IFR Proficiency - In a plane that does it for you

[Martymccasland]

What's your strategy for staying current in a plane with an AP that flies the approach for you?

It seems like a silly question -- and maybe it is -- but let me give a little background for my question:

My previous plane did not have anything more than a wing-leveler, and not a very good one at that. I got my IR in the plane, flew it coast to coast, and would very frequently go out in low IFR to stay sharp (my favorite type of flying). All told, I logged 265 approaches before selling.

I sold that plane and upgraded to one with substantially nicer avionics, including an autopilot that will do everything but flare for the landing. Having now logged 100 hours in the last 3 months and 3 dozen approaches getting familiar in the new plane, I'm still amazed at how much easier it is to fly in hard conditions -- amazed to the point of reconsidering how I practice IFR and stay current.

Now I feel very comfortable flying the most odd-ball ATC-infused approaches to minimums fully automated with the AP (and being sharp with the GPS programming). Yet, even after doing one, I get on the ground and can't help but feel the difference vs. how I used to feel doing even straight-forward approaches fully manual with substantially higher ceilings. Before having an AP that would fly the approach, I'd feel slightly (to fully) worn out after a hard approach in Low IFR. Now I get out of the new plane and feel like I've been CAVU joyriding. There is no fatigue. And that totally fresh feeling is my worry -- as I know I am not that good and just realize how much workload that AP has taken off my shoulders, and see that I could stay totally FAA IFR current yet lose a bunch of critical IFR proficiency skills flying behind that AP all the time.

All this makes me think I should split my IFR currency into two phases from here on out: fully-automated practice and fully-manual practice - maybe equally? I can fully see the benefits from both sides of the fence. A pilot starting out with a nice autopilot could likely fly 200OVC every day, consider themselves totally proficient, but be in a world of danger should the AP fail and the ceilings are 2,3,4 times higher. Likewise, I see it from the other side that I came from of practically having no AP and working to not getconfused on which button to push when -- and likewise turning an otherwise light IFR approach into a deadly endeavor trying to program a GPS/AP combo instead of flying the plane.

So, it brings me back to my question and wonder if others have experienced these feelings and how they keep their *proficiency* (vs currency) sharp in a plane with a fully coupled AP.

Many thanks in advance for your insight.

 

[FORANE]

Great question. I have an old wing leveler and altitude hold only so all my approaches are hand flown. I have considered this very issue and it is a double edged sword. If you are doing enough approaches, why not do some by hand? What kind of autopilot do you have now?

 

[hindsight2020]

Children of the magenta syndrome. Your handflying single-pilot IMC skills are more perishable than your ability to program your specific avionic suite. As such, all proficiency work should be done manually. The lowest level of safety should be you, not electronics. If electronics are the lowest level of safety in your flying, you belong to a desk and a joystick, not in the air playing roulette with your life.

My ride at work has no level of automation, unless you count manual trim as automation LOL. Yet I can sit on a FMS equipped AP coupled bird and program it to a safe level. I couldn't say the opposite if the majority of my time was spent programming an FMS and reverting to occasionally hand-flying IMC events. The airlines have found this out the hard way. Many are in denial about this. BL if I were you, I'd do all your recurrency training work with the wonderboxes disengaged.

Good luck!

 

[comanchepilot]

If you can fly the approach to PTS standards you can fly it tighter than the AP - I have an S-Tec 60-2 with all the bells and whistles and while it is a very good AP - it is reactive since it is rate based - and something has to change by a certain amount or rate before it reacts - meaning you get much further off before it recovers - with any kind of wind its S'turning down final.

Trust me - you'll be able to fly it better. and you should.

 

[Alexb2000]

Re the magenta line: How hard is flying a precision approach anyway?

Tune the radio
Look at the chart and hold heading/altitude until the marker
Follow the needles down

There you go.

Using an FMS, autopilot, etc. takes more steps and requires practice to set it up. Especially for BC approaches, etc.

I like the OP's suggestion to practice both ways.

