(The excellent thread on IFR philosophy raised a question that I thought deserved it?s own discussion, so rather than lead that one astray, I thought I?d start another?)
OK, here is a question that my raise the ire of the more experienced pilots in the room - is flying by needle, ball, and airspeed obsolete? Now before you get out the pitchforks, torches, and AN Low Frequency Range receivers, let me elaborate?..
There is no doubt whatsoever that no matter what airplane you are flying under IFR, you need to have backups in case of failures. In the old days, we all learned that if you lost your vacuum pump, you were going to lose the Attitude Indicator and DG, so you were left with the Turn and Bank, Airspeed, and Altimeter - a daunting and difficult prospect under the best conditions and level proficiency, and seat-clenchingingly difficult in the bumps. We?ve all been there?.but will current and future students of instrument flying need to be?
I believe that we need to adjust the way we think as technology changes. In fact, this isn?t really a different way of thinking, but a matter of semantics - we don?t need to protect ourselves from a vacuum pump failure, we need to protect ourselves from any SINGLE failure (or dual failures if you like better odds - older airplanes were doing well to cover one failure deep). If you still rely on vacuum gyros, then an electric backup is a good idea - and you have to be ready to use it. Electric gyros? Backup alternator, a good battery, or a backup battery. Massive electrical bus short? How about a split-bus architecture that lets you kill the one making sparks? That covers airframe systems - what about the avionics themselves? (And yes, I recognize the biggest single point failure we have - the engine - but that?s the same for old or new ASEL?s?.)
So lets say that you have an EFIS with a single AHRS and a separate autopilot with an independent attitude (or at least attitude rate) source. The EFIS goes belly up, the autopilot covers you until you get to VFR conditions. Single failure, safe operation - and no one is flying needle and ball! Dual AHRS and dual EFIS displays? One fails, you still have the other, and life is good - no special techniques required. Just fly like you are used to. I have the Pictorial Pilot in my airplane so that if I lose the EFIS entirely, I could use it as my T&B?.but why would I hand fly partial panel - if it?s working, I?ll just engage the autopilot portion and let it keep us upright while I navigate! Now you can postulate as many failures as you want - there can be little doubt that with modern devices and architecture, we are at least as safe as older aircraft, and we have removed the most unreliable aspect from the system - not eh Vacuum pump, the pilot!
The point of all this? With new technology comes the need to change the way we think, and the way we train. Needle and Ball flying is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. Yes, if you get your instrument rating in an airplane without one, you shouldn?t be out flying an airplane that relies on that instrument as a backup. In periods of transition, we have to use discipline to stay within our training zone, just as it is not smart to set out in a tricycle gear airplane without transition training if you trained in tail draggers only. Or, for that matter, taking off in your new RV if all you had ever flown is a Cessna. Legal? Yes, but smart? No way - not without a chance to adapt to the speed and handling differences!
I haven?t seen a lot of modern glass cockpit jets that had a needle and ball, so it is a bit disingenuous to insist that everyone learn to fly them, just as learning to fly the ADF approach is rapidly becoming meaningless. As the Low Frequency Range went, so too will the NDB - and maybe even the VOR at some point in the future. Computer controlled automotive engines have replaced the need to know how to start your car with a manual choke, and redundant electronic gyros and displays will make the risky and difficult task of partial panel flying (as we know it it) just as obsolete before long.
The point of all this is that we need to adjust the way we think - not solution oriented, but problem oriented - Flying by Needle and Ball was a ?solution? to the problem of single point failures. We need to look at (and accept) other, safer solutions as they present themselves if we are to enhance safety and further the utility of our airplanes.
Paul
OK, here is a question that my raise the ire of the more experienced pilots in the room - is flying by needle, ball, and airspeed obsolete? Now before you get out the pitchforks, torches, and AN Low Frequency Range receivers, let me elaborate?..
There is no doubt whatsoever that no matter what airplane you are flying under IFR, you need to have backups in case of failures. In the old days, we all learned that if you lost your vacuum pump, you were going to lose the Attitude Indicator and DG, so you were left with the Turn and Bank, Airspeed, and Altimeter - a daunting and difficult prospect under the best conditions and level proficiency, and seat-clenchingingly difficult in the bumps. We?ve all been there?.but will current and future students of instrument flying need to be?
I believe that we need to adjust the way we think as technology changes. In fact, this isn?t really a different way of thinking, but a matter of semantics - we don?t need to protect ourselves from a vacuum pump failure, we need to protect ourselves from any SINGLE failure (or dual failures if you like better odds - older airplanes were doing well to cover one failure deep). If you still rely on vacuum gyros, then an electric backup is a good idea - and you have to be ready to use it. Electric gyros? Backup alternator, a good battery, or a backup battery. Massive electrical bus short? How about a split-bus architecture that lets you kill the one making sparks? That covers airframe systems - what about the avionics themselves? (And yes, I recognize the biggest single point failure we have - the engine - but that?s the same for old or new ASEL?s?.)
So lets say that you have an EFIS with a single AHRS and a separate autopilot with an independent attitude (or at least attitude rate) source. The EFIS goes belly up, the autopilot covers you until you get to VFR conditions. Single failure, safe operation - and no one is flying needle and ball! Dual AHRS and dual EFIS displays? One fails, you still have the other, and life is good - no special techniques required. Just fly like you are used to. I have the Pictorial Pilot in my airplane so that if I lose the EFIS entirely, I could use it as my T&B?.but why would I hand fly partial panel - if it?s working, I?ll just engage the autopilot portion and let it keep us upright while I navigate! Now you can postulate as many failures as you want - there can be little doubt that with modern devices and architecture, we are at least as safe as older aircraft, and we have removed the most unreliable aspect from the system - not eh Vacuum pump, the pilot!
The point of all this? With new technology comes the need to change the way we think, and the way we train. Needle and Ball flying is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. Yes, if you get your instrument rating in an airplane without one, you shouldn?t be out flying an airplane that relies on that instrument as a backup. In periods of transition, we have to use discipline to stay within our training zone, just as it is not smart to set out in a tricycle gear airplane without transition training if you trained in tail draggers only. Or, for that matter, taking off in your new RV if all you had ever flown is a Cessna. Legal? Yes, but smart? No way - not without a chance to adapt to the speed and handling differences!
I haven?t seen a lot of modern glass cockpit jets that had a needle and ball, so it is a bit disingenuous to insist that everyone learn to fly them, just as learning to fly the ADF approach is rapidly becoming meaningless. As the Low Frequency Range went, so too will the NDB - and maybe even the VOR at some point in the future. Computer controlled automotive engines have replaced the need to know how to start your car with a manual choke, and redundant electronic gyros and displays will make the risky and difficult task of partial panel flying (as we know it it) just as obsolete before long.
The point of all this is that we need to adjust the way we think - not solution oriented, but problem oriented - Flying by Needle and Ball was a ?solution? to the problem of single point failures. We need to look at (and accept) other, safer solutions as they present themselves if we are to enhance safety and further the utility of our airplanes.
Paul
Only a few hours of my 2,800 hours total time are in aircraft with engines so you need to cut me some slack on this one. I remember seeing artificial horizons on the panel in airplanes but that's not the same as a ball and needle right? 
