What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Look outside

Berchmans

Berchmans

Well Known Member
I have been building my RV8 for 2.5 years now and one thing that I have noticed is folks are really loading up their panels with lots of really neat stuff. I, like everyone else think this is really cool but as fliers we need to step back a bit and examine what is really important about flying.

Last summer here in Alaska we had several mid air collisions, some with tragic results. In every case neither pilot saw the other aircraft.

All the neat screens, readouts, GPS information is wonderful stuff but remember the best instrument in the plane is the Mark 1 eyeball attached to the computer between your ears. Look outside the airplane more. Watch for others. The scenery out there is better too.

When was the last time you turned off all the gee whiz stuff and flew without anything working at all? Give it a try. Turn it off, cover it up?fly for 10 minutes, do some turns. Can you hold altitude? Your thoughts?
 
Berchmans said:
All the neat screens, readouts, GPS information is wonderful stuff but remember the best instrument in the plane is the Mark 1 eyeball attached to the computer between your ears. Look outside the airplane more. Watch for others. The scenery out there is better too.
Click to expand...

I've had a great interest in moving map GPS since 1993. I know it's superiority over the old methods of navigation. What it has ALWAYS allowed me to do.............is spend a LOT more time looking out the windscreen to scan for traffic as well as the scenery. I do not agree that the Mark 1 eyeball is the best source of information. A lot of info, that I need, is instantly available on my GPS screen. I glance at it, I get it, and go back to my scan. No pouring over sectionals, adjusting, the OBS, triangulating, etc. For most long cross country flights to previously unvisited areas, I'd pre-program the flight route into the GPS. Deviations are also simple.

edit: P.S. -- also have my gee-whiz airplane detector.......as long as they have a transponder on,,,, and hopefully a ground or commercial radar is in the vicinity. As to Alaska???
Out here in the vast wilderness of Utah, there is often no radar interrogations either.

L.Adamson --- Garmin 696
 
Last edited:
It's not all about wanting the latest-and-greatest or the neatest gee-whiz gadget. If you price out analog gauges for the standard six-pack, and compare it to the price for a Dynon D100, you may be surprised to find out that the Dynon is cheaper. It's also lighter and simpler to install.

While I agree that looking outside is important, when you need to look inside it's nice to have something modern to look at. :)
 
It would really help if people would just turn on their landing light. But people don't even turn them on near the airport!!

An airplane heading toward you is all but impossible to see.
 
Cirrus SR-22 crashed at KMLB, FL two weeks ago

We don't have springs on our flight controls like the Cirrus, which makes it easier feeling the controls get light nearing stall. All they have is a stall warning and a chute that doesn't do well at low altitudes. Three men perished, pilot 44, two non pilot passengers 24 and 25. It is difficult hearing/reading about it. When I fly, I think of a few accidents like that and it really keeps me on my toes. Especially when I am hauling the wife and two children or any other passengers.

When in the pattern my wife and I keep a close eye on airspeed. I have min speeds(1.3 X stall)labeled near both PFD's for the three flap positions. I call off flap settings and we both verify. That is a time when we can get overloaded with tower/ctaf, traffic and flying the plane. What I learned from the atc recordings...controllers/pilots make mistakes, fly the plane, remember "unable" and "going around". Use non-pilot or pilot passengers to help. I know that is hard for some to do, but we must as their life depends on it too. A passenger is going to sit there while the airspeed tape is going down and turning red unless we ask them to help us.
 
L.Adamson said:
....clipped.....

edit: P.S. -- also have my gee-whiz airplane detector.......as long as they have a transponder on,,,, and hopefully a ground or commercial radar is in the vicinity. As to Alaska???
Out here in the vast wilderness of Utah, there is often no radar interrogations either.
L.Adamson --- Garmin 696
Click to expand...

When I am out flying the Champ, there is no such thing as a transponder. There is a reason the windshield is not just sheetmetal. Hey! Give me some credit...I am using my iPad in lieu of a paper sectional!