 

[moonshine]

Practice both ways
YMMV, but I call BS on handflying deteriorating faster than playing the piano. Flying is flying, you practice that every time you start an engine and slip the surely bonds. Not being proficient with the autopilot modes and procedure programming and yet relying on it may one day take you some place you gonna regret.

 

[azure]

Good thread. I have to confess, I haven't flown a coupled approach since getting my ticket. I use the AP in cruise all the time, but typically disengage it before I'm cleared for the approach. My first solo IMC flight I used the AP as a workload reducer flying to the IAF on a "T"-format RNAV approach, and then realized that the thing is so wishy-washy with its turns that I needed to take control. Once established on final, it's beautiful -- but I haven't used it even once in actual, only under the hood before my checkride a few times.

Here around the Lakes benign IFR conditions are kind of a rare treat. I try to get up in that kind of weather every chance I get to stay proficient, but until now I've always felt that letting Otto fly the approach is wasting a valuable opportunity to hone my hand-flying skills. I'm not sure that half and half is really necessary... maybe one coupled approach per practice session is enough. But I'm thinking now I really shouldn't be setting that AP in actual without doing a coupled approach once in a while to keep THOSE skills sharp.

 

[poadeleted20]

What's your strategy for staying current in a plane with an AP that flies the approach for you?

Not using the a/p for approaches unless

1. I have to (e.g., single-pilot to mins needing to look for the runway), or
2. I've hand-flown so many lately I need a break, or
3. It's been so long since I've done one on the a/p that I need the practice setting it up.

 

[hindsight2020]

Re the magenta line: How hard is flying a precision approach anyway?

Tune the radio
Look at the chart and hold heading/altitude until the marker
Follow the needles down

There you go.

Using an FMS, autopilot, etc. takes more steps and requires practice to set it up. Especially for BC approaches, etc.

I like the OP's suggestion to practice both ways.

Tell that to the two dreamers in front of Colgan 3407...

Besides, arguing one is good at FMS wizardry is like winning at the special olympics.

 

[ChitDisturber]

What's your strategy for staying current in a plane with an AP that flies the approach for you?

It seems like a silly question -- and maybe it is -- but let me give a little background for my question:

My previous plane did not have anything more than a wing-leveler, and not a very good one at that. I got my IR in the plane, flew it coast to coast, and would very frequently go out in low IFR to stay sharp (my favorite type of flying). All told, I logged 265 approaches before selling.

I sold that plane and upgraded to one with substantially nicer avionics, including an autopilot that will do everything but flare for the landing. Having now logged 100 hours in the last 3 months and 3 dozen approaches getting familiar in the new plane, I'm still amazed at how much easier it is to fly in hard conditions -- amazed to the point of reconsidering how I practice IFR and stay current.

Now I feel very comfortable flying the most odd-ball ATC-infused approaches to minimums fully automated with the AP (and being sharp with the GPS programming). Yet, even after doing one, I get on the ground and can't help but feel the difference vs. how I used to feel doing even straight-forward approaches fully manual with substantially higher ceilings. Before having an AP that would fly the approach, I'd feel slightly (to fully) worn out after a hard approach in Low IFR. Now I get out of the new plane and feel like I've been CAVU joyriding. There is no fatigue. And that totally fresh feeling is my worry -- as I know I am not that good and just realize how much workload that AP has taken off my shoulders, and see that I could stay totally FAA IFR current yet lose a bunch of critical IFR proficiency skills flying behind that AP all the time.

All this makes me think I should split my IFR currency into two phases from here on out: fully-automated practice and fully-manual practice - maybe equally? I can fully see the benefits from both sides of the fence. A pilot starting out with a nice autopilot could likely fly 200OVC every day, consider themselves totally proficient, but be in a world of danger should the AP fail and the ceilings are 2,3,4 times higher. Likewise, I see it from the other side that I came from of practically having no AP and working to not getconfused on which button to push when -- and likewise turning an otherwise light IFR approach into a deadly endeavor trying to program a GPS/AP combo instead of flying the plane.

