Is there the equivilant of a FD on the 172?

[Still Learning]

Or would that be seen as an impediment to the learning process?

Still Learning

[mallcott]

A Flight Director is part of a sophisticated flight management or autopilot system.

It is DEFINITELY an impediment to learning to fly. It is an aid to those who know how to fly well.

[AKar]

These are rarely seen in steam gauge GAs near the bottom of the food chain as the components of such systems are horrendously expensive, and typically a simple rate-based autopilot is more economical solution as it is more or less stand-alone.

Flight directors however are commonplace in glass cockpits, bolt-ons included, and there have been votes for paying more attention to them in IFR training. Especially in retrofits, their function may not be exactly intuitive: there is no technical limitation of using a separate rate-based autopilot and a glass screen with flight director function, but with the autopilot and FD not coupled together.

-Esa

[Oracle427]

I wouldn't exactly call these rare. I don't believe many of the manufacturers are selling analog cockpits these days. A lot of flight training is being done in glass cockpit aircraft with FDs.

From an absolute numbers point of view there are far more analog panel aircraft out there, but there isn't a flight school out here without at least one glass panel or all glass panel aircraft. Even the older analog ones have been upgraded to use Aspen panels with a FD. As you correctly note, the FD on those Aspens is not coupled to the autopilot. In many cases I've found the autopilot to be INOP.

Now given the focus on developing primary skills during flight training, all that technology is barely getting utilized. I learned on glass cockpit, but didn't really learn the intricacies of the system until after completing my private pilot and beginning my IFR training.

So don't pay attention to the FD. A good flight instructor will make it fail, a lot, along with your engine and a variety of other important components.

[AKar]

I was more after that good old analog ADIs with FD are rather rare in light GAs. Retrofits such as Aspen are bringing FDs into these as well. Aspens seem to be somewhat non-conventional technically, they appear to do stuff like using static pressure inputs for attitude display stabilization. If I recall they do drive compatible autopilots directly, and I think they output a common heading bug for older rate-based units as well. In cases, the interfacing is left undone, however.

-Esa

[Still Learning]

The thing that made me think of it - at all - was, the day before yesterday I had the good fortune to have a 2 hour lesson in a 737NG simulator. It wasn't full motion, so it didn't cost $15 million dollars either. But, it was just like being there.

At any rate - no pun intended - after he explained how to interpret the two displays on the EADI, that being one will show your wings relative to the horizon, and the other being the "crossbars" which constitute the FD.

What he said was, "I've set us up for a -700ft descent, so if you keep the black square in the middle of the "crossbars," you'll do fine." And I was, fine. I landed with a "thump," but on the return flight, with respect to my landing, he said - and I quote - "You greased it." The simulator he was running, to "drive" his simulator was X-Plane.

Apologies for the diversion. So, after that experience, it would have helped me out in the Cessna. I totally understand your points. And on one hand I agree with you. On the other hand, I look at it this way, When I first got into photography, I was taking a class, but the only camera in the house was a Pentax ME Super. A Film Camera. So, I messed with the controls, and the shots came out lousy. What's worse, I had to pay to get them developed, for lousy shots. How's that adding insult to injury? Then in October of 2001, I bought my very first Digital Camera. I used the "point and shoot" mode almost exclusively. When I turned in my first batch of photos for the instructor to look at she said, " Still Learning, I expect great things from you." Then in May 2015 I bought my current digital camera, the Olympus EM5-Mark II, and now I will only use manual mode.

So, you can progress out of your dependency on a given instrument as I have done with the autopilot. I don't think I've used it once since I bought the 172.

Sorry for the length of the post. We now return you to your local channels....

Still Learning

[mallcott]

The FD is an additional tool, requiring additional skills to use.

I use one a lot in glass cockpit aircraft, where as noted they are increasingly common, but have never missed one that isn't there in an analogue plane.

The sedate performance of the 172 precludes its requirement from a safety point of view and as your recent trip to the simulator showed, you have to know how to set one up.

I dont see how one would benefit you in the A2A 172, but in FSX there are tools that can paint animations on the screen to guide you in sight picture, take-off and landing development.

While you might not want to use the A2A craft in the Learning Center, it is an optimised simulator experience to teach you more about how to fly.

Finally, if you want a most useful additional instrument in the cockpit, the one to go for for ALL aircraft, whether sedate Cessnas or fast jet F16's is an AOA meter.