It actually happened today!! Vacuum failure in IMC.
skym
IMC and about 6500 MSL the DG started to slowly just start rotating and
the AI started to lean over. Backup vacuum-no help. I couldn't
believe this was happening in IMC; I only fly it about 5% of the time.
Columbia was just a bit above minimums. I was not prepared to try an
ILS with no operative DG, and most of the GPS approaches at CAE want a
WAAS capable GPS, which my G430 isn't.
Bit the bullet and dialed 7700 and declared an emergency. Asheville
approach offered a no-gyro radar directed approach back into AV which I
declined, since the mountainous terrain was not an attractive option in
this situation, at least to me (even though I live in Montana). They
gave me vectors to Charlotte, at my request, since it had similar
weather, but friendlier terrain. As I was descended into CLT I saw a
huge hole and an airport just below. Told CLT approach I saw an
airport and could descend visually to it, and since I seem to have read
somewhere that it is best just to get on the ground ASAP in this type
of situation, said that I just wanted to land there. They gave me the
name and ID of the airport (Shelby NC), and I landed without incident.
Lessons learned:
1. Keep up on your partial panel skills. Do not underestimate the
utility of the turn coordinator (or needle/ball).
2. Carry something to cover the failed instruments; they will distract
you. (Fortunately, I had covers.)
3. An STEC A/P which runs on the TC, rather than the vacuum
instruments, is the way to go.
4. If you have a good a/p and coupled GPS, they can fill in very well.
5. Don't be afraid to declare an emergency, and accept their help.
ATC at CAE, Greer (sp?) approach, and CLT approach were ultra
professional and very helpful.
I'm not a highly experienced instr pilot, but stuck with what I've been
trained to do, kept cool (I hope/think), and "dealt with it". :)
Now, for the paperwork. :(
Matt Whiting
That is the way to handle it.
> Now, for the paperwork. :(
You messed your pants? :-)
Matt
Nathan Young
>Departed Asheville NC today into IMC enroute to Columbia SC. Well into
>IMC and about 6500 MSL the DG started to slowly just start rotating and
>the AI started to lean over. Backup vacuum-no help.
Good job on keeping it right side up and getting it down safely.
Once the mechanic has looked it over, let us know the cause of the
failure.
jay somerset
You said that the backup vacuum was no help -- please elaborate. Was
it inop, or was there not enough vaccum to spin the DG and AI back up?
Did you reduce the throttle setting to increase the engine vacuum?
Lots of us have an alternate vacumm system installed, and would like
some insight into why yours did not help you out.
J.
Doug
don't even do them unless I have practiced them. Find VFR and land
there, that is the best option and you did it. Congrats.
Victor J. Osborne, Jr.
attitude is added to the mix.
I would add to the lessons:
BU vacuum is only as good as the last time you tested it. You do test it,
right?
Obviously, if the instrument (dg/AI ) failed, having a BU air is useless.
That's why I'm looking at the Mid-Continent Sporty's electric AI replacement
T/C.
Pay the bucks to get the idiot lights added to the panel, if you don't have
them. I have red lights for low pressure/vacuum, voltage, etc. Nice to
have.
> 3. An STEC A/P which runs on the TC, rather than the vacuum
> instruments, is the way to go.
> 4. If you have a good a/p and coupled GPS, they can fill in very well.
Keep in mind that even George w/ bail on you if the vacuum/pressure goes.
(S-Tec aside)
Point for my research: As the KFC200 AP serves as a wing leveler in FD
(flight director) mode. Does it (FD) still work when the A/I fails (as it
is air) or does the AP automatically disconnect?
> most of the GPS approaches at CAE want a
> WAAS capable GPS, which my G430 isn't.
What? This I did not know. I need to check this out. (Have 530, no WAAS,
waiting like everyone else)
--
Thx Again, {|;-)
Victor J. (Jim) Osborne, Jr.
"skym" <skym...@att.net> wrote in message
news:1128644781....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Greg Farris
j...@no-fixed-abode.com says...
>
>You said that the backup vacuum was no help -- please elaborate. Was
>it inop, or was there not enough vaccum to spin the DG and AI back up?
>Did you reduce the throttle setting to increase the engine vacuum?
>
>Lots of us have an alternate vacumm system installed, and would like
>some insight into why yours did not help you out.
>
I'm curious about that too. Like to know why that was a non-starter,
before taking comfort in something that's not going to help when you need
it.
Otherwise - congrats. I'd have been scared - like to think I would have
had your presence of mind.
G Faris
Thomas Borchert
Well done!
> Now, for the paperwork. :(
>
What paperwork??? Don't tell me you still believe in that myth about
paperwork having to be filled out after declaring an emergency. I
wondered about your phrase "bit the bullett", too. There's nothing to
bite. Just declare away!