So, it brings me back to my question and wonder if others have experienced these feelings and how they keep their *proficiency* (vs currency) sharp in a plane with a fully coupled AP.

Many thanks in advance for your insight.

YES, you should be proficient at hand flying it too, besides it's alot more fun

APs do break from time to time

 

[ronnieh]

Comanache, that depends on the AP. A good AP with GPSS will keep the plane dead on. It will fly a "T" RNAV and anticipate the turns allowing a roll out exactly on course. The last one I flew would do all of that and take you to the missed approach holding point and enter the hold. So it depends on the equipment.
Also look at what the sim training centers do. I was allowed to use anything in the plane. All equipment was available an could be used. However, and this is key, the equipment could and did fail at the most inopportune times. I think this is the best way. If the equipment is there know how to use it well. Also know how to fly the plane when it all goes to **** in a hand basket. JMO

 

[Alexb2000]

Tell that to the two dreamers in front of Colgan 3407...

Besides, arguing one is good at FMS wizardry is like winning at the special olympics.

What did Colgan have to do with hand flying an approach or FMS?

I asked above, what is SOOOOO... hard about hand flying an approach? It's a heading/altitude and maybe a set of needles. It's not launching the space shuttle.

 

[ronnieh]

I guess a case could be made that if they had been hand flying they may have detected the ice due to trim changes.
What is so hard about hand flying an approach, depends on the conditions. Lets see, going back into my collection of war stories. 600 and 1-1/2 in blowing snow, at night. Quartering tail wind (only approach) diminishing to about 30 knots at 2000 AGL. Surface winds were 20 gusting to 30. Yes it was bumpy. Like I said it depends.

 

[Alexb2000]

I guess a case could be made that if they had been hand flying they may have detected the ice due to trim changes.
What is so hard about hand flying an approach, depends on the conditions. Lets see, going back into my collection of war stories. 600 and 1-1/2 in blowing snow, at night. Quartering tail wind (only approach) diminishing to about 30 knots at 2000 AGL. Surface winds were 20 gusting to 30. Yes it was bumpy. Like I said it depends.

Granted, of course most every AFM states the AP should not be used in icing for that reason. I still don't see how it's on topic.

Of course there are more difficult approaches in certain conditions. All I said was we should practice both. I was really reacting to the notion that the act of hand flying an approach makes you a man among men and using the FMS/AP means you better check your man purse for tissues if it fails.

 

[hindsight2020]

Granted, of course most every AFM states the AP should not be used in icing for that reason. I still don't see how it's on topic.

Of course there are more difficult approaches in certain conditions. All I said was we should practice both. I was really reacting to the notion that the act of hand flying an approach makes you a man among men and using the FMS/AP means you better check your man purse for tissues if it fails.

The special olympics man jab was meant in jest. As to Colgan, ice had nothing to do with it. There was no ice. It was a simple aerodynamic stall the crew didn't react to appropriately after completely letting the airplane get slow enough for both stick shaker and stick pusher modes to activate. The dude literally did like a pedestrian and grabbed that yoke back and locked up. The FO raised the flaps on top of that. And innocent people died for it. There were no underlying aggravating factors. The fundamental inability of two professional pilots to negotiate that simple handflying thing is what caused it. It directly ties into the thread as an illustration of why handflying in training is more important than garmin finger--ucking.

The management of lowest level of automation [hand flying] is the most perishable skill, thus it requires the most frequent of recurrencies. That's my only point.

 

[Henning]

Comanache, that depends on the AP. A good AP with GPSS will keep the plane dead on. It will fly a "T" RNAV and anticipate the turns allowing a roll out exactly on course. The last one I flew would do all of that and take you to the missed approach holding point and enter the hold. So it depends on the equipment.
Also look at what the sim training centers do. I was allowed to use anything in the plane. All equipment was available an could be used. However, and this is key, the equipment could and did fail at the most inopportune times. I think this is the best way. If the equipment is there know how to use it well. Also know how to fly the plane when it all goes to **** in a hand basket. JMO

With GA equipment, I think it depends more on conditions. I did an IPC in a plane with an S-TEC 55x and all the latest and greatest avionics hooked to it in somewhat gusty conditions and I hand flew an ILS and GPS approach tighter than the autopilot did.

