Auto Pilot and IFR

midcap

midcap

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Sep 19, 2015
Messages
1,513
Location
South Louisiana
Display Name
Display name:
midcap
How would you rate having an AP if you are doing IFR flying. I am just being curious. All the videos I watch make the AP seem invaluable while in IFR.
 
I really appreciate it while flying IFR and it greatly decreases fatigue on long trips but for me, it is a luxury. If it is in the airplane I am flying, that's a bonus.

I am unlikely to own an aircraft with an autopilot simply due to cost prohibiting it.
 
Joshuajayg said:
I really appreciate it while flying IFR and it greatly decreases fatigue on long trips but for me, it is a luxury. If it is in the airplane I am flying, that's a bonus.

I am unlikely to own an aircraft with an autopilot simply due to cost prohibiting it.
Click to expand...

the Mx on an AP system is expensive?
 
midcap said:
the Mx on an AP system is expensive?
Click to expand...
If something fails, yes. But my problem is finding an airplane I could afford to purchase with an autopilot already installed. I'm partial to older 182s and those with autopilots are usually around $80,000. Installing an autopilot in an aircraft that doesn't already have one is completely out of the question. Those suckers are 'spensive.
 
Last edited:
Having flown a lot of single-pilot single-engine IFR/IMC over decades, I consider a good A/P a very important item. Yes, I can fly without it, and have (grudgingly) done so when it was inop a few times, but it's not fun at all, esp. when flying hard IMC in busy airspace, getting constant re-routings and having to deal with weather and other distractions such as problematic pax or other inop items.
For me it's equivalent to having a co-pilot: I can fly without it, but feel safer and vastly more comfortable with it helping out.
But as a side note: I have never flown a coupled approach. I generally turn off the A/P well before the FAF since I don't trust automation close to the ground.
 
Joshuajayg said:
If something fails, yes. But my problem is finding an airplane I could afford to purchase with an autopilot already installed. I'm partial to older 182s and those with autopilots are usually around $80,000. Installing an autopilot in an aircraft that doesn't already have one is completely out of the question. Those suckers are 'spensive.
Click to expand...

that makes sense.
 
RotorDude said:
Having flown a lot of single-pilot single-engine IFR/IMC over decades, I consider a good A/P a very important item. Yes, I can fly without it, and have (grudgingly) done so when it was inop a few times, but it's not fun at all, esp. when flying hard IMC in busy airspace, getting constant re-routings and having to deal with weather and other distractions such as problematic pax or other inop items.
For me it's equivalent to having a co-pilot: I can fly without it, but feel safer and vastly more comfortable with it helping out.
But as a side note: I have never flown a coupled approach. I generally turn off the A/P well before the FAF since I don't trust automation close to the ground.
Click to expand...

That's the same idea I had about APs. I think hand flying at that point of the flight would also keep your skills sharp.
 
I'm on my third plane....cause the last one didn't have a worthy autopilot. It was that important for me. I'm forever spoiled. :D
 
An auto pilot for en route ops, for me, is a no-brainer regardless of the type of operation I'm conducting or whether I choose to use it or not. It's pretty much a sunk cost for whoever installed it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
In order to carry passengers single under IFR with a pilot trained and current to Part 135 standards, the airplane must have an autopilot. So I guess that, while certainly not a necessity for Part 91, it strikes me as a significant safety feature.

While I have certainly hand-flown a fair number of IFR flights without one, I definitely prefer one as a way of staying fresh for the heavier workload of an instrument approach on longer flights.
 
I rate it at a 0. Less than 1/10th of 1% of my flying has been with an autopilot and 0% of my flying has been with an autopilot while under IFR or in IMC. About 70% of my hours are XC and about 20% of that is IFR .

Then again I had a hard-ass CFII that made it so when I got my rating, flying IFR was no more difficult than flying VFR.
 
Flying with an A/P in IMC brings the workload down tremendously, but hand fly approaches in VMC for practice as much as I can stand.
 
I like my autopilot as it gives the a chance to take a break during long flights. But much as I love my autopilot, I'd give it up before I gave up my moving map.

If I'm practicing approaches, I invariably do each one twice. One by hand, one by autopilot. In low IFR is no time to be going "wtf is this thing doing now."
 
I consider it just short of critical. I don't need a fancy STec 55x, etc., but I want something that can at the very least keep the wings level/fly a heading.

Example: I'm in the process of buying a new (to me) airplane. While shopping, I initially wrote off a few because they lacked autopilots (and autopilot STCs for this model are nearly non-existence). But, I found that Brittain in Tulsa, OK will still sell me a very economical, and expandable, autopilot/wing leveler with an STC for this particular model airplane. So that opened some doors for me. In other words, I wouldn't buy a serious IFR travelling machine (which is what I want) without an autopilot or a clear path to one for cheap.
 
Love it in the Cirrus. I take alot of long trips and it's a huge help. I do IPC every 6 months and try to hand fly most of the IPC. But I always hand fly a little each trip. But well worth it
 
Like it a lot. SP IFR in busy airspace and bumps without one is a lot like work, and I like to fly for fun.
 
