Analog Flying

I was recently reading yet another review about the glass cockpits starting to appear in general aviation aircraft, when one comment struck me — the review mentioned how much pilots rely on the position of needles on analog (steam) gauges, rather than actually reading them. That makes a lot of sense (and everyone else reading this probably knew it already) — I hand fly all of my IFR, since I don’t have an autopilot, and there’s no way that I could maintain altitude in turbulence, talk to ATC, look up approaches and scan my instruments if I had to actually read numbers on each of them.

Altimeter

The altimeter is a very straight-forward example. In the following diagrams, I’ve drawn an altimeter face with all of the numbers removed and only the big (hundreds) hand. For IFR, you’re almost always going to be flying on an even thousand, so while you certainly want to look at the little hand once in a while (a lot, if you’re in moderate-to-severe turbulence), most of the time all you’ll be doing is trying to keep the big hand pointing straight up. If you glance quickly and see the needle in the first position, you’ll know that you’re slightly low, so you’ll add back pressure, power, or both. If you see the needle in the second position, you’re fine (though it won’t hurt to glance at the VSI and ASI for trends). If you see the needle in the third position, you’ll know that you’re slightly high, so you’ll release back pressure and/or reduce power until the needle looks like it does in the middle:

Altimeter IFR needle positions.

Note how little brain power this requires — the effort required to interpret the needle can be measured in tenths, if not hundredths of seconds, and you can often watch it with your peripheral vision while worrying about something else. Exactly the same thing applies to a VFR cruise altitude, except that your goal is to keep the needle at the 6:00 position (since VFRs cruise at altitudes like 3,500 feet, 4,500 feet, etc.):

Altimeter VFR needle positions.

Airspeed Indicator

I think that the same kind of approach works for the airspeed indicator. While I’ve flown only a small range of very slow planes, from all the photos I’ve seen, approach speed is nearly always around 3:00, cruise is around 6:00, and middle of the yellow line (i.e. you’re close to tearing your wings off) is around 9:00:

Airspeed indicator needle positions.

For my Warrior, 6:00 (straight down) is about 105 knots indicated, which is the expected IAS for 65% power. Normally I cruise at 75%, which is about 114 knots indicated, or somewhere around 6:30; if I wanted to cruise at 55% power, I’d want to keep the needle a bit on the right side, around 5:30. Normal approach speed is 70 knots (less for short field work or a light plane), which is almost right on 3:00. 9:00 is halfway between the yellow line and the redline, at 140 knots indicated. Again, all I normally have to do is make sure that the needle is a bit past 6:00 — something I can check almost subconsciously and using peripheral vision — and I’ll know that my speed is OK.

Vertical Speed Indicator

The last major analog gauge with a needle is the VSI, and absolute position applies here just as much. In the following diagram (again, without numbers), any pilot will recognize quickly that the first position shows a screaming dive, the second shows a normal descent, the third shows level flight, the fourth shows a normal climb, and the fifth shows a rocket-like climb (i.e. you’ve hit a mountain wave or blundered inside a big cumulus cloud):

VSI needle positions.

That’s the Trick

We spend a lot of time during IFR training on using the attitude indicator and turn coordinator to keep the wings level, and on using the VOR/ILS gauges and the ADF needle to navigate, but I think that the real breakthrough for each IFR student probably comes when he or she no longer has to think about these other needle positions, but can simply deal with them reflexively while thinking about the bigger problems. IFR students feel rushed having only 10 minutes to get ready for an approach — a couple of years later, the biggest problem is how to entertain yourself during the extra 8 minutes.

Bugs

I’m not going to go into detail about glass cockpits, since I’ve never used them and would just be repeating things I’ve seen other people write. However, it is worth noting that, for all the numbers and fancy graphics, the most important part of a glass display is the bug — it’s too hard for the pilots to keep reading numbers, so they set a bug (a triangle graphic usually, I think) on the ribbon displays for altitude, heading, airspeed, descent rate, or what-have-you, then work just to keep the bug in the correct position. Analog-type pilots sometimes have bugs on their heading indicators and use those the same way. It all works out the same in the end, I guess.

Followup

A year later, I did log 0.5 flying behind a glass panel, and recorded my impressions.