I think it's pretty important to be proficient and practiced at both, AP approaches and hand flown as they have different skill sets that you have to stay up on. Automation doesn't relieve you of work, it just changes what work you do.

 

[denverpilot]

The special olympics man jab was meant in jest. As to Colgan, ice had nothing to do with it. There was no ice. It was a simple aerodynamic stall the crew didn't react to appropriately after completely letting the airplane get slow enough for both stick shaker and stick pusher modes to activate. The dude literally did like a pedestrian and grabbed that yoke back and locked up. The FO raised the flaps on top of that. And innocent people died for it. There were no underlying aggravating factors. The fundamental inability of two professional pilots to negotiate that simple handflying thing is what caused it. It directly ties into the thread as an illustration of why handflying in training is more important than garmin finger--ucking.

The management of lowest level of automation [hand flying] is the most perishable skill, thus it requires the most frequent of recurrencies. That's my only point.

I thought the investigators decided the aircraft was slowing while on AP because of ice buildup? Yes, a stall mis-recognized, but they also said his training class had a bit of an over-emphasis on icing induced tail plane stalls.

One of the theories was that he pulled instead of pushed because he thought it was the tail plane stall scenario he may or may not have been " over-trained " on.

That's what I remember reading, anyway. He's dead and didn't say any of that into the recorder so we'll never know.

If the above theory is true, he still missed the airspeed falling, the biggest clue to the type of stall he was dealing with. Oh and the stick shaker and stick shover, trying to save his ass.

 

[Henning]

The special olympics man jab was meant in jest. As to Colgan, ice had nothing to do with it. There was no ice. It was a simple aerodynamic stall the crew didn't react to appropriately after completely letting the airplane get slow enough for both stick shaker and stick pusher modes to activate. The dude literally did like a pedestrian and grabbed that yoke back and locked up. The FO raised the flaps on top of that. And innocent people died for it. There were no underlying aggravating factors. The fundamental inability of two professional pilots to negotiate that simple handflying thing is what caused it. It directly ties into the thread as an illustration of why handflying in training is more important than garmin finger--ucking.

The management of lowest level of automation [hand flying] is the most perishable skill, thus it requires the most frequent of recurrencies. That's my only point.

AF-447 was pretty similar with a minor malfunction of only one speed indication of three in all that avionics package precipitating a 38'000' falling leaf stall into the ocean. All the pilots on board just saw the situation and disassociated.

 

[GMascelli]

I fly all my approaches by hand, I only have a wing leveler in my plane. If and when I ever upgrade to an AP I would shoot both. Know the buttonology but be able to get yourself on the ground.

 

[Everskyward]

The fundamental inability of two professional pilots to negotiate that simple handflying thing is what caused it.

Actually they were using the autopilot when it stalled. I'm sure part if the problem is that when the autopilot disengaged it was way out of trim in the nose up direction. They changed the way stalls are taught in the sim because of this accident.

The management of lowest level of automation [hand flying] is the most perishable skill, thus it requires the most frequent of recurrencies.

That's my only point.

For me, that is completely backwards but I have never been a natural button-pusher.

 

[Dr. O]

I don't have an AP.
Eight hours in the clag from Florida to Michigan with a right wing heavy polished me up nicely on the last trip.
Only problem was once the mechanic cured the wing drop I've been flying circles to the left every since. Something about muscle memory, or something like that.

 

[frfly172]

Like to do both. Hand flying can be a lot of fun to test your skills ,if your fresh . I also want to be familiar with the auto pilot ,and setting it up for the approach.

 

[flyingron]

When I'm out doing proficiency work, I typically do each approach twice, once by hand and once with 100% automation. The last thing you want to be worrying about in actual is what the *#$@*(@ is this thing doing when you try it on the A/P. Admittedly, I've punched the red button on a couple of approaches because I felt we weren't going the way it was supposed to.