--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
skym
that I had just taken off and had 4 hrs of fuel on board.
Barry
> WAAS capable GPS, which my G430 isn't.
All four of the RNAV (GPS) approaches at CAE are flyable without WAAS. Having
WAAS would provide an electronic glideslope and allow you to use the lower
LNAV/VNAV or LPV minimums (which are all higher than the ILS minimums).
However, your choices to divert to someplace closer, and then land visually
when you had the chance, definitely seem to me like the right way to go in
this situation.
Barry
Dave Butler
> Departed Asheville NC today into IMC enroute to Columbia SC. Well into
> IMC and about 6500 MSL the DG started to slowly just start rotating and
> the AI started to lean over. Backup vacuum-no help.
As others have already said, I'd appreciate some elaboration on why your backup
vacuum was no help.
> I couldn't
> believe this was happening in IMC; I only fly it about 5% of the time.
> Columbia was just a bit above minimums. I was not prepared to try an
> ILS with no operative DG, and most of the GPS approaches at CAE want a
> WAAS capable GPS, which my G430 isn't.
Putting aside the anthropomorphism implied by approaches "wanting" a WAAS
capable GPS, I'd like to understand how this figured into your planning. All the
RNAV approaches at CAE have LNAV MDAs, so could be flown with your GPS. Why was
the lack of WAAS a consideration?
Second, I'd like to understand in what way you felt prepared to fly an RNAV
approach without a DG, but not an ILS approach. I'd think the workload is about
the same. Do you think having vertical guidance would be a distraction?
Congratulations are in order for handling your emergency safely and competently!
Dave
Robert M. Gary
Didn't ATC already have a positive ID on you before you changed the
transponder code?
-Robert, CFI
Scott Moore
> 3. An STEC A/P which runs on the TC, rather than the vacuum
> instruments, is the way to go.
I agree, the STEC even has a separate altimeter (actually a
differential pressure transducer) with its on dual air inlet
placed midsection.
One question: was the A/P engaged during the AI fail ? Do you
think that would have made a big difference in keeping the
aircraft under control ?
If it wasn't engaged, did you engage it immediately ? Did you
wait to get the aircraft under control with the T&B before
engaging it ?
Thank you, and congatulations on your sucessful handling of
the situation.
Andrew Gideon
> I'm curious about that too.
As am I. And which type of backup is it that didn't work for you?
- Andrew
Andrew Gideon
> That's why I'm looking at the Mid-Continent Sporty's electric AI
> replacement T/C.
And what will you do if that AI tumbles for some reason in IMC? That's been
my big concern about replacing the TC with an AI, and the relevent AC
doesn't even refer to that particular vulnerability.
Are there tumble-free AIs?
BTW, the Sporty's unit is not the Mid-continental; it's a Castle-something
(IIRC). The Mid-continental is more expensive than the Sporty's.
[...]
> Keep in mind that even George w/ bail on you if the vacuum/pressure goes.
> (S-Tec aside)
If George is, like most (all?) S-Tec units, rate-based then it'll survive a
vacuum failure in NAV mode. HDG mode, of course, will be unavailable
(unless you want to circle with the DG {8^).
Or is my understanding incorrect?
- Andrew
Andrew Gideon
> Second, I'd like to understand in what way you felt prepared to fly an
> RNAV approach without a DG, but not an ILS approach. I'd think the
> workload is about the same. Do you think having vertical guidance would be
> a distraction?
>
For that matter, the 430/530 has the ability to display track. That's even
better than heading for approach purposes.
[In fact, it's easy to become *too* dependent upon track, desired track, and
x-track error.]
- Andrew
skym
the name. However, it is an electric pump, not the Precise Flight
model that draws off the manifold (or whatever), and is not dependent
on the throttle. They are still looking at things, and believe that a
shuttle valve either stuck or that something may have somehow gotten
sucked into the plumbing. The backup pump is, itself, working. I 'll
let this answer some of the other queries about what happened, until I
know more.
skym
I'll use this to answer both you and Barry, since you have both raisede
the WASS question, but you have a second one.
The rnavs 5,11, 23, and 29 at CAE have an entry that is "LNAV/VNAV".
I'm new to the panel GPS, having just gotten it about a month before
this trip so, although I have flown the approaches when familiarizing
myself with it, I had not thoroughly studied the GPS approach plates.
Before I left AVL, I'd looked at the plates and saw those notations,
and didn't look further. They require WAAS. I now (for the first
time) see that there are also simply LNAV approaches. I'm more
familiar with ILS than GPS approaches (obviously), and planned on an
ILS approach anyway, so hadn't really studied the GPS approach plates.