Posted in General | Tagged , | 9 Comments

All in Pieces

That’s how my plane has been for a full week now, in the shop, waiting for parts to arrive from Piper via a supplier in Memphis via a second supplier in Montreal. Owners tend to say that the annual is the most unpredictable part of aircraft ownership — after all, it’s pretty straight forward to predict how much gas you’ll burn, how much your insurance will run, how much parking will be, how much your new Garmin 530 will cost installed (just dreaming), etc., but nobody knows whether the bill after an annual inspection will be US $1,500 or $15,000 (fortunately, mine have always ended up well in the first third of that range so far).

In fact, the annual inspection itself is very predictable — it takes about 25-30 hours for an experienced mechanic to run through the full Piper Warrior II annual inspection list properly, and maybe a couple more hours for run-of-the-mill AD and SB inspections. It’s just that most of us don’t have our (private) planes looked at in detail any other time of the year unless something is obviously broken, so it’s the annual inspection that finds most of the hidden problems. I’m considering adding an unofficial semi-annual inspection — maybe 4 hours in the shop late in the fall, when I need to change the oil and jack up the plane to get the wheel fairings off anyway. Just taking off the cowling and propeller spinner and letting the guys in the shop poke around for a few hours might find a lot of small problems before they become big ones.

After all, we get the family minivan inspected twice a year, and I can just pull over to the side of the road if something breaks on it.

Tagged , | 2 Comments

Admin: Upgrade to WP 1.5.1, and SpamKarma

Even a relatively patient person like me eventually gets tired of deleting comment spam. I’ve just upgraded to WordPress 1.5.1, and installed the highly-recommended SpamKarma plugin. Hopefully, this will allow legitimate comments to appear immediately, without waiting for moderation, while filtering out all of the Online Poker ads. Please let me know (somehow) if your comments are being blocked incorrectly.

Tagged | 6 Comments

JPI Slashdotted

JPI EDM 700 engine monitor.

An avionics story on Slashdot?

JP Instruments sells a line of engine monitors that is popular among owners (at least, owners who spend more on their planes than I do). Engine monitors help you to find problems before they get serious, by detecting (say) an unusually high temperature in one cylinder hours before it actually fails — that’s important for safety, of course (think single-engine plane over mountains in IMC), but also also for the pocketbook, since engine maintenance and overhauls are one of the most expensive parts of flying.

One particularly cool feature of some engine monitors like JPI’s is the ability to download saved data to your computer and analyze it at home. A few months ago, however, JPI decided to encrypt their data to prevent owners from using any software other than their own. Owners, of course, are furious. Now even Slashdot has picked up the story.

Could the movement for open source and open standards make it as far as the dusty, cobwebbed corners of the avionics market?

Tagged | 1 Comment

Upcoming changes to Canadian airspace

Nav Canada has a whole bunch of proposed changes in its National Level of Service Report from last October (which I’ve noticed only now — here’s a link directly to the full 96-page PDF report). The report proposes revoking many approaches and decommissioning navaids (mainly low-powered NDBs), changing some hours of operation, eliminating some LF airway segments, changing weather reporting for many airports, and — perhaps least controversionally — eliminating VHF direction finding from more airports.

The beginning of the report summarizes the proposed changes, alphabetically by airport, then provides details, objections, etc. for each one. For example, here are the proposed changes for Montreal/Trudeau (formerly Dorval):

Montreal Pierre
Elliot Trudeau
International, QC
Decommission Jarry ‘ZMT’ NDB
Decommission Montreal ‘UL’ NDB
Decommission Rockland ‘ZUL’ NDB
Decommission Valois ‘ZDV’ NDB
Revoke LOC/NDB RWY 06R
Revoke LOC/NDB RWY 06L
Revoke NDB RWY 10 (GPS)
Revoke NDB RWY 24R (GPS)
Revoke NDB RWY 24L (GPS)
Revoke LOC(BC)/NDB RWY 28
Commission RNAV approaches for runways 10, 24R and 24L

The only change of interest in the Ottawa area is the planned revocation of Ottawa/Gatineau NDB 27 (there’s still an NDB/DME 27 approach) — I don’t think that anyone uses the NDB 27 except for training, since the minima are so high, so that shouldn’t hurt. Sooner or later, though, with all these vanishing NDBs (in the U.S. even more than in Canada), I’m going to have to grit my teeth and shell out for an IFR GPS in my plane.

