Flying IFR without autopilot?

Inverted said:
Hell, most of my instrument flying is single pilot, no autopilot, /A in a Beech 99 flying at 180kts in the worst weather possible.
Click to expand...

That was most of my instrument flying, just substitue Aztec for 99. It built character.
 
Inverted said:
No autopilot!?

oh-the-huge-manatee.jpg
Click to expand...
Now that is funny right there.

Inverted said:
There was a 55 captain that I no longer fly with (because he is no longer with the company) that used to fly with the autopilot from 1000 feet, to 200 feet (which is the altitude limitations of the system on the Lear 55). He was such a crappy pilot. I hand fly almost every approach in the Lear. Sometimes I will let the autopilot do it so I make sure I can press the right buttons.
Click to expand...
I used to fly with a lot of guys like that, but when its just a job then you kinda find the path of least resistance.


Inverted said:
Hell, most of my instrument flying is single pilot, no autopilot, /A in a Beech 99 flying at 180kts in the worst weather possible.
Click to expand...
Oh yea, my first 1000 i didn't even fly anything that had an autopilot, and that includes 121 time.

Ted DuPuis said:
That was most of my instrument flying, just substitue Aztec for 99. It built character.
Click to expand...
Yes it does. I guess you just figure out different ways to do things and saying "If I only had an autopilot!"

When I finally got into a real good one......IT was fantastic!
 
Everskyward said:
Personally, I've never flown with anyone who routinely engaged the autopilot right after takeoff.
Click to expand...
I have, in a Cirrus. That's pretty much how the CSIP teaches it -- 300 feet, and a/p on, then keep it on until runway in sight/commit to land. Can't say I like it much.
 
flyingmoose said:
Oh yea, my first 1000 i didn't even fly anything that had an autopilot, and that includes 121 time.

Yes it does. I guess you just figure out different ways to do things and saying "If I only had an autopilot!"

When I finally got into a real good one......IT was fantastic!
Click to expand...

Pretty much. A good autopilot is very nice. But if you don't have one, you just learn to do without.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Back at my brief 135 stint, that was pretty much what they did and encouraged. It was very much the mentality of "No reason to hand fly, the AP does it better and the passengers don't want you to. Oh and recover from a stall by just adding power and keep holding that nose up."
Click to expand...
When I first started flying 135 the autopilot was there if you wanted it because we were single-pilot in a King Air, but no one was there to micromanage your use of it. I tended to hand fly it through a lot of the climb and engage it for cruise and descent. These were pretty simple airplanes, though, and there was not much heads-down button-pushing to be done. When I started flying the Lears, the captains were really into making the FOs hand-fly so they could learn to do it smoothly. At first, this was only done on empty legs so as not to make the passengers sick. This was in the days before RVSM so we were also encouraged to try hand-flying at altitude, in cruise, which can be a real challenge. Currently, it seems that all the people I fly with hand-fly for 5-10,000 feet before engaging the autopilot. In thinking about it, this might be just company culture.

As far as stalls are concerned, powering out of them without lowering the nose or losing a foot of altitude is how they were taught for years in higher powered airplanes. However that has changed in the past year or so and they now want you to lower the nose a bit on the recovery even if that means losing a bit of altitude.
 
I think where you work is a good company with a good culture. I've tended to hand fly quite a bit, although I do use the AP, especially on long (8+ hour) days. I also hand fly until trimmed out for cruise, and then in the descents.

The turbines I was flying were nothing special, so there wasn't any button pushing, which is my point with their absurdity. The fact that I hand flew the Cheyenne up to FL200 and kept flying it there scared the boss - but on an empty leg, I wanted to get the feel for the thing. The boss's desire to focus on the AP and the Flight Director without even performing a normal scan I didn't like.

I do remember hearing that the nose up add power was the old recovery. This was after the recommendations had changed. When I pointed that out to the chief pilot, the response was "There's no reason for that." Hmm...

If the company I flew for was like the company you fly for, I might still be flying.
 
Last edited:
What's the old saw?...One should hand fly enough so that when and if the autopilot fails it isn't an emergency procedure - because one's hand-flying skills have atrophied so far. In the 737 it's unusual for me not to have George on by 18,000ft. In GA airplanes, I only used the autopilot in cruise, and then, only in smooth air. I had no problem flying IFR without one, but will readily admit that a good deal of time was spent getting organised if I was flying somewhere unfamiliar. In fact, organization is the key to single-pilot, IFR flying.
 
Ron Levy said:
I have, in a Cirrus. That's pretty much how the CSIP teaches it -- 300 feet, and a/p on, then keep it on until runway in sight/commit to land. Can't say I like it much.
Click to expand...

Just what I'd expect from Cirrus...The fancier the instrument panel, the weaker the pilot. Plastic airplanes deserve plastic pilots.
 
Inverted said:
It is a requirement to demonstrate use of an operational autopilot on a checkride.
Click to expand...
Please do not misread Inverted's post to say you must have an autopilot for the IR practical test. Just so's nobody misunderstands, if the plane with which you show up for your IR practical test has a working autopilot, you must demonstrate that you can use it, including doing one non-precision approach with it. But if the plane doesn't have a working autopilot, you are still good for the test (although some things may be easier if you have a working autopilot, like pulling out and reviewing a new approach chart while tracking an airway).
 
j1b3h0 said:
Just what I'd expect from Cirrus...The fancier the instrument panel, the weaker the pilot. Plastic airplanes deserve plastic pilots.
Click to expand...
Actually, if properly trained and tested, flying a Cirrus is more demanding, not less, since you should know and be able to manage all the automation as well as hand-fly using the backup flight instruments and #2 CDI and everything in between. It actually takes a couple of days longer to train someone properly for the IR in a Cirrus with Perspective than it does to train someone in an old 172 with nothing but the 6-pack and dual nav/comms.

Of course, there's that pesky word "properly" again...
 
My first autopilot coupled approach was after I had earned my instrument rating. Don't get me wrong, I fly a GFC700 now and I absolutely love it. But if it goes belly up on me during an approach in the sludge, I'm confident that I'll complete the approach by hand. I thank the stars for putting me in the hands of a good, no nonsense CFII who forced me to demonstrate perfection by hand before he would allow me to move on to the next phase of training.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top