Mr, Adamson has stated his affinity for the modern avionics in multiple posts. And, I am quite sure that he uses all of it to it's fullest capability, while keeping his head on a swivel looking outside. Unfortunately, there is a large number of folks who do not maintain due vigilance, as they are too busy with the buttons and knobs inside. This is well documented in multiple accident reports, and publications by the manufacturers, and industry groups.
 
It's a question of design

The computers on our panels have user interfaces which are supposed to transfer information from the airplane to the pilot's brain very efficiently.

A well-designed user interface will use color, layout, font size and style, audio, graphics, and a lot of psychology to give you all the information you could get from steam gauges quicker, with higher fidelity, with less eye movement.

If the user interface works well, your instrument scan will take less time, and you'll have more time per "cycle" to concentrate on your external lookout. If the user interface works badly, you'll spend all day squinting at the display and fiddling with knobs to get the information you need, and your lookout will suffer.

Getting it right takes a lot of time, effort, testing (and consequently money) from the instrument designer. Cheaper isn't better. "Bleeding edge of technology" ain't so great either, if the tech is so new that the psychology isn't yet understood.


- mark
 
L.Adamson said:
...edit: P.S. -- also have my gee-whiz airplane detector.......as long as they have a transponder on,,,, and hopefully a ground or commercial radar is in the vicinity. As to Alaska???
Out here in the vast wilderness of Utah, there is often no radar interrogations either.

L.Adamson --- Garmin 696
Click to expand...

I've said it many times before, these things will not work on Cubs, T-Crafts, Champs, Luscombs, Funks, sail planes, and any other aircraft without a transponder. (Think former ultralights, now LSA.)

KEEP your head on a swivel.

And before anyone starts in with, "Those airplanes should have a transponder!" The reason they do not have a transponder is they don't have an electrical system and limited useful load. Transponders and the batteries to power them would add a lot to the empty weight. Besides, many of those aircraft don't have shielded ignition systems, so a transponder (or radio) would be useless unless the mags, harness, and plugs are replaced. In many cases, replacing those also includes cutting the cowling and adding bumps to fit the plugs and harness.

While many of these older aircraft have been upgraded to shielded harnesses, many have not.

Those magic ?fish finders? are not the end all that their manufactures make them out to be.
 
All the neat screens, readouts, GPS information is wonderful stuff but remember the best instrument in the plane is the Mark 1 eyeball attached to the computer between your ears. Look outside the airplane more. Watch for others.
Click to expand...

Why the presupposition that the presence of an EFIS or moving map means a pilot doesn't look out the window as often as they should.

I have found that a moving map requires less of my eyeball time in the cockpit than a paper chart did. I also find I can scan my panel for needed info more quickly than i could with steam guages and spend less eyeball time in the cockpit.

Whether or not you spend too much time eyeballing your panel has everything to do with your training and discipline and little to do with your type of equipment. I have seen may steam guage pilots spend most of a flight staring at the panel and charts.
 
N395V said:
Why the presupposition that the presence of an EFIS or moving map means a pilot doesn't look out the window as often as they should.

I have found that a moving map requires less of my eyeball time in the cockpit than a paper chart did. I also find I can scan my panel for needed info more quickly than i could with steam guages and spend less eyeball time in the cockpit.

Whether or not you spend too much time eyeballing your panel has everything to do with your training and discipline and little to do with your type of equipment. I have seen may steam guage pilots spend most of a flight staring at the panel and charts.
Click to expand...

Agree, well said. A well designed panel with easy to read and understand information will allow a quick look inside to get info and allow more time outside looking for traffic and obstacles. The most dangerous time is the first few hours learning the new system and training the eyes where to look to get the required info. I have 3 hours on my new AFS 5500 and am in the process of learning and training, and I caught myself yesterday looking inside too much approaching a tower. But once that learning and training is done, all the information in the panel allows so much more situational awareness (albeit airspeed, altitude, weather, location, engine status, traffic, restricted areas, etc.) and allows more time outside scanning.
 
I had issues properly interpreting airspeed on a glass panel initially (in the pattern). I also have a policy of only doing so much with inputting a new frequency or airport ID on my 430W between outside glances. Example, I may only input two of the airport ID characters then scan outside.
 