If you’re a Canadian pilot (or a pilot who flies to Canada), take a peek at the list and see if anything interesting is proposed at the airports you use, then leave a comment or mention the changes in your own blog.

Posted in General | 2 Comments

Charts

Moncton on U.S. Halifax sectional chart.

In his most recent posting, Moncton Centre controller Michael Oxner makes some friendly but justifiable complaints about summer recreational pilots who don’t bring paper charts in the plane and tie up ATC time when their handheld GPS’s fail (for those pilots’ sake, I hope that their GPS’s had terrain information when they were working — there are mountains pushing above 5,000 ft MSL in Maine on the way from central Canada to the Maritimes).

Here’s a trick I thought of after arriving at the airport once for a long (VFR) family trip, loading up the plane, then realizing that I had left my charts at home: I always, always, carry a couple of 1:1,000,000 scale World Aeronautical Charts (WACs) in my flight bag. WACs have lousy detail but very wide coverage — just two Canadian WACs (F-21 and F-22) cover nearly any single-day trip I’d fly inside Canadian airspace, and add no appreciable bulk or weight. The problem with Canadian WACs, though, is that they’re not updated very often — they may be legal, but most of them haven’t been amended for 10 years or more, so their airspace information is of historical interest only. For that reason, I actually carry American WACs (CF-18 and CF-19), which are updated regularly and happen to include a lot of Canadian airspace.

Since I own my own plane, I also keep a bunch of charts and approach plates for Ontario and Quebec in a small bag under the pilot’s seat — the WACs are actually the backup to my backup now — but for a renter, a couple of WACs in the flight bag seems like a no-brainer, though 1:500,000 scale VNCs/Sectionals and 1:250,000 scale terminal-area charts are, obviously, preferable.

For anyone with time to kill, a high-speed Internet connection, and no concept of the cost of inkjet toner, you can download the U.S. sectional charts here and print them out on your own.

Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Icing: Altitude Strategy

Instrument meteorological conditions.

I’ve written about icing before, both here and here. Like storm clouds and scud running, icing is one of those things that pilots are supposed to avoid but occasionally stumble into anyway. The Canadian AIP contains some advice for pilots who end up in storm clouds (slow down, keep flying straight, and don’t worry about altitude, or something along those lines), and Rick Durden has written a good collection of scud running survival tips, but there is precious little out there to help us with dealing with icing on a day-to-day basis.

Fly high

OK, you’re planning to fly IFR on a day when there is no moderate or severe icing forecast, but there is cloud and possibly precip along the way, and the temperature at higher altitudes might be close to freezing. What do you do: fly low, to try to stay in the warm air, or fly high, where you might pick up ice?

My tip — and more experienced pilots reading this should feel free to correct me — is to fly high, even if you’re at or below the freezing level. Ice tends to accumulate at very specific altitudes: for example, you might pick up some light clear icing at 7,000 feet, but nothing at 9,000 or 5,000. In theory, then, you can either climb or descend to get out of icing. However, if ice should happen to accumulate quickly, and especially, if you should happen to be flying a heavily-loaded and/or weakly-powered plane, climbing might not be an option (for planes with boots, climbing too steeply is also dangerous, because the high angle of attack can allow ice to accumulate on the wing where the boots cannot reach it).

So, if your only choice is to descend, what happens? Assume that MOCA is 3,000 feet — if you’re already at 5,000 feet, the temperature drops a bit, and you pick up ice, you have only 2,000 feet left to descend safely in the hope that the ice will melt off; if you’re at 9,000 feet, you have 6,000 feet to descend to melt off the ice. That leaves you with a lot more choices. It may even be that 5,000 feet is the icing altitude for much of your route, but you’ll overfly it without ever knowing.

Of course, you don’t want to try this without some hope of warmer air underneath — if there’s an inversion causing freezing rain on the ground, descending probably is only going to make things worse. On a typical spring day or summer day, though, with some cumulus cloud and near-freezing temperatures at cruising altitude and a reasonably low MOCA below, I think that flying high makes more sense than flying low — like always, if you run into any trouble, your altitude is like money in the bank.

