IFR Checkride

[frankh]

Hi all,

My CFI suggested I ask the question.

I got a 7a with a Dynon EFIS, pictorial pilot, GNS 430 and no compass at the moment. ASI and Alt steam guages.

He suggested I might have an issue with getting a checkride in my plane due to the partial panel requirement.

Personally I would assume the examiner will want to cover up the Dynon and thus I will simply need a compass assuming I can persuade an examiner to get into one of those homebuilt contraptions. (Pictorial pilot has a TC head).

Anyone have any issue getting an IFR checkride in an RV with glass panel?

Thanks

Frank

P.e flying an approach in cloud is way cool!...

[davidkarlsberg]

In the g1000 all they do for the "partial panel" part is put it in reversionary mode, which still gives you all of the instruments. I am not sure if all examiners do it this way but that's the way my guy does it. Another examiner might actually make you use the back up instruments. You may want to just find an examiner and ask him.

[gmcjetpilot]

Originally Posted by frankh

Hi all,

My CFI suggested I ask the question.

I got a 7a with a Dynon EFIS, pictorial pilot, GNS 430 and no compass at the moment. ASI and Alt steam gauges.

He suggested I might have an issue with getting a checkride in my plane due to the partial panel requirement.

Personally I would assume the examiner will want to cover up the Dynon and thus I will simply need a compass assuming I can persuade an examiner to get into one of those homebuilt contraptions. (Pictorial pilot has a TC head).

Anyone have any issue getting an IFR check ride in an RV with glass panel?

Thanks

Frank

P.e flying an approach in cloud is way cool!...

Its a brave new world. You should get a hold of the examiner NOW. Call the Fizz-doha!

Talk to the FAA, they will not bite. They may not know but they will find out. They may also be wrong at first. If you are an EAA member you can write the leagle dept who deals with FAA issues.

Most important what the examiner says counts, its all wild guessing otherwise, but I think its OK.

Get PTS and read it. I took a quick look and all you have to be able to do is fly a non-precision approach and KNOW and explain all the factors involved in partial panel (see PTS).

I still have my CFII currency; my wild venture to a guess is failing the Dynon (Prime Flt Inst) and flying by the pitot/static and the "pictorial pilot" is fine; I assume the pic pilot is the TC look alike autopilot / display with track window.

As far as heading? Well with a GPS you have track. If the examiner wants you to fly a magnetic COMPASS "heading", than yes, you need a compass backup, but before you get a compass ask the DE. The pictorial pilot or the GPS displays track? Track is really better don't you agree.

I guess it comes down to required equip for IFR. I don't think there is NO need for back-up, non-electric, compass in an experimental, but that has been debated before.

VFR requires a "Magnetic direction indicator". The Dynon covers that.

IFR adds a "Gyroscopic direction indicator (directional gyro or equivalent)." The Dynon heading also covers this, so its both a mag direction and directional gyro equiv in one. Your Pictorial Pilot can be considered a Gyroscopic direction indicator (directional gyro or equivalent). It does not say magnetic heading. A track heading is a heading. There's no requirement for a magnetic heading backup. However in the certified regs PART 23, they make a point of saying the mag compass MUST be non-electric, BUT we are experimental and that does NOT count. So in a Piper or Cessna YOU must have a wet compass. In a RV you do not. That is true but misunderstood by even FAA and designated examiners and inspectors.

You may get an argument with a designate inspectors who says experimentals need a "wet compass", but I am 100% sure that's wrong and has been shown by the EAA with the FAA's concurrence. For IFR some may say you should have some independant mag heading indicator. Again its experimental and we don't have back-up or NON-electric requirements like Part 23 planes do. To quote "Does NOT comply with Federal Safety regulations for standard aircraft regulations". It says so right on the instrument panel in plane view. That is the answer to everything, it's experimental.

Now the examiner may just say NO with no official reason. So go find one who will. I must admit I would be hesitent to fly an experimental in actual IMC I was not familure with.

As a CFII I just want to make sure you can fly wings level and hold a heading or track, either one, with LOSS OF PRIMARY FLIGHT INSTUMENT'(S). If you are all over the sky, compass or not, than it does not meet the standard.

Lets be totally honest, REAL partial panel in real IMC with an old steam gauge Cessna set up for example, with no GPS is marginal. I would rather your set-up with GPS track than a wet compass, which is pretty worthless unless you're straight and level and there's little or no turbulence. With mag dip, correction and jiggle of the wiggle, you where lucky to keep it level and heading with in 5 degrees. The PTS allows +/- 10 degrees I think, but you'll have a hard time flying an approach if that is the best you can do.

Check the PTS (practical test standards). Call and ask the FSDO. Even a Boeing 737/757/767/747 has a wet compass. On the B737 the wet compass folds up, hidden in the overhead; you never look at except may be check its still there and check the EFIS heading on the ground.

[David-aviator]

Originally Posted by gmcjetpilot

On the B737 the wet compass folds up, hidden in the overhead; you never look at except may be check its still there and check the EFIS heading on the ground.