Spirited replies

Boy howdy, some people really took offense to my comments about the gee whiz stuff. I did not mean for that to happen at all. But you must look outside and unfortunately a number of pilots seem to not do this. You can not rely on technology or someone else 100%. They are all tools to be used correctly. The airspace I navigate whenever going in or out of Lake Hood or Merrill Field is some of the most conjested for GA aircraft in the States. The airports within spitting distance are, Anchorage International (big heavy jets) Lake Hood Seaplane base (busiest seaplane base in the world), it has a gravel strip too. Merrill Field (one of the busiest GA airports in the world). Elemndorf Airbase (fast movers, F15's and F22's). Fort Richardson (Choppers and Sherpas). I have pesonnaly taken evasive action over the years (I have been flying here for 31 years now) while in controlled airspace with transponder on (no call out from the controller either). So, by all means put the electronics in the plane but don't get complaicent. Some of the midairs we had up here recently involved pilots with over 20,000 hours...it only takes a second.

Now for some trivia. Who's instrument panel is this?
Instrumentpanel.jpg
 
"So, by all means put the electronics in the plane but don't get complaicent. Some of the midairs we had up here recently involved pilots with over 20,000 hours...it only takes a second."

Burke is exactly right. And a second does not give you time to react. It can even happen in nowhere NW Oklahoma. With my wife in the left seat, at cruse altitude and autopilot engaged, we were both scanning for aircraft and land marks. I happend to glance at my wife and behind her head I saw a Piper Malibu about 50 feet out coming directly at us. All I could see was the arc of a big *** prop and the left wing appearing about to impact us from our 7:30 position. The miss was less than 10 feet. I have been flying over 44 years. This gave me a new appreciation for not only scanning forward and sides, but also behind.
 
Panel

It's the instrument panel that was in Jimmy Doolittle's airplane when he made the first instrument take off and landing...
 
I have found that a moving map requires less of my eyeball time in the cockpit than a paper chart did. I also find I can scan my panel for needed info more quickly than i could with steam guages and spend less eyeball time in the cockpit.
Click to expand...

Agreed!


Now what I find by looking at all the panels in the various threads here on VAF, and on many of the units I see being built locally is they are being set up like a Boeing or Airbus not a single pilot machine.

And more so when it is being used for IFR flight. Single pilot IFR is the hardest of the lot, so a very well planned logical and ergonomic layout is critical. Including backups.

Far two many panels I see have plenty of BIG glass panles and all cross the panel, but if the one in front of you goes on the blink.....you will be wanting to swap seats.

Think about this for a while when planning your panel.
 
Look outside update

I attended a pilots association meeting here over the weekend and one of the NTSB regional inspectors gave an overview of the midair?s that had occurred in the last 2 years here in Alaska. There were 4 which is an extraordinary number. Of the 8 pilots involved 7 where commercial/ATP rated pilots. In every case the survivors reported not seeing the other aircraft until it was too late! Let?s be careful out there...
 
Near Miss vs Evasive Action

I don't mean to hijack this thread; hopefully it ran its course. But it is interesting and begs a poll. My hypothosis and history: close encounters scare the bejesus out of you but more mid-air's are avoided by luck than evasive manuevers for lack of reaction time. Perhaps we all forgettably avoid close encounters and collisions way off when we see traffic and only remember holy **** events?

I've had (20 years ago) two extremely close encounters to which the available reaction time would have rendered evasion moot, had we been on an actual collision path.

1) maintaining the prescribed low TPA away from home base in deference to Carswell AFB traffic, I watched through the C-140 skylights two T-38's in their pattern, overhead . As I lowered my gaze forward, the windscreen was FULL of T-38 canopy with the pilot looking out the top straight at me! He must have been hot-dog skimming the lake below, pulling up into a vertical climb. My only reaction (other than bowl misfunction) was to roll knife-edge to minimize what his vertical stab might disect. Useless; I had only rolled 45 degrees by the time I was in his wake.

