Do NTSB investigations look at autopilot in GA aircraft?

[Salty]

So, I heard a story from an older pilot yesterday about how he was using autopilot and trying to learn how to use the gps in the plane and “suddenly he looked up and was in a cloud”.

This led me to wonder how often a pilot might rely on autopilot and it fails while they are not paying close attention. Especially in IMC. Would an NTSB investigation be able to determine if the autopilot was functional? Or being used? Could some of these mysterious CFIT accidents be due to over reliance on an autopilot / lack of attention?

 

[PaulS]

I wonder how many near misses are caused by what you are describing.

 

[mscard88]

Classic case of head down playing with the toys. At least the AP sounds like it was on or the pilot may have panic and do a number on the plane.

Yes the NTSB looks at everything with a fine tooth comb.

 

[Clip4]

I am not a aircraft crash investigator, but after a crash the position of various controls is documented. If the autopilot had buttons/switches indicating what functions were engaged could provide some evidence.

Aircraft like the SR22 have a remote data module that may also provide forensic data.

Keep in mind that NTSB reports are opinions.

 

[denverpilot]

Some integrated systems have some limited logging capabilities. G1000 for example can log engine and some data to a second SD card if installed.

But for the most part, light aircraft don’t usually have logging of flight controls or autopilots. That’s usually handled with data outputs from an FMS into a data recorder on aircraft that have them.

 

[benyflyguy]

Yes the NTSB looks at everything with a fine tooth comb.

I’m amazed by the detail of some of these reports.

 

[mscard88]

I’m amazed by the detail of some of these reports.

It's good they do it that way. Things often change and/or lessons are learned from their investigations.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I’m amazed by the detail of some of these reports.

Unfortunately, it varies. Some are extremely detailed. And others are done entirely through phone interviews and contain very little substance.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[denverpilot]

Unfortunately, it varies. Some are extremely detailed. And others are done entirely through phone interviews and contain very little substance.

And some, as our late friend in Jackson Hole noted a number of years ago, are missing important information that the experts at the airport have found and the investigator wants to ignore.

That story from Ben on the investigation of that one crash up there where he was involved, was impressively bad. NTSB stiffing him for the work he did was just icing on the cake.

It really showed me that there’s a lot of variability in those reports. Some are well investigated, some are a paperwork shuffle so the investigator can leave town and get back to doing something else.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Some integrated systems have some limited logging capabilities. G1000 for example can log engine and some data to a second SD card if installed.

But for the most part, light aircraft don’t usually have logging of flight controls or autopilots. That’s usually handled with data outputs from an FMS into a data recorder on aircraft that have them.

I'm pretty sure the autopilot settings are logged on a G1000 that has the GFC700, but someone lucky enough to have one will have to answer that.

The G1000 pre-GFC700 logs an impressive array of data on that SD card. Over 60 parameters once per second. CHTs, EGTs, MAP/RPM, and other engine data; Lat/Long, active waypoint, etc for navigation; radio frequencies; pitch and roll attitude and lateral and normal acceleration; all kinds of things. I've found it quite useful both for post-flight debriefings as well as maintenance troubleshooting, and I sure hope the G500 TXi is as capable in terms of logging for when we hopefully install one of those.

 

[nauga]

But for the most part, light aircraft don’t usually have logging of flight controls or autopilots. That’s usually handled with data outputs from an FMS into a data recorder on aircraft that have them.

Logging of flight controls and autopilots is not explicitly necessary to determine the operation of either in an accident investigation. Look at the number of accident reports (you might have to check the dockets) from 'non-logging' airplanes that address control continuity post-crash.

Some people see conspiracy or incompetence when the final report doesn't agree with their agenda.

Nauga,
from both sides of the table

 

[denverpilot]

Logging of flight controls and autopilots is not explicitly necessary to determine the operation of either in an accident investigation. Look at the number of accident reports (you might have to check the dockets) from 'non-logging' airplanes that address control continuity post-crash.

Some people see conspiracy or incompetence when the final report doesn't agree with their agenda.

Nauga,
from both sides of the table

Unserstood. Never said direct logging was needed. Also never suggested any conspiracy.

Ben’s posts clearly insinuated incompetence considering his actual expertise in the portion of the matter that the lone investigator ignored, but no conspiracy.

Mostly just nobody really cared about the real causes of that particular crash and it was surprising the investigator even “travelled in support of the investigation” as certain reports say, and a whole lot of reports for low level GA stuff, don’t.

Kent’s note about how many items the standard G1000 tracks is impressive. My experience with it was trying to convince some folks who thought there were pilots flying their equipment inappropriately — to pay for the firmware upgrade that allowed logging (this was many years ago) in the G1000, and to install a secondary SD card.

They decided that was “spying on people” and declined to entertain the idea any further. Which was... relatively dumb. Especially if they thought the damage they had been paying for in the maintenance shop was pilot-induced.

“Just log the data and find out...”

“Oh, we can’t do THAT...”

“LOL. Good luck figuring out who it is then.”

 

[Zeldman]

it was surprising the investigator even “travelled in support of the investigation” as certain reports say, and a whole lot of reports for low level GA stuff, don’t.

I witnessed a non-fatal accident once. The only people to investigate the site was myself and a few sheriffs deputies. The next day I did get a call from someone asking about what I witnessed. I never saw a report written up anywhere.

 

[denverpilot]

I witnessed a non-fatal accident once. The only people to investigate the site was myself and a few sheriffs deputies. The next day I did get a call from someone asking about what I witnessed. I never saw a report written up anywhere.

Yeah NTSB didn’t (need to) come to the road landing that hit the road sign I was at, either.

FAA guy used my report I wrote on the Sheriff’s clipboard to know what happened, called it a taxi incident after a successful off-airport landing, and done.