The OP needs to qualify what kind of "IFR flying" they're planning on doing. If the idea of an instrument rating and IFR flying is to just pop through a couple thousand foot cloud layer and drone around in VMC then come back down through the layer at their destination, then I'd say an autopilot is not a terribly important tool. On the other hand however, if the OP's idea of "IFR flying" is to fly for hours in solid IMC then do an approach to minimums at their destination, a good autopilot can be very valuable. Hand flying in IMC can be fatiguing after a while, and having an autopilot can help reduce the workload.

I'm pretty much of the same opinion as RotorDude. And, I also have never flown a coupled approach for the same reason he hasn't.
 
There are multiple flavors of autopilot. The 172SPs mostly have single-axis coupled autopilots. Some will just follow a heading bug. Some will hold altitude. Some will capture and hold an altitude. Some will only hold wings level. Some will follow a detailed course and altitude plan.

They all glitch occasionally, some more than others, so it is not a substitute for being proficient at hand flying. The first thing you do when something unexpected happens is hit the red button. The more complex ones will replace the hand flying effort with system management effort. And they ALL must be managed carefully. Automation surprises during an approach can be fatal, even with a fancy moving map. Sometimes those are self-induced, sometimes not.

Something a lot of local folks have noticed is that the GFC700s all like to "capture" one specific local ILS GS early (probably a reflection off terrain) and climb like mad 500 feet, then follow a normal GS path down to minimums.

I've also discovered that I can fly smoother than most of them (as can anyone else -- they just aren't very good at controlling roll without inducing the dutch roll mode even in a straight-wing single). In turbulence, passengers seem a whole lot happier when hand flying. And autopilots with alt hold really don't handle updrafts and downdrafts well -- the airspeed tends to get out of hand (either slow or fast), and the trim gets set to a bad place.

But yes, it reduces workload during cruise, if everything is lined up and working. But it's not a nap button. Hand flying for several hours in turbulence can be exhausting, but the autopilots have functional limitations that must be respected.
 
Don't understand the objection to coupled approaches. Your thumb is on the disconnect button and with the autopilot on you can monitor the approach just as if not more effectively. Then once nice and stabilized disconnect when getting low or after break out if you like.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I put almost 5000hrs. in a Jetstream 3200 with no autopilot. We flew in all kinds of weather from 200 and ½ to severe clear up to 7-8hrs. a day. Never thought a thing about it, but you never let your guard down even if the other pilot was flying. Did a bunch of single pilot IFR with no AP. That was worse. Flying with an AP, either IFR or VFR is a big time stress reliever both single and multi-pilot. Naturally, my hand flying skills were greatly diminished flying with an AP. I always tried, no matter the weather to hand fly on take off up and down to landing from cruise altitude.

Noah W
 
gsengle said:
Don't understand the objection to coupled approaches. Your thumb is on the disconnect button and with the autopilot on you can monitor the approach just as if not more effectively. Then once nice and stabilized disconnect when getting low or after break out if you like.
Click to expand...

Not sure about others, but the main reasons I never fly coupled approaches are:
1. Like anything mechanical, the A/P can break (or start misbehaving in either obvious or subtle ways) at any time (and has done so quite a few times over my years of flying). While enroute, there is plenty of time to recognize the problem and take over manually if needed, but near the ground, not so much. By the time you notice the problem, you might already be in the weeds or rocks.
2. Because I need to stay extra sharp on approaches, I fly all of them manually. Unlike enroute segments, approaches are short and quick, so there is no issue of fatigue, and your proficiency remains at peak, which is where I like mine to be.
3. Approaches are fun to fly (esp. to low minimums)!
 
16 years instrument rated and all my dual pilot RW and single pilot FW instrument flying has been without an AP. Just got used to flying it without it.

The aircraft I fly for work is VFR only but oddly enough has an AP. Nice to have for long XCs but it's made me lazy. :)
 
Personally, I wouldn't buy a traveling airplane without a working AP and I spend the money as needed to keep it working.

That said, I mix my flying and make sure I get enough time hand flying without the AP to be proficient and I do not consider it a mandatory requirement for IFR flight.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Valuable? Absolutely.

Necessary? No.
Click to expand...
This. Autopilot acts like a third hand and brain, helping to maintain altitude and course while you're attention is focused on a different task (such as briefing the IAP)
 
Thanks for the replies guys.

It looks like an AP is a must have for a XC plane.

As for the type of IFR I want to do, I'm not really sure yet. Still. Ew at this stuff. I do know where I want to fly to, so that's why I'll need an Instrument rating.
 
midcap said:
Thanks for the replies guys.

It looks like an AP is a must have for a XC plane.

As for the type of IFR I want to do, I'm not really sure yet. Still. Ew at this stuff. I do know where I want to fly to, so that's why I'll need an Instrument rating.
Click to expand...


Except it's not. 48 states with no autopilot. It's like saying a hotdog MUST have ketchup on it.
 
Hotdogs should also have sauerkraut.

This discussion goes on all the time on the vans forum as well. I thought it was because we have all settled on low wing, thereby needing a new perpetual discussion.
 
As a newly minted insturmeted rated like 2 weeks ago, a single pilot IFR autopilot is a must. I have a century II I had my first solo in hard IMC for 45 minutes . I have hand flown hard IMC with my cfi 3 or 4 times but when your solo and fresh it's invaluable IMHO. Why not reduce stress and risk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top