2) An IFR flight in my non-encoded Mooney, brand-new KX-155 and OBS dead center, inbound to the Myrtle Beach VOR 30 miles away, level at 3000 where the (young-sounding, military) controller put me. Out of the coastal murk came a beautiful C-421 on a perfect reciprocal course, exact same altitude, two wingspans off my left wingtip, with about 350kt closure speed! Talk about eyes as big as saucers on that pilot and I'm sure, mine! It was only Providence that neither of these incidents killed me and my passengers.

So the question is, have you outmanuevered death more or visa versa?
 
WSBuilder said:
So the question is, have you outmanuevered death more or visa versa?
Click to expand...

I've had a few close calls, and manouvering did help in once case. Both 150s side by side slowly converging in a V shape. I saw him slightly behind my wing at about 150'. I still had 30 seconds to a minute to react, but manouvering was required.

Most recent one was me turning final and as I lift the wing, a helicopter pops out above me from behind my wing root [I was flying a high wing]. I pushed the nose down, but that increased the seperation, not prevented an accident.

One thing I like to do is to cruise 50' high/low. for example 4450'. That way the guy sneeking up at your 5 o'clock is going to pass below/above you. It's not fool proof by any means, but does help.
 
David Z said:
One thing I like to do is to cruise 50' high/low. for example 4450'. That way the guy sneeking up at your 5 o'clock is going to pass below/above you. It's not fool proof by any means, but does help.
Click to expand...

David,

I do the same above 3000' agl, in a low wing I stay 50' below. Below 3000' agl, I fly for example 2250' or 2750' msl. In the pattern I like to be slightly low as you can see a plane better against the sky. Also I try not to overfly airports and vor's on xc. I also tune in the nearest airports in case you need it but also to listen for dep/arrivals. Then get flight following on longer flights or test flights. On shorter flights I tune in nearest departure or center, as they will talk about you in relation to another that is on FF.
 
I agree with the original post that there are way too many things guys are putting in their panels that serve as a distraction.

Numerous times over the years I have observed many pilots particularly the ones with EFIS's who I've flown off wing of in formation that tend to fixate on the panel and spend far less time than they should on their scan.

I spend a lot of my time at my day job designing and coding user interfaces for complex medical data applications and simple and elegant wins hands-down with users. Always. EFIS's typically seen in experimental aircraft are designed by engineers and it shows. Way too much data being displayed. Some of them are downright horrible. This is why I designed and built my own engine monitor; there is nothing available that presents data the way I wanted.
 
Maybe we just need a declutter option like my 496. I have my efis limits set up so that I will be warned of anything abnormal and use ap so my eyes can stay outside more than inside.
 
rocketbob said:
I agree with the original post that there are way too many things guys are putting in their panels that serve as a distraction.
Click to expand...

Original poster mentions the Mark 1 eyeball. From all of the CFIT accidents I've kept track over the years, it just looks like the Mark 1 eyeball isn't good enough.............even when the various pilots thought it would be.

Since I do have this thing about CFIT, I've made it a point over the years
to get GPS terrain readouts when flying over numerous accident sites. One thing that is for sure, is that a big screen moving map could have easily changed the outcome. I very much welcome synthetic vision!

At the end of the day, I believe that once you're use to a panel, then
there will be lot's of time to scan. Just practice with the panel at home or in the hangar.

L.Adamson
 
Landing light

gasman said:
It would really help if people would just turn on their landing light. But people don't even turn them on near the airport!!

An airplane heading toward you is all but impossible to see.
Click to expand...

I have had to maneuver to avoid three pilots that were headed directly for me and 2 of them went past appearing to have not seen me at all. I use my landing lights now when entering (10 miles out) any controlled airspace as well as non controlled airports.

An RV6/7 has only approximately 2.5 square feet of material to view when looking head on. This is easy to not see on a out the window scan.

Landing lights are your best way to be spotted from a frontal view. Control tower staff request landing lights on when entering their airspace just so they, themselves can see your exact location. When entering a tower's airspace all the tower staff can see on a small plane like the RV is that mentioned 2.5 square feet. Landing lights ON can help prevent. Bulbs are cheap. Wig wag setups are best for frontal. Strobes are awesome too.
 