As for flying the GPS rather than the ILS into CLT, I've been so
indoctrinated into flying headings rather than "chasing the needle" on
an ILS that I had to rule that out. Although I was wrong about the
need for WAAS, I believed that I had no choice at that point-I'd do the
best I could with the GPS approach. The ceilings and vis were better
at CLT than at CAE (which was close to minimums) so it was less of a
risk (in my mind) to do the GPS approach at CLT even though I wasn't
(erroneously) properly equipped with WAAS.
skym
the xpdr when we declare an emergency. I was in controlled airspace.
Does that make a difference?
Mark Hansen
You only need to do that if you need to get someone's attention.
If you're in radio communications already, all you need to do is
declare it. There is no *requirement* to change your xponder code.
--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA
Newps
problem is, no need to change the transponder. Doesn't matter what
airspace you are in.
skym
skym
seem weird, but the whole thing was so unexpected (naturally), that I
just focused on acting and my memory is . If it was on, the a/p would
have been on nav mode rather than hdg mode since I had been given a
clearance to a VOR, "then as filed", so I would have dialed in the VOR
freq and set the a/p to it.
Eventually, after getting some no-gyro vectors using the t/c and timed
turns on the compass, and alt instructions, I set up the GPS to CLT and
set the a/p to it. At that point I began to breathe easier.
T...@backhome.org
skym wrote:
> Thanks to both. Didn't know that. Hope I don't ever need it again!!
You did nothing wrong by squawking 7700. Better to error on the
conservative side, and that is what you did.
Also, the 7700 squawk really wakes up the system to work in your behalf.
;-)
A Lieberman
> Also, the 7700 squawk really wakes up the system to work in your behalf.
> ;-)
This is an understatement. 7700 will light up ATC systems.
The one time I squawked 7700 on an in-flight cylinder failure to L31
(Covington-St Tamminy LA), I contacted 121.5 and squawked 7700.
Once I got transferred to New Orleans apporach, they couldn't give me a
standard squawk code to change to fast enough.
As others said, no fuss no muss afterwards. All New Orleans approach asked
for of me was to contact FSS to advise I was safe on the ground. Never
heard a thing afterwards.
I shared my experiences with rec.aviation.student. Original post can be
found at
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.student/browse_frm/thread/cf4a76ccc3724728?tvc=1
Allen
David Cartwright
> It is my understanding that 7700 is what we are supposed to dial into
> the xpdr when we declare an emergency. I was in controlled airspace.
> Does that make a difference?
Yes - it lights you up distinctly (a different colour, I believe) on the
radar screen. So although the controller would see you no matter what code
you were transmitting, if you switch to an emergency code (7700, 7600, 7500,
etc) the equipment makes you more prominent and so lightens his workload a
little.
D.
Newps
That's funny. Completely wrong, but funny.
Barry
> indoctrinated into flying headings rather than "chasing the needle" on
> an ILS that I had to rule that out.
I agree with flying a GPS approach instead of an ILS when partial panel - it's
much easier to fly because the needle doesn't get more and more sensitive as
you continue. Another factor to consider is that with only the magnetic
compass it's easier to hold an east or west heading than north or south. So,
for example, at CAE, I'd ask for the GPS 11 or 29 instead of 5 or 23.
Barry
Matt Whiting
> On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 18:12:28 -0700, T...@Backhome.org wrote:
>
>
>>Also, the 7700 squawk really wakes up the system to work in your behalf.
>>;-)
>
>
> This is an understatement. 7700 will light up ATC systems.
But if you are already squawking and talking, what is the point of using
7700?
Matt
Matt Whiting
I'd fly an ILS over a GPS any day if I was PP. I WOULD use the GPS to
give me a better indication of the heading as opposed to the compass,
but why give up the lower minimums and greater accuracy offered by an
ILS, especially when the chips are already down a little.
Matt
Barry
> me a better indication of the heading as opposed to the compass, but why
> give up the lower minimums and greater accuracy offered by an ILS,
Because the GPS approach is easier to fly - less chance of going to full-scale
deflection.
A Lieberman
Matt,
In my case, I wasn't using flight following and was not talking to anybody.
I was moseying on down to L31 when the cylinder exhaust valve bit the dust.
I went to 121.5 and squawked 7700 simultaneously once I decided I had an
emergency in my hands so I could light up the ATC system just in case I had
to make an off airport landing.
Allen
Matt Whiting
If you aren't proficient enough to fly an ILS to minimums on partial
panel, then you probably shouldn't fly in IMC until you get some
refresher instruction. I don't know what GPS you use, but the old King
89B I use is a lot harder to set up for an approach than is the ILS. If
I was flying partial panel, I'd much rather twist in a frequency, ID and
be done, than have to pull up the airport from the active page, dial
down to the proper approach, load it up, and then be sure I remembered
to select OBS mode during vectors, then LEG more before the FAF, watch
all of the intermediate descent altitudes, etc. The ILS is just so much
simpler and it is more accurate to boot (I know, this is being changed).