On the MadDog 80's it was in the bulkhead behind the F/O's seat and was viewed with a small fold down mirror...talk about a Rub Goldberg device....but it was legal.

What's this partial panel demonstration on a check ride? In 32 years under Part 121 with a zillion checks, never once had to do partial panel, every approach in the book, but no partial panel.

Maybe that's because partial panel in the real world just delays the inevitable - a real bad ending - maybe that's why when paying pax are on board, it is not needed because instrumentation is serious and backups are backups, not cheap economic compromises.

Partial panel is great for building a false sense of security on a clear, calm day with a safety pilot. But when the chips are down in a stormy night with lightening snaking by the cockpit, turbulence shaking your dental fillings loose and all the Catholic pax in the back with their beads out, partial panel is not so great (or acceptable).

Ok, if it's not so great under Part 121, what's makes it all right in an RV or any other GA airplane under Part 91? Truth is, nothing does. It's a huge safety compromise for economic reasons.

Anyone who flies IFR with it as a backup has his risk meter totally pegged out.

dd

[Bob Axsom]

The compass is a good thing to have regardless of what your examiner says. If eveything else fails the basic compass will keep on working the same way year in and year out, power or not. My Pictorial Pilot track display is useless in a tight turn even with everything working perfectly and full electrical power.
I just got my BFR with and IFR check just a couple of weeks ago. Climbing out of John Wayne Airport the controller gave me a new vector to join V8. I rolled over into a standard rate turn (via Pictorial Pilot SRT index) and the track window went blank until I rolled out on the new heading then Bang! it is right on. For shallow, small, slow turns it is near real time and fine. For a partial panel heading indication, well, I wouldn't buy it but then I'm not an instructor and each CFII does his own thing.

Bob Axsom

[mgomez]

Originally Posted by David-aviator

Ok, if it's not so great under Part 121, what's makes it all right in an RV or any other GA airplane under Part 91? Truth is, nothing does. It's a huge safety compromise for economic reasons.

I suspect that the idea of partial panel grew when airplanes were slow and draggy. Using needle/ball/airspeed works better in a Stearman, Stinson, or whatever.

In a fast airplane, a small pitch change makes a huge difference in rate of descent or climb. Similarly, in fast airplane it takes a big bank angle before you start to see a significant rate of turn, rendering the needle less useful.

So, yeah, in an RV, let alone an airliner, it's probably beyond all but the most skilled and current pilot.

I agree with the need for a backup attitude system in IMC in this kind of airplane. Needle/ball/airspeed is -- as you correctly put it -- an economic compromise that is hard to justify in today's cockpit. There are excellent cheap backups available that are more likely to be "real" backups as opposed to "feel good" backups.

Cheers,
Martin

[Ironflight]

....the real-world, operational answer if you have a Pictorial Pilot is that you don't hand-fly partial panel - you engage the autopilot and let it fly, while you use your superior judgment to navigate yourself out of the situation.

Now before I'm called a heathen, I do practice flying partial panel, but in my airplane that takes more failures to get to than it did in my old spam can. Many of us flew IFR in the days of single vacuum pumps (come on, you know its true...), and it required discipline to stay current and out of really bad weather - because your only option was that old needle and ball. Now, if you have put some thought into your redundancy scheme, it should take a couple of independent failures to get to that point - which does make you safer.

Keep the skills up - but use the technology that you have left!

(Oh yeah, I guess I have that pseudo-attitude panel on my 396 as well.....)

Sometimes, with the advance of technology and time, we need to rethink our strategies, to make sure they haven't been superseded.


Paul

[Kevin Horton]

Originally Posted by frankh

I got a 7a with a Dynon EFIS, pictorial pilot, GNS 430 and no compass at the moment. ASI and Alt steam guages.

If you plan to fly IFR in the 7a, I suggest that you should have sufficient redundancy so you can fly an approach following any single failure, including failures of the Dynon or the GNS-430. Yes, hopefully failures of these units will be rare, but they do happen. If you have sufficient redundancy to meet this criteria, and you are proficient, you shouldn't fear any single failure that the examiner might throw at you.

[johnp]

great discussion, many good points and ideas to contemplate.

after considering them all and getting the proper training, etc, perhaps the path of least resistance is to take the ifr checkride in a spamcan. i'm not advocating short-cutting any of the points made in the previous replies, just an expediency to avoid confrontation with examiners, or the long search to find an amenable examiner.

there are always two objectives here -- the first is to learn the skills necessary to operate in the ifr environment, the second is to satisfy the faa that you have done so (and get the two words on your piece of plastic.) in an ideal world, the two objectives would be congruent. we don't live in an ideal world. treat the two objectives separately.

mho,

john

[mburch]

Originally Posted by David-aviator

What's this partial panel demonstration on a check ride? In 32 years under Part 121 with a zillion checks, never once had to do partial panel, every approach in the book, but no partial panel.

You are a lucky guy David... on my IFR checkride I had to shoot a localizer approach, partial panel (neither AI nor DG), in the clouds. Guess it goes to show that every examiner has a different way to do things!

mcb