David Z said:
...One thing I like to do is to cruise 50' high/low. for example 4450'. That way the guy sneeking up at your 5 o'clock is going to pass below/above you. It's not fool proof by any means, but does help.
Click to expand...
I know more than a few people who do this. Thus, since more than one person does this, your risks are probably about the same as staying on the correct altitude.
 
David Z said:
One thing I like to do is to cruise 50' high/low. for example 4450'. That way the guy sneeking up at your 5 o'clock is going to pass below/above you. It's not fool proof by any means, but does help.
Click to expand...

I fly above 10,000' MSL. Less traffic.
 
L.Adamson said:
Original poster mentions the Mark 1 eyeball. From all of the CFIT accidents I've kept track over the years, it just looks like the Mark 1 eyeball isn't good enough.............even when the various pilots thought it would be.

Since I do have this thing about CFIT, I've made it a point over the years
to get GPS terrain readouts when flying over numerous accident sites. One thing that is for sure, is that a big screen moving map could have easily changed the outcome. I very much welcome synthetic vision!

At the end of the day, I believe that once you're use to a panel, then
there will be lot's of time to scan. Just practice with the panel at home or in the hangar.

L.Adamson
Click to expand...

While terrain depictions and synthetic vision can definitely help, there's no substitute for plain old situational awareness. I lost a good friend in this one. Two very experienced pilots with state of the art equipment.:confused:
 
More comments

Of note on the 4 accidents that have occurred here in Alaska over the last two years. 2 were while aircraft were maneuvering to take off or land (very low level). The other 2 occurred in cruise flight at altitudes below 3,000 feet. The inspector pointed out that as expected an aircraft coming at you presents its smallest cross section (makes sense). You must keep your eyes moving to have the best chance of picking up the target.

On Sunday afternoon I was landing at Merrill Field following a Cessna 172. The aircraft was naturally mostly white and we still have a lot of snow on the background. Now even though this airplane had overtaken and passed me about 6 miles out I could not seen him ahead of me on descent. I was in trail about ? miles behind and above. The only way I could pick him up in my scan was to find his shadow on the ground.

As to the shadow trick this saved me once when I was landing a rented plane at Aurora Airport in Oregon (yep, Vans home port). I had announced on the Unicom my position and intentions throughout the approach. I was on final less than a quarter mile out and when I looked down I saw 2 shadows! By skidding the plane I was able to spot the other aircraft (an Archer above me), I was in a 172?we were in each others blind spots?but the Archer wasn?t on the radio?I peeled off and came back around and landed?I talked with the other pilot later?he did not have a good excuse.

On the point of how many times has one maneuvered to avoid collision I can recall 4. In each case the other plane never changed course?
 
rocketbob said:
EFIS's typically seen in experimental aircraft are designed by engineers and it shows. Way too much data being displayed. Some of them are downright horrible.
Click to expand...

I recently installed a Trutrak EFIS, largely for this reason. It displays the basic data in a simple format that's very easy to read at a glance, which allows for more heads-up time. Doesn't have all the bells and whistles of other models, so can't become a distraction.
 
longranger said:
While terrain depictions and synthetic vision can definitely help, there's no substitute for plain old situational awareness. I lost a good friend in this one. Two very experienced pilots with state of the art equipment.:confused:
Click to expand...

Sorry about your friend. I've also lost two friends & a number of acquaintances in CFIT (controlled flight into terrain) accidents.

Whenever I push my quest for advanced electronic navigation, such as moving map GPS & synthetic vision, I'm usually hit with two specific thoughts on the subject. One is the presentation of "Children of the magenta line", and the other is the flight into terrain accident out of Las Vegas, which your NTSB report links to.