 

[poadeleted20]

I don't have an AP.
Eight hours in the clag from Florida to Michigan with a right wing heavy polished me up nicely on the last trip.

Eight hours of straight-and-level doesn't polish anything of importance. Two hours of solid work on approaches, holding, partial-panel (or, in the modern world, "primary flight instrument(s) inoperative") and unusual attitudes does four times as much in one-fourth the time.

 

[jordane93]

i havent had an autopilot in any of the planes ive flown. so ive hand flown all my approaches. for you i'd say stay proficient in both. if you have the autopilot, why not use it.

 

[ronnieh]

Henning that may be true on rate based stuff. My last two AP was the KFC 200 with yaw and the Collins 65A. The KFC on an RNAV approach would overshoot the final if intercepting at more than 60 deg. That was the way it was designed. Once it overshot slightly and corrected it was dead on. Did not have GPSS
The Collins with GPSS would roll out dead on with the correct wind correction. Pitch attitude was dead on with both even in bumpy conditions.
My point is that I am sure there exists particular AP installations in particular planes that you can beat their performance by hand. It is a very broad brush when you paint AP's in general as being inferior to hand flying.
The notion that pilots who say you are not a real pilot unless you hand fly the plane all the time is just wrong IMO. I think the best pilots are those that are very familiar with their available equipment and use it enough to be proficient. But, they should be very capable of flying the plane when it all goes TU.
I realize this type of proficiency can be difficult for the PP with an instrument rating flying 75 hours a year in his Cherokee with little or no recurrent training. For those flying in a different world, a world where the initial approach segment is perhaps flown at 140+ knots and the approach itself is flown at 120+ knots in all types of weather and single pilot in a rather complex aircraft a quality AP and being proficient with it is, as far as I am concerned, a required safety item. (whew, that is a long sentence) Again JMO.

 

[Marauder]

I never understood the mentality about autopilot usage. I consider it a tool in the tool bag like everything we have installed in our planes. And as a tool, it's important to understand how it works and how it can be incorporated into our flying.

I can't help to think about the JFK Jr. accident when I read these threads and wonder if he knew how to use the AP in his plane. And if he did, why he didn't.

 

[Marauder]

Henning that may be true on rate based stuff. My last two AP was the KFC 200 with yaw and the Collins 65A. The KFC on an RNAV approach would overshoot the final if intercepting at more than 60 deg. That was the way it was designed. Once it overshot slightly and corrected it was dead on. Did not have GPSS
The Collins with GPSS would roll out dead on with the correct wind correction. Pitch attitude was dead on with both even in bumpy conditions.
My point is that I am sure there exists particular AP installations in particular planes that you can beat their performance by hand. It is a very broad brush when you paint AP's in general as being inferior to hand flying.
The notion that pilots who say you are not a real pilot unless you hand fly the plane all the time is just wrong IMO. I think the best pilots are those that are very familiar with their available equipment and use it enough to be proficient. But, they should be very capable of flying the plane when it all goes TU.
I realize this type of proficiency can be difficult for the PP with an instrument rating flying 75 hours a year in his Cherokee with little or no recurrent training. For those flying in a different world, a world where the initial approach segment is perhaps flown at 140+ knots and the approach itself is flown at 120+ knots in all types of weather and single pilot in a rather complex aircraft a quality AP and being proficient with it is, as far as I am concerned, a required safety item. (whew, that is a long sentence) Again JMO.

Well said...

 

[poadeleted20]

I can't help to think about the JFK Jr. accident when I read these threads and wonder if he knew how to use the AP in his plane. And if he did, why he didn't.

Unfortunately, that knowledge died with him. All we can do on that is speculate (something which the NTSB declined to do).

