Autopilot for flying in IMC

An auto pilot is simply another tool in the box. Not a necessity but nice to have when used properly. Kinda handy to have when you are setting up the radios, navs and such but not something I want to have to depend on.
 
Single pilot?:D

taters said:
Brought 66 folks into stl tonight (Nasty storms plus a go -around btw ) guess what was MEL/Deferred the Autopilot...rare MEL,but it does happen.

I'm all for staying proficient in hand flying (and hand fly all the time ) but to say you are safer with an autopilot in IFR is not a big enough statement..when you are in a high workload situation they are an available resource that can benefit you in spades. Moreover they can make flights far more comfortable.

When I instruct folks in GA planes with modern autopilots. I'm sometimes taken back at the lack of proficiency and understanding some have of the Autopilot/FD and their various modes . Autopilot proficiency is a real skill to keep sharp too.;)
Click to expand...
 
Why, some VFR only pilots know that the autopilot is for cruising in IMC....:hairraise:
 
DavidWhite said:
IFH, section 10-23. Sounds to me like the pilot should be doing pilot stuff not autopilot stuff.
Click to expand...

Maybe all it is saying is to turn off altitude hold and select pitch hold? It is a considerable improvement in strong up-and-down drafts with the Altimatic IIIc to do it that way.
 
EdFred said:
Workload is a relative term. 100% of my IMC hours are without an autopilot. Trim the plane right and the workload...well...there isn't one.
Click to expand...

Some planes are easier to trim and more stable when trimmed than others.
 
peppy said:
Some planes are easier to trim and more stable when trimmed than others.
Click to expand...

I won't disagree with that. I can get my plane trimmed in pitch rather easily, and my "aileron trim" is handled by varying the fuel draw from the tip tanks, so the workload is not even present.
 
The most common reason that I end up not signing someone off for an IPC is because they completely fall apart doing one of the approaches without their autopilot.

Now that I think about it.. The only IPC(s) I haven't signed off, and have asked them to come back for more training, were pilots that brought airplanes equipped with autopilots. Probably more of an anomaly then anything of meaning.
 
jesse said:
The most common reason that I end up not signing someone off for an IPC is because they completely fall apart doing one of the approaches without their autopilot.

Now that I think about it.. The only IPC(s) I haven't signed off, and have asked them to come back for more training, were pilots that brought airplanes equipped with autopilots. Probably more of an anomaly then anything of meaning.
Click to expand...


I did all of my IFR training without the AP, (OK the last 30 minutes)...

But if you are going into an IPC, the assumption is that you need proficiency right? Why would someone go into that assuming the AP was going to bail them out of everything?
 
ja_user said:
I did all of my IFR training without the AP, (OK the last 30 minutes)...

But if you are going into an IPC, the assumption is that you need proficiency right? Why would someone go into that assuming the AP was going to bail them out of everything?
Click to expand...

...or assume it is going to work all the time.
 
EdFred said:
...or assume it is going to work all the time.
Click to expand...

True but some people are so afraid of AP failure that they don't adequately use the AP to get them out of trouble. Since I look closely at Cirrus accidents I see more accidents where better knowledge of the capabilities available would have saved them than I do AP overuse and AP failure.

When I transitioned to the SR22 I was a VFR only pilot. The first day the instructor asked what I would do as a VFR pilot if I got into clouds. I said turn around and he said "No." He said to sync the heading bug, hit HDG and ALT and then rotate the heading bug to make the turn.

A friend with a Bonanza was at a BPPP and was hand flying approaches. The instructor asked him to do one coupled. He said "I assumed you would want to make sure I can hand fly them." The instructor replied that the more common case was the Bonanza pilot who was dismissive of the AP and therefore lacked competency. He went on to say that when you are getting stressed, using the AP lets you get a handle on things but you have to fully understand the systems.

There is an old American Airlines training video that is great. It discusses that it isn't automation vs. no automation but rather adapting so that you use the correct amount of automation for the situation. An example might be delaying a complex FMS edit and first putting the plane in heading mode to get going in the general direction and relieve the stress of having to flawlessly do a complex edit in a few seconds.
 
On my instrument checkride, I had come out of doing unusual attitudes to find the gyros covered. We launched into the partial panel approach and the examiner asked if my autopilot would continue to work with the gyros dead. I said it would and he suggested I might try letting the autopilot fly so I did. Long about the time we got to the FAC, being a really gusty day, he suggested I could probably hand fly it better than the autopilot was doing, so I went back and finished that.

There's a hold on the DP (clinb in hold to 4000" or whatever) at the airport I did my ride so I set the autopilot for the hold so I could get all the other stuff cleaned up.
 
peppy said:
True but some people are so afraid of AP failure that they don't adequately use the AP to get them out of trouble. Since I look closely at Cirrus accidents I see more accidents where better knowledge of the capabilities available would have saved them than I do AP overuse and AP failure.

When I transitioned to the SR22 I was a VFR only pilot. The first day the instructor asked what I would do as a VFR pilot if I got into clouds. I said turn around and he said "No." He said to sync the heading bug, hit HDG and ALT and then rotate the heading bug to make the turn.

