Hedley, I have done (practiced in "simulated IMC") the exact same thing with the 196, and it works as advertised!
This would save your bacon in an emergency when all other gyros have failed, plain and simple.
Ok, that's three to zero - three completely independent tests
conducted (me, ., Strega) and all come to the same
conclusion - that a G196, in an emergency, can be successfully
used as a substitute for gyroscopic flight instruments. Three
different pilots, three different airplanes, three different GPS's.
Why attempt to suppress and discredit such valuable and
potentially life-saving information?!
The aircraft was not a Meridian, (KKH was built in 1989, the Merdian wasn't certified til 2000).
This means your post is insignificant because the weights are not even close to accurate(KKH had MTOW of 1950 kgs/4300lbs) and it is not possible to accurately guess what the installation of the autopilot/AI was. The A/C had been heavily modified since manufacture (powerplant + avionics, + related systems)
The above info is easily available on the TC registry, jetprop, and piper websites....
PS You maybe correct though. After all, my 1989 chevy malibu comes with all the same standard equipment as listed on the 2008 malibu website
Hedley wrote:
Ok, moderators, censor this post too!
I'm sure someone's feelings are hurt
now, and we CAN'T have that.
Hedley,
You know why your posts were edited, they had nothing to do with the topic and were offensive, just like the other posts edited here. If you're still uncertain about why, please feel free to PM me and I'll be more specific.
You've been around here too long, and contribute to much valuable information. You should know better, the rules are there in black and white.
Ok, that's three to zero - three completely independent tests
conducted (me, ., Strega) and all come to the same
conclusion - that a G196, in an emergency, can be successfully
used as a substitute for gyroscopic flight instruments.
Let's see. The 196 can give you rate of turn based on the change in track (not heading) and your track (not heading) and your ground speed (not airspeed) and GSL (not ASL, AGL or even MSL) and vertical speed based on GSL change and your deviation from selected track.
No pitch or bank information and no true turn and bank indication. If you want to continue "pitching" this solution go ahead. I guess we'll agree to disagree.
Personally, I think you'd do almost as good with a piece of yarn on the windscreen.
Ok, that's three to zero - three completely independent tests
conducted (me, ., Strega) and all come to the same
conclusion - that a G196, in an emergency, can be successfully
used as a substitute for gyroscopic flight instruments.
Let's see. The 196 can give you rate of turn based on the change in track (not heading) and your track (not heading) and your ground speed (not airspeed) and GSL (not ASL, AGL or even MSL) and vertical speed based on GSL change and your deviation from selected track.
No pitch or bank information and no true turn and bank indication. If you want to continue "pitching" this solution go ahead. I guess we'll agree to disagree.
Personally, I think you'd do almost as good with a piece of yarn on the windscreen.
I think Snoopy said it best actually.
CID,,
although I do agree with you that the 196 is just about as hokey as the yarn, it does and will work in a DIRE EMERGENCY. There is no substitute for gyro instruments, but when they fail, you must know your options.
and FYI the needle and ball or turn and slip indicator does not tell you if you are rolling (well it does, and when it does it tells you the opposite of what you think (rigidity in space)) it only tells you if you are changing direction or heading.
snoopy wrote:Well,
I for one am really relieved that people are promoting self-experimentation using a hood and a non-certified piece of equipment to test a theory on flying blind - in real live aircraft.
What I interpret Snoopy to be saying here is that we shouldn't be experimenting like this with a hood on and without somebody sitting beside us to make sure we don't thunder the plane into the ground.
In the private sector, we prefer "data-driven" decisions.
Yes. The pilot who is the focus of this thread may have made similar decisions and he has now become a statistic.
You are employed by the government, correct?
Although it my preference to remain anonymous in this anonymous forum I will go as far as to say that I am not currently, nor have I haver worked for any government.
So it would seem that three of us have determined that in an emergency we can maintain control of an airplane in cloud by reference to a GPS.
No where do we advocate others try and this on their own.
As to the crap about how the GPS records movement, don't you think we are not aware of that?
I've got more time flying airplanes than most anyone on this forum and in 55 years have never had to fill out an accident report....
Yeh, I don't know jack sh.t about flying.
---------- ADS -----------
The most difficult thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
.,
You said: "No where do we advocate others try and this on their own." I'm afraid you emphatically contradict yourself:
"For whatever it is worth I agree with Hedley and support his findings through having done the experiment myself."