 

[flyingron]

It can be argued if he had turned it on early enough it might have saved him.
Part of the insidious problem with a lot of instrument condition crashes is not that the pilots could not fly on instruments but they didn't recognize WHEN they needed to fly on instruments. My own conjecture (for those who have actually flown that route) is that going up the shoreline (or even the sound) you had plenty of lights from the shore to give you visual indications. When he neared the destination, he descended and turned away from the visual cues towards the open water. Given the low altitude and being inexperienced, he continued to look out into the nothingness and by the time he realized he was in some sort of unusual attitude and should look at the gauges, it was likely too late.

It was probably likely to late to just punch HDG and ALT (or whatever he had) and save his bacon at that point. Now if he had put on the AP early and turned the plane with the AP he might have been better off. But with that presence of mind, he probably could have just as easily flown it watching the AI/DG/ALT.

 

[airborne]

Interesting discussion... I learned to fly on the G1000 with a GFC700 AP, so I have high regard for steam gauge instrument flyers. I also have no interest in tackling that skill set.

I let the AP fly most approaches while I manage the system. I consider hand flying to be my backup and thus, I practice it under the hood regularly. NOT understanding or having proficiency with an extremely capable AP is a hazard in my book. Its on the plane and flies hard IFR better than I can by hand - so why would I not consider it my primary tool?

I need to stay proficient at two different skill sets ... managing the AP and aircraft, and hand flying approaches as a backup. One is outer loop, one is inner loop.

 

[GMascelli]

.....I need to stay proficient at two different skill sets ... managing the AP and aircraft, and hand flying approaches as a backup. One is outer loop, one is inner loop.

...and that's the rest of the story. It is two different skill sets, that both need equal attention when working to stay proficient.

 

[bbchien]

HAND FLY 2/3s of your approaches.....

 

[Bill Watson]

What's your strategy for staying current in a plane with an AP that flies the approach for you? .....

Your experience seems to closely match mine. I hand flew a Maule thru my IR training and a good bit of actual. Lacking even a wing leveler, I found single pilot IFR challenging and rewarding.... taxing and exhausting. Flying weekly with a mission combined with a slow, stable aircraft made staying proficient possible. Going up and shooting 3 approaches meant little. Flying an actual cross country that required organizing charts, plates, pencils, alternates, and managing unfamilir procs using unfamiliar fregs at unfamilar airports is what real proficiency required. Managing the clipboard was almost as important as nailing the needles.

Then I built my RV10 with an EFIS (GRT) and a GPSS A/P (TruTrak). It has synthetic vision, weather, traffic, etc. All the charts are on the iPad (and the iPhone and some of it in the EFIS).

The Collins with GPSS would roll out dead on with the correct wind correction. Pitch attitude was dead on with both even in bumpy conditions.
My point is that I am sure there exists particular AP installations in particular planes that you can beat their performance by hand. It is a very broad brush when you paint AP's in general as being inferior to hand flying.
The notion that pilots who say you are not a real pilot unless you hand fly the plane all the time is just wrong IMO. I think the best pilots are those that are very familiar with their available equipment and use it enough to be proficient. But, they should be very capable of flying the plane when it all goes TU.

That's what I wanted to say. My '10 will fly the departure, enroute, approach and the miss like it's on rails, winds and turbulence be damned. If I let it have control down to 100', it will finally start chasing the centerline and require some pilot intervention. Just Wow!

I'm getting just enough flying time and approaches in actual to stay book proficient. Up until recently, practically all of my practice flying has centered around managing the avionics. Why? Because learning it, coming up with cockpit procedures and actually doing the button pushing is challenging. It has also become obvious to me that the safest way to fly this plane in the system and in actual is do it with the A/P so practicing with it was a priority. My hand flying has suffered. So the answer has become...

HAND FLY 2/3s of your approaches.....

Or more specifically, dedicate almost all practice time to hand flying. I'm going to use the automation when flying 'for real' because it's easier and safer and less prone to errors. But when practicing, it's mainly about warming up those hand flying skills, and not much else.

But my intent is not to get my hand flying skills up to where I can consistently nail the needles and the airspeed on a gusty ILS. Rather it's to maintain them at a level where if the goodies go black one dark and stormy night, I will be able to get and keep things upright then put it back on the ground. I'll be comfortable with that.