"Children of the magenta line" was a presentation from American Airlines, which followed an AA 757 crash into rising terrain......1995, Columbia South America. The speaker talks about not falling into the trap of relying too much on the electronic navigation system. CFI's who are stuck on the principals VOR navigation are always throwing this one in my face. Trouble is, this presentation was done two years after the Columbia crash. Since then, the art situational awareness, thanks to GPS with terrain features has risen by leaps and bounds. While the AA 757 crew had lost the awareness of where they really were, they also got a very short warning in regards to the rising terrain. A modern "handheld" GPS, such as my Garmin 696 would have shown the complete "big picture", of where they were, where they'd been, and plenty of warning of what's up ahead. In other words, "Children of the magenta line" has no bearing, in regards to modern GPS equipment.

As to the Las Vegas area crash, I can refer to this video.
We don't know if the terrain page was turned on. The PIC was trained to use the Garmin 1000, while the co-pilot was not. The Civil Air Patrol has now changed their policy, which requires both pilots to be trained & certified in the use of the Garmin 1000....in order to sit in the front seats. What is for sure, is that the terrain page would have clearly shown the danger that was ahead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-iSc0jM__c&feature=endscreen&NR=1

Having plain old situational awareness sounds good. But, for a host of reasons, pilots have lost it. Even for just a few seconds, which makes the difference between staying alive and not. I've researched far too many of these CFIT situations.............and in almost every case, a back up of "instant" situational awareness (the big picture) , especially synthetic vision will save the day. Since we've now got it, lets use it!

L.Adamson
 
DAGO said:
Also factor in the altimeter calibration and installation errors of both alitimeters. By flying off altitude you may be creating more of a collision risk than you think! Part of the design philosophy incorporated into the hemispheric altitude rules were to make allowances for the above variables. JMHO.
Click to expand...

I picture it as a scatter plot centered around the cruising altitudes. Some airplanes are slightly high, some are slightly low. There's also the pilot's ability to hold altitude. I believe, if you average it out, there is the most traffic right on the altitude. The farther away from the set altitudes the better. So 3000, 3500, 4000, 4500, 5000, etc are the worst. I also want to be close to an appropiate altitude, so 50' low/high seems like a good balance to me.

If there's so many people using 50', maybe I'll use 75' :D
 
Deviation from alt

If deviating your altitude, it makes sense, to me, as follows:

high wing aircraft deviate to the HIGH side.

Low wing aircraft deviate to the LOW side.

Traffic patterns is where this makes the most sense, to me, for visibility reasons.

RV aircraft have excellent visibility, except below.
 
Last edited:
The narrator's tips for avoiding CFIT....
1. Avoid GPS DCT routings in mountainous terrain, over water, unlandable terrain........
2. Have at least one display on terrain.

No mention about having the appropriate charts for your flight, and knowing where you are by using whatever means possible, inclusive of looking out the window or using navaids such as VOR's.
This video clearly demonstrates what I and many others have been citing. Sole dependance on EFIS, with no regard for basic airmanship skills.
 
David Z said:
I picture it as a scatter plot centered around the cruising altitudes. Some airplanes are slightly high, some are slightly low. There's also the pilot's ability to hold altitude. I believe, if you average it out, there is the most traffic right on the altitude. The farther away from the set altitudes the better. So 3000, 3500, 4000, 4500, 5000, etc are the worst. I also want to be close to an appropiate altitude, so 50' low/high seems like a good balance to me.

If there's so many people using 50', maybe I'll use 75' :D
Click to expand...

Maybe we should all fly at random altitudes? :)
 
I knew I should have painted mine bright orange and covered the entire plane in high powered LED's that flash like a ufo. I do have that spare alternator pad...hmmmm. I am going to have to scrap my 50' low idea, as too many will be doing it now.

Back to reality and original post. Now that I am getting more comfortable with the EFIS, I am going to be making myself look outside more. I am glad I did my test flying in the winter(what little we had). There was definitely less traffic. Be safe and have fun this summer.
 
Lights Can Make You Stealthy

More lights on your airplane is not the answer. If the other guy is heads down on his EFIS you could have a billion lumens and he's not going to see you. Also, Google "Yahootie Project" to see how lights can actually reduce your visual signature during the day because of what's called the "isoluminous" principle.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top