I still don't consider GPS approaches to be progress over the good old
ILS and even VOR approaches. I realize the advantage of having
approaches at airports that had none before, and that is certainly a big
advantage. I just wish the engineers at King were pilots! I'm an
engineer, so I feel I can say this ... the KLN-89B definitely seems to
have been designed by an engineer and for an engineer, not by a pilot
and for a pilot.
I understand the new glass displays are much improved in user
friendliness, but I've yet to have the good fortune to fly behind one.
Matt
Andrew Gideon
That's not necessarily correct. How many step-downs are there vs. how many
can you keep in your head? Of course, there can be step-downs to the GS
intercept on an ILS, but none after that (when the localizer is getting
tight).
Personally, I find an ILS to be the easiest type of approach in general
because of its reduced workload. And since one can still cheat with the
GPS providing track and track error, it would be relatively easy to hold
the needle centered (easier still with a WAAS-capable unit, of course {8^).
- Andrew
John Doe
> Departed Asheville NC today into IMC enroute to Columbia SC. Well into
> IMC and about 6500 MSL the DG started to slowly just start rotating and
> believe this was happening in IMC; I only fly it about 5% of the time.
> Columbia was just a bit above minimums. I was not prepared to try an
> ILS with no operative DG, and most of the GPS approaches at CAE want a
> WAAS capable GPS, which my G430 isn't.
> approach offered a no-gyro radar directed approach back into AV which I
> declined, since the mountainous terrain was not an attractive option in
> this situation, at least to me (even though I live in Montana). They
> gave me vectors to Charlotte, at my request, since it had similar
> weather, but friendlier terrain. As I was descended into CLT I saw a
> huge hole and an airport just below. Told CLT approach I saw an
> airport and could descend visually to it, and since I seem to have read
> somewhere that it is best just to get on the ground ASAP in this type
> of situation, said that I just wanted to land there. They gave me the
> name and ID of the airport (Shelby NC), and I landed without incident.
> Lessons learned:
>
> 1. Keep up on your partial panel skills. Do not underestimate the
> utility of the turn coordinator (or needle/ball).
> 2. Carry something to cover the failed instruments; they will distract
> you. (Fortunately, I had covers.)
> 3. An STEC A/P which runs on the TC, rather than the vacuum
> instruments, is the way to go.
> 5. Don't be afraid to declare an emergency, and accept their help.
> ATC at CAE, Greer (sp?) approach, and CLT approach were ultra
> professional and very helpful.
>
> I'm not a highly experienced instr pilot, but stuck with what I've been
> trained to do, kept cool (I hope/think), and "dealt with it". :)
> Now, for the paperwork. :(
>
I've dialed 7700 atleast 10 times in the last 2400 hours of flying and after
you've done it once, it's becomes much less of a big deal.
Glad everything worked out for you.
Brad Zeigler
> after you've done it once, it's becomes much less of a big deal.
>
> Glad everything worked out for you.
You've had an emergency averaging once every 240 hours????
skym
with ILS, but opted to put all my nav info on the one instrument (GPS)
since I was already using it for course guidance. It seemed like it
would be easier at a time that I needed simplicity in my life, and just
as safe. On another occasion I might make a different decision.
However, I made the decision and deceided to stick with it.
Newps
John Doe wrote:
>
>
> I've dialed 7700 atleast 10 times in the last 2400 hours of flying and after
> you've done it once, it's becomes much less of a big deal.
You need a better mechanic.
Matt Whiting
Or a better pilot.
Matt
Victor J. Osborne, Jr.
I know the Mid-Co. is more money. I left out and simple OR. But that's
also why I'd like to get pireps on the two systems.
> Are there tumble-free AIs?
The Sporty's does have a cage button but I think having one could prevent a
tumble in the 1st place. BTW: My avionics shop says they add a toggle
switch for the unit so you don't have to use it all the time in VMC. Also,
they say the Mid-Cont. unit there most popular upgrade.
> If George is, like most (all?) S-Tec units, rate-based then it'll survive
> a
> vacuum failure in NAV mode. HDG mode, of course, will be unavailable
> (unless you want to circle with the DG {8^).
Yes, S-Tec's w/ function w/o vacuum/pressure. Big plus. My Bo' came w/ a
KFC-200, so I'm stuck w/ it until it dies (hopefully w/ ample warning)
Thx, {|;-)
Victor J. (Jim) Osborne, Jr.
"Andrew Gideon" <ag7...@gideon.org> wrote in message
news:1402334.s...@no.to.be.used.news.int.tagonline.com...