 

[LDJones]

Don't forget to practice some with all the gee-wizardry all failed and covered. While a rarity with the backups most have, there's still that small chance...which is why the backup stuff is there.

 

[poadeleted20]

Don't forget to practice some with all the gee-wizardry all failed and covered.

I don't know how often the AHRS in the DA-40 fails, but unlike the Cirrus G1000 package, there's only one AHRS in the Diamond G1000. My experience killing that in flight with DA-40 pilots suggests many of them are totally flummoxed by the problems presented if that happens until we've spent a couple of hours talking and flying with that situation. Many folks shy away from really pulling c/b's, and for them we have a number of ATD's which very well simulate this problem (including the FlyThisSim TouchTrainer), but you absolutely cannot create a valid simulation of this one in flight just by covering things, and going to the reversionary mode doesn't even come close to training people to deal with it. No doubt there are other similar issues with other glass panel systems, and it's up to the folks flying/instructing in them to take the initiative to train on it periodically.

 

[Bill Watson]

Don't forget to practice some with all the gee-wizardry all failed and covered. While a rarity with the backups most have, there's still that small chance...which is why the backup stuff is there.

Agreed. The trick there is figuring out what "all the gee-wiz" is.

If hit with an EMP that takes out all the electrons, even the backup ones, I'm SOL since I have no pneumatics beyond airspeed and altimeter.

If my entire (3) EFIS/PFD, dual AHRS complex goes down what do I use the keep things upright? Turns out engaging the AP and referencing the round backup gauges is optimal, but it does require familiarization before the actual event.

If my dual electrical system (both batts, both alternators, both buses) fails completely what do I use? Engage the backup battery on the ADI (Horizon) and hand fly. That definitely requires practice.

But the most likely gee-whiz failure scenario is an A/P failure. It's not backed up by anything but me so hand flying the plane by reference to the EFIS/PFD ends up being possibly being the most critical skill to keep warm.

 

[cirrusmx]

every other or so approach hand fly it. i find flyig patterns is a skill that get deteriorated when constantly flyig ifr. i got so used to approaches or visuals that when going to a smaller field my patterns sucked ass.

 

[Martymccasland]

HAND FLY 2/3s of your approaches.....

OP here. This has a right ring to it, more so than my original 50/50 thought. The button pushing is a skill -- especially in non-standard approaches. I've had ATC throw interesting situations that I'd never be able to get the GPS/AP to execute unless I've actively practiced it.

However, for the other 2/3rds of the time, actually doing everything manually and actively thinking-through and executing all the little steps the AP shields you from turns the pilot into more of a "manager and final authority" over the autopilot instead of falling in the habit of just "watching" the AP and letting skills deteriorate.

Now if the family is on board, it's a busy Class B, in IMC (or maybe even just a light day into a rural field) -- I'm absolutely going to use the AP to the fullest... Mainly because it frees me up to monitor and really consider more elements instead of just being glued to the AI -- e.g. like scanning all systems more than I could if I was only doing "the scan", reviewing the plate more carefully, looking up fixes and passing instructions I hear being handed out to others and being ready should I get the same, pulling up weather and reviewing conditions again, etc...

In regards to others saying they can fly it better than the AP, that's not so here. My AP is attitude-based and the needles frequently just seem broken even in gusty conditions -- it intercepts, the lubberline aligns and it doesn't move, the glideslope comes down to level then you'd swear it's broken -- all the way to the runway... Better than I or nearly any human could do it.

I appreciate all the feedback to my original post. I've learned lots and respect everyone's comments.

 

[TMetzinger]

I schedule proficiency flight time in the airplane to do this. In a G1000 airplane I fly raw data, no autopilot, no flight director. It's either in actual or at night under the hood with a safety pilot.

I also do practice in a redbird with six-pack avionics, and do failure simulations here.

When doing "normal" flying, I'll trade legs with the autopilots, and try and fly using nothing but the trim and the rudder. I'll hand fly approaches if I'm solo as well.