Tagged , | 3 Comments

Blog: Randy's Journal

Via Aviatrix, I’ve found another interesting aviation blog: Randy’s Journal is a weblog maintained by Randy Baseler, VP Marketing for Boeing Commercial Aircraft. Obviously, the blog reflects company orthodoxy, but it at least uses direct language rather than the marketing mumbling we get in press releases. I plan on reading this one. An interesting starting point is an entry gloating about becoming Air Canada’s exclusive supplier, a massive win for Boeing (who sorely needs one right now after many losses to Airbus).

DISCLOSURE: My launch customer as an independent consultant in 1998 was Boeing Commercial Aircraft, and I did a substantial amount of work for the company as an architect of their system for producing aircraft manuals.

Tagged | Comments Off on Blog: Randy's Journal

NATCA vs. Nav Canada

[Updating: on guessing — see below] The National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) — the non-union union representing U.S. air traffic controllers — attacked plans to privatize the U.S. air traffic control system with the following statement:

Cleveland controllers alone handle more operations annually than Canada’s entire privatized system.

Cleveland airport? The airport serving that little city called the mistake by the lake? Presumably not, though it doesn’t hurt Carr’s cause to let congress think that’s what he meant. He’s almost certainly talking about Cleveland Center, one of the world’s busiest air traffic control facilities, handling traffic across an enormous part of the northeastern U.S. including two major hubs (Pittsburgh and Detroit) as well as most enroute traffic between Chicago and points east; according to their web page, they handle over 3 million operations per year.

That’s a lot, but is it more than all of Nav Canada? Not quite. According to this news backgrounder from their web site, Nav Canada handled 11 million operations in 2004.

Was Carr deliberately lying? Saying that “Cleveland” has more operations than Canada is clearly an attempt to mislead a bit (he’s hoping that members of congress will mistakenly assume he means the city of Cleveland, rather than an air traffic control unit covering much of the northeastern U.S.), but it might be going too far to call that a lie. What about the number? It might be possible to get a number bigger than 11 million for Cleveland Center simply by creatively counting all operations for all facilities under Cleveland’s airspace. For example, let’s look at an IFR flight from Detroit to Pittsburgh: Detroit tower handles the flight during taxi and take off, then passes it to Detroit departure for initial flight, which then hands it off to Cleveland center for enroute, which then hands it off to Pittsburgh arrival to set up the approach, which then hands it off to Pittsburgh tower for landing and taxi. If NATCA simply added up all of the operations for all ATC units underneath Cleveland Center, that single, short flight would count as five operations. I’m guessing that’s what happened. Nav Canada uses a single, electronic slip for flights from taxi to tie-down, so I’m pretty sure that they count each one only once.

I don’t know if it would be best for the U.S. to stick with its current socialized system or to move to a privatized, Nav Canada style system — I get good service from ATC on both sides of the border — but let’s keep the debate honest, and avoid any Enron-style counting on either side.

Update: one interesting point of discussion in the comments to this posting is my use of phrases like “I’m guessing” and “I’m pretty sure.” It’s worth noting that in both cases, the fuzzy stuff was an attempt to give Mr. Carr the benefit of a doubt — the cold facts alone look very bad for Mr. Carr in this case, and my guesses were attempts to try to find some way that his statement could have been an honest misunderstanding rather than a deliberate deception.

Tagged , | 24 Comments

400

Yesterday, during a Hope Air flight, the virtual odometer in my logbook finally ticked around past 400 hours.

It was a day of flying extremes. I flew three legs totalling 8 hours flight time (7.2 air time), of which 3.3 hours was hand-flown in IMC. The trip involved flying IFR through Toronto terminal airspace over Toronto/Pearson, Canada’s busiest airport; flight over water; a slow-moving cold front blanketing the route with heavy rain and hours of light and moderate turbulence; a brief encouter with clear icing (not with passengers in the plane); and at the end of the final leg, an ILS approach in more turbulence with a circling landing, and then back home in time for supper. I don’t think I’ll have trouble remembering what I was doing when I hit 400.

Tagged | 2 Comments