"Snoopy, my dear Snoopy....please allow me to explain why I agree with Hedley on this issue.
Science is the art of experimentation and examining the results.....if something works then it works......
This is after five or six posts where our Hedley, our "jack of all trades", aka local authority on all things aviation, has given grand dissertations and long-winded explanations which I won't repeat here, but the gist of what he is suggesting to others can be summed up with this statement:
"Suggestion: instead of indulging in speculation and trusting to rumour and FUD, why not collect some real, live data yourself?"
"Get a hood, and a G196. Mount it on the yoke of your aircraft. Give it a try. You might be
surprised at how easy it is to fly an overlaid approach using it. I certainly was."
When a person or person(s) on an anonymous forum start giving specific advice or directions, or making suggestions - not based on any proper published procedures, certified equipment or taking into account various laws and/or safety considerations - that if followed could potentially cause an accident and/or loss of life; that person(s) is treading a very dangerous piece of ice. It's called liability.
The same statement could be made where a person, is giving their audience very specific maintenance and operating advice - not based on any manufacturer's information - on equipment they are neither licensed to maintain, or possibly even current and/or trained to fly.
Granted, there is some onus on the audience to check the credentials and authority of any source of information they seek, but woe betide the advice giver if some schmuck blindly accepts wrong information, on the basis of inflated or implied experience and/or credentials, and kills themself by following it.
So. I have no interest or desire to belittle your experience ., but you have jumped, with both feet, on a bandwagon that is pointed down a very steep hill and gaining speed.
Cheers,
Snoopy
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by snoopy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 2:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Never interrupt someone doing something you said couldn’t be done.” Amelia Earhart
Snoop, Hedley has pointed out the obvious and common sense would dictate that any pilot who wished to experiment with their GPS do the same.
Duh. No. Every private pilot (with 5 hrs hood time)
knows that when you're under the hood, you need
someone in the right seat as lookout.
Duh.
I fail to see the danger in this experiment.
---------- ADS -----------
The most difficult thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
Aside from whether it should be done or not, what I am interested in is your description of the "paradigm known as velocity vector". I am familiar with the term used in reference to VSD and HUD information when using FMS but how does that enter your discussion about emergency use of GPS? An aircraft incorporating this technology would hardly have a handheld GPS as emergency backup or would it ever require it.
Secondly how do you propose to use this information as regards anything discussed in this thread?
Since we are on the topic of devices that could save your bacon, what about a Cirrus type parachute? Seeing how the cabin was basically intact after the control surfaces were ripped off, that might have come in handy.
Or is it impractical on a Malibu? The chute would have to be pretty big, I assume.
Aside from whether it should be done or not, what I am interested in is your description of the "paradigm known as velocity vector". I am familiar with the term used in reference to VSD and HUD information when using FMS but how does that enter your discussion about emergency use of GPS? An aircraft incorporating this technology would hardly have a handheld GPS as emergency backup or would it ever require it.
The reason I mentioned that technology ( which is an air force term. ) is because there is a unit being offered to the home builder sector of aviation for under $4000.00 that uses that method of display.
The company is called TruTrack and their display is different from the other systems that are avaliable.....actually their logic is quite interesting and being sort of a gadget geek and having played with most every device known to aviation I can relate to their use of that type of display.
Secondly how do you propose to use this information as regards anything discussed in this thread?
carholme
I dunna know carholme, a better question would be why do I post here in the first place? So bearing in mind I am probably not all there mentally you will have to cut me some slack....
---------- ADS -----------
The most difficult thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
Snoop.....there is a very good article on electronic flight instruments in this months Kitplanes.
TruTrack has a very interesting article about their presentation and the logic thereof.
---------- ADS -----------
The most difficult thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
Hedley/./Strega, in what context did you experiment with the GPS? I fully agree that a GPS or any performance instruments for that matter, could be used to recover an aircraft from an unusual attitude (UA). However, your experiment was probably conducted in a more sterile environment, VMC and you probably expected the unusual attitude which makes it easier to recover in itself (the analysis part is much shorter since you don't try to figure out what's going on, you know you're in a UA). Furthermore, you need a specific training (or at least you need to understand the basics of the recoveries) before you can be proficient at recovering from different UAs
Let's also look at some questions :
-How many hours did the pilot have, how many of those were IMC?
-How much training did the pilot have in recovering from UAs, how many of those were IMC?
-How many times did he practice UA recoveries without gyros?