A friend with a Bonanza was at a BPPP and was hand flying approaches. The instructor asked him to do one coupled. He said "I assumed you would want to make sure I can hand fly them." The instructor replied that the more common case was the Bonanza pilot who was dismissive of the AP and therefore lacked competency. He went on to say that when you are getting stressed, using the AP lets you get a handle on things but you have to fully understand the systems.

There is an old American Airlines training video that is great. It discusses that it isn't automation vs. no automation but rather adapting so that you use the correct amount of automation for the situation. An example might be delaying a complex FMS edit and first putting the plane in heading mode to get going in the general direction and relieve the stress of having to flawlessly do a complex edit in a few seconds.
Click to expand...

Which is what I do when I get a lengthy amended clearance. Rather than try and get everything put into the box, I will ask ATC what an initial heading will be if the amended clearance is from my present position.
 
The need to be smarter than what you're working with extends to all of the equipment, not just some of it.

EdFred said:
...or assume it is going to work all the time.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
The 91 vs 135 argument shouldn't be a factor. I've flown the same plane on both corporate and charter trips and didn't want to avoid a crash under one FAR more than the other, since I assumed it would hurt about the same both ways.

Training centers require pilots to demonstrate autopilot proficiency, a part of which is a coupled approach to minimums followed by a missed approach. The FAA is instrumental in designing and approving the required curriculum, so the agency's opinion on the issue should be apparent.
Click to expand...

It does give an idea of the FAA's view though

But I am with most of the others, nice to have, very nice if you have GPSS, altitude preselect and the like. I also feel that an electric rate based system can serve well in the event of a vacuum failure.

But to consider it a no-go item? I would only do that for very long trips myself, and then only for relief from fatigue.
 
AP's aren't no-go items now, probably won't be. Whether they should be or not is another story. Collins did the research and presented evidence that the risk without AP is 2x. I'd say the CFII pilot who is teaching every day is probably less likely to need the help than most of the pilots for whom he's providing IPC/FR checks.

But my job for many years has been to sit in the back and evaluate pilot performance in full-motion sims. If just one little thing goes wrong (and it's ususally something they do rather than something I do) or if the pilot is under any unexpected pressure, the need for some help quickly becomes evident.

Skylane81E said:
It does give an idea of the FAA's view though

But I am with most of the others, nice to have, very nice if you have GPSS, altitude preselect and the like. I also feel that an electric rate based system can serve well in the event of a vacuum failure.

But to consider it a no-go item? I would only do that for very long trips myself, and then only for relief from fatigue.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
The need to be smarter than what you're working with extends to all of the equipment, not just some of it.
Click to expand...

I agree, but the guys that say hand flying IMC is too dangerous, too taxing, too much, or a workload probably shouldn't be up in the air. Because when, not if, but when something goes wrong with the AP, I would bet dollars to doughnuts, those guys have waaaaaaaay more problems than someone who flies sans autopilot. Automation is a nurturer for complacency.
 
depends on the airplane.

My cherokee 140 was a reasonably stable airplane that wasn't fast enough to get away from even me.

After a couple of 4 hours flights in IMC, I added a single-axis autopilot to the airplane. Nice to have, but not absolutely necessary for IFR flying in my Cherokee 140.
 
It's clearly a balance as AA learned in Cali. Pilots should fly first and push buttons second, but that presupposes that the pilot has a sufficient number of available fingers and brain cells to do. For the "just flying along in non-icy winter clouds at 6,000" I don't think an autopilot is a necessity, but thinking that it's a stress-free environment for a long flight is foolish.

It becomes easier to understand after flying as part of a crew and then reverting to single-pilot ops. Once you understand when, why and how everything needs to be done, and have two people to accomplish it on a timely basis, you gain a deeper appreciation for the tasks facing a pilot with nobody else to help. Can a single pilot get them all done? Sure, I did it every week for almost 30 years. Does an autopilot make it orders-of-magnitude easier? Is a frog's ass water-tight?

The bottom line is that most pilots are under-trained and lacking in proficiency. Since there's no way to force them to maintain or improve their skills (and anybody who thinks the 6x6 BS is effective needs a check-up from the neck up) the next-best option is to provide them with some help. An autopilot or another crew-member are the best options, but only one is a realistic answer.

EdFred said:
I agree, but the guys that say hand flying IMC is too dangerous, too taxing, too much, or a workload probably shouldn't be up in the air. Because when, not if, but when something goes wrong with the AP, I would bet dollars to doughnuts, those guys have waaaaaaaay more problems than someone who flies sans autopilot. Automation is a nurturer for complacency.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
jesse said:
The most common reason that I end up not signing someone off for an IPC is because they completely fall apart doing one of the approaches without their autopilot.

Now that I think about it.. The only IPC(s) I haven't signed off, and have asked them to come back for more training, were pilots that brought airplanes equipped with autopilots. Probably more of an anomaly then anything of meaning.
Click to expand...

Not me, but another instructor I know flew with a Cirrus pilot who tried to use his autopilot IN THE VFR PATTERN.
 
The autopilot is a tool to be used if installed.

