. Under IFR, the pilot or crew isn't required to be able to see out...many flights are conducted IMC, of course. Even if the crew were training and therefore responsible for see and avoid, the crew has augmented themselves with at least one, possibly more, observers.

The thing is...it's not in this country, and the truth is, lacking any information, you've not a clue whence you speak. That leaves your favorite thing: assumption. Again, this doesn't say good things about you, jumping to conclusions and offering nothing more than guesses. How typical of you.

Did you look up the VOR 15 at KARR? Apparantly not because you would have seen what the #2 Nav was tuned to. But instead you assumed that it was tuned to nothing obviously.

I assumed nothing, and can only go by what you've given us. You've stated you were off by a dot, a full dot, and full deflection, You were unable, when asked, to explain what you meant by being "30 degrees" off.

Yes, I am looking at the VOR 15 for KARR. I cannot see what you tuned your second nav to, because I can't see into the past, and I won't assume what you did. I know what I'd have my second nav tuned to, but we don't know if you have DME, or how you identified the crossing radials. Without assuming...which I refuse to do...one simply dosn't know what you did or didn't do, beyond what you provide...which is that you bungled the approach so badly that you were grossly off course.

Further, you haven't stated how you determined your nav equipment was in good working order, other than actually flying the approach. Again, poor airmanship.

Furthermore it is common that you get off from a centered needle.

It is, if you can't fly an approach. You assume everyone else flies as poorly as you. There's no law against trying harder, you know. You can fly the approach with a needle centered. In fact...that's the idea. Are you a flight instructor?

Thats why I was practicing and given the windy conditions of the day along with turbulence the fact that it was only a dot off at most isn't really that bad.

Interesting. Embracing mediocracy isn't a professional attribute, either.

Then again, a dot off for us is a bust. As in failed. For you it's "really not bad."

Do you know there are approaches out there in which you can't go full scale without hitting a mountain?

Keep your needles centered, grow up a little, get some more experience so you have some idea what you're talking about, preflight your equipment a little better, learn to know where you are so you don't bust your navigation so badly, accept responsibility for your errors, and for heavens sake, keep the needle centered, next time. Hopefully you know this, but you can certainly do better. Much, much better.

 

[AC560]

but we don't know if you have DME

8/0712 - FI/T AURORA MUNI, CHICAGO/AURORA, IL. VOR RWY 15, ORIG-B... DME REQUIRED EXCEPT FOR AIRCRAFT EQUIPPED WITH SUITABLE RNAV SYSTEM WITH GPS, DPA VOR/DME OTS. WIE UNTIL UFN. CREATED: 01 AUG 13:03 2008

 

[avbug]

We still don't know if he has DME, or if he's equipped with RNAV.

 

[Andy Neill]

You cite legal purposes, but this takes place in a foreign country, and you really have no idea what the legalities are there.

OK....it's a Brazilian registration. We have enough Brazilian expertise here. What are the legalities of see and avoid while IFR in VMC?

 

[avbug]

Do you know the airplane is in Brazil?

This is an exercise in assumption, you see. One engine fails, does one soldier on, assuming the other won't? One has a fire, puts it out, does one assume one can press on? We don't assume.

The original poster has assumed ad infinitum. Right up the ying-yang, as it were.

Where the airplane is registered has little to do with the regulations under which it's operated in a foreign country...so is it in Brazillian airspace?

The point here isn't really whether it's legal or not, or even safe. It's the assumptions...this thread being one long one after another.

In aviation, should we not wait to act, until we know what it is that we're acting upon?

 

[ALIMBO]

Im done you sir are by far the biggest tool on this forum good day. I hope to god I never find out who you are or ever share a cockpit with you.

 

[Andy Neill]

Do you know the airplane is in Brazil?

Ah....you're right. It might not even be an airplane. It could be a simulation with green screens and CG special effects. Sorry.

 

[ALIMBO]

LOL I looked up the little code on the video and it traces back to Brazil. Which I do believe is an ICAO authorized country, so that would probably mean the rules are somewhat similar to our country and the many others like it.

 

[avbug]

Which I do believe is an ICAO authorized country, so that would probably mean the rules are somewhat similar to our country and the many others like it.

"do believe" and "probably"

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions.

Ah....you're right. It might not even be an airplane.

I said nothing of the sort. Clearly it's an airplane. What is not clear is the location or the regulations under which it's operating.

What is clear is an overabundance of jumping to conclusions.