If the autopilot is USED as a tool, that is good.

If the autopilot is used as a CRUTCH, then more training is warranted.

That is the bottom line, guys. (And gals. :yes::) )
 
Sigh. The bottom line. I was going to add to this discussion, but... the bottom line has already been declared. Oh well.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
The autopilot is a tool to be used if installed.

If the autopilot is USED as a tool, that is good.

If the autopilot is used as a CRUTCH, then more training is warranted.

That is the bottom line, guys. (And gals. :yes::) )
Click to expand...

This is PoA, there is never a bottom line. Even though I agree with what you said, I'm going to disagree because it's, well, PoA.
 
A mention was made of the pt 135 regs. Without a properly operating autopilot, the 135 regs require two pilots. The waiver for SPIFR is contingent on a properly operating autopilot.

That said, I agree with the sentiment that an autopilot is a useful tool, but not a show-stopper.

Early on in my IFR time, I was kind of lax in my scan, causing the need for larger corrections and a general zig zag roller coaster type of ride. The autopilot was a real help at that time, but the better rides came after I bought a plane that had a deathtrap for an autopilot, and therefore pretty much useless. Flew quite a bit without one in all weather and perfected the scan a bit better.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
The autopilot is a tool to be used if installed.

If the autopilot is USED as a tool, that is good.

If the autopilot is used as a CRUTCH, then more training is warranted.

That is the bottom line, guys. (And gals. :yes::) )
Click to expand...

In your definition what delineates crutch vs tool?
 
Jaybird180 said:
In your definition what delineates crutch vs tool?
Click to expand...

If I am using the autopilot to more effectively manage teh flight, it is a tool.

If I am using it to compensate for my lack of proficiency, etcetera, it is a crutch.
 
EdFred said:
"I won't make the flight w/o a working AP" = crutch.

"I'll make the flight even if the AP is INOP" = tool.
Click to expand...

Well, a "One size fits all" doesn't always work.

That wouldn't be MY definition, but it isn't TOO far off.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
If I am using the autopilot to more effectively manage teh flight, it is a tool.

If I am using it to compensate for my lack of proficiency, etcetera, it is a crutch.
Click to expand...

Show me a pilot that will cop to lack of proficiency and I'll show you a month without NTSB reports.

Not buying...:no:
 
I CAN fly in IMC with no autopilot, just like I CAN land with one prop feathered and I CAN crank the gear down by hand instead of using the motor. But I don't routinely do any of hose things.
 
All this technology crap IS a crutch for those chicken weeny pilots lacking basic skills.

When I cross the rockies, the great lakes, or the atlantic in a 172 at night in IFR conditions all I need is needle, ball, and airspeed. There are times in freezing rain, extreme turbulence, or crossing squall lines that a little more power would help, but it's not that big of a deal.

I consider a cold beer more critical to fight than any of this 6 pack, GPS, autopilot stuff and it's a lot cheaper too.
 
If you have an autopilot and especially one with approach functionally ...try autopilot on approach to landing stalls ....with your cfi ..I always do these on ipc s and the recovery is worth practising
 
I fly a G1000 with a GFC700 autopilot and I confess that it doesn't take long for me to lose proficiency in using it for coupled approaches. I have disconnected more times than I can count during climbout and approaches because I had doubts about what the damn thing was doing (always my own fault for not setting up properly). So I guess I'm going to fall into the camp that agrees and disagrees with everything posted in this thread so far. With the kind of complexity in the G1000/GFC700 that I fly, it's a challenge to remain proficient and requires constant practice. The flip side is that pushing the disconnect switch often and in all flight conditions is just as important to practice.

As for the FAA's ultimate position on the issue, consider this: a CatIII approach and landing is only authorized with an autoland or HUD system. It is not permissible to be flown by hand except with HUD.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
If I am using the autopilot to more effectively manage teh flight, it is a tool.

If I am using it to compensate for my lack of proficiency, etcetera, it is a crutch.
Click to expand...

And how do you identify the difference if you frequently use the autopilot? If a pilot uses an autopilot to alleviate workload on a regular basis, it is going to become a crutch--there's no way around it. Practice makes perfect.

My wife is an instrument pilot, so I never fly single pilot IFR, and for that reason have never been able to justify the cost of an autopilot. If I flew single-pilot IFR on a regular basis, or had to go in any weather, it would be hard to argue that an autopilot wouldn't materially improve safety of flight.


JKG
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Just what exactly aren't you buying?
Click to expand...

Respectfully Sir, I don't buy the tool vs crutch argument. Sounds good on the surface, but there's exists a self-analysis bias that interferes with good judgement of the two. Moreover, One man's tool IS another man's crutch.
 
Yep, love these discussions. Those 121 guys better turn off their Cat 1 equipment now! Nothing but hand flying around here!
 
Marauder said:
Yep, love these discussions. Those 121 guys better turn off their Cat 1 equipment now! Nothing but hand flying around here!
Click to expand...

Hey, it's hard to read the newspaper when you've got to hand fly it!
 
No one should "need" an autopilot to fly IFR, but having and being proficient with an autopilot makes single-pilot IFR operations safer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top