Poll: personal IFR minimums?

[GCA319]

If you're current and facing an approach to mins in a piston single, would you guys let a coupled autopilot fly it, or would you hand fly?

Which would you do in reality?

Which is safer?

Airplane dependent. If I know and trust the autopilot in that particular airplane then I'd have no problem doing a coupled approach to mins to lessen my workload and enhance situational awareness.

 

[Everskyward]

Airplane dependent. If I know and trust the autopilot in that particular airplane then I'd have no problem doing a coupled approach to mins to lessen my workload and enhance situational awareness.

This. I never flew a piston single with an autopilot good enough to be trusted. Even some turbine twins liked to s-turn down final so I hand flew the approaches. The current airplane's autopilot is fine so I couple the approaches.

 

[jordane93]

If you're current and facing an approach to mins in a piston single, would you guys let a coupled autopilot fly it, or would you hand fly?

Which would you do in reality?

Which is safer?

I usually like to do every other approach coupled. It keeps my button pushing in check and also my hand flying. I've hand flown a decent amount of approaches down to minimums and also used the AP for a lot of them as well. If I've been in the soup all day and I'm exhausted I'll let the AP do the work and shoot the approach.

 

[RotorDude]

If you're current and facing an approach to mins in a piston single, would you guys let a coupled autopilot fly it, or would you hand fly?

Which would you do in reality?

Which is safer?

I don't trust my single engine piston autopilot on initial climbout and final approach. I think there is less chance for my circuit breaker to pop or shearpin to snap at the wrong time. I also do a better job than my A/P, not because I am so good, but because it's so sloppy.

 

[Noah Werka]

Unless you fly for a living or fly enough IMC... not IFR( big difference) enough to stay proficiently comfortable, there is never a need to push yourself to fly to published minimums. Getthereitis has gotten more than one pilot, and will continue to get those that overfly their capabilities. Set personal minimums and stick to them until you are comfortable with them. Then start lowering them until you are comfortable flying to published minimums. If you never get there, at least you are alive. I can remember many a day in my past commuter scum life flying a Jetstream 31-32 with no autopilot eight legs a day, entering IMC at 200 ft. and not seeing the ground until there was a runway at 200 ft. It was no big deal. The difference was there was a two man crew and at least one of us had many years of doing that kind of stuff. In my later airline life I flew many approaches to mins in all kinds of nasty weather. Again, two man crew. No ego, bravado, or anything else involved except safety and that is just what we did because that is the way it was...It doesn't have to be that way for everybody. Safety is the number one priority. I haven't flown or care to fly an aircraft, since I retired 9 years ago, but if I did, my personal mins would be CAVU.

Noah W

 

[Caramon13]

This. I never flew a piston single with an autopilot good enough to be trusted. Even some turbine twins liked to s-turn down final so I hand flew the approaches. The current airplane's autopilot is fine so I couple the approaches.

You must have had some horribly bad piston-single autopilots then, that's unfortunate. By contrast I've never flown a plane where the autopilot WASN'T capable of being trusted, and I've only flown piston singles.

The way I see it is if your autopilot sucks that bad that you can't trust it, fix it or remove it..or if it's a training issue, go get training on it. If it's in the plane and it will help lessen my workload, improve awareness or generally make things easier, I'm using it.

Don't they teach you the perils of being MACHO in commercial training?

I do what a few other people have mentioned, hand-fly for proficiency and practice, but to make sure I keep practice with automation, I let the autopilot fly some approaches.

My autopilot is not coupled to the glideslope so I STILL have to pay attention there, but it will hold a loc needle well.

 

[coloradobluesky]

Once you've had an autopilot fail on you, you take the possibility more seriously. The airline autopilots have some redundancy small plane ones don't.

 

[Everskyward]

You must have had some horribly bad piston-single autopilots then, that's unfortunate. By contrast I've never flown a plane where the autopilot WASN'T capable of being trusted, and I've only flown piston singles.

The way I see it is if your autopilot sucks that bad that you can't trust it, fix it or remove it..or if it's a training issue, go get training on it. If it's in the plane and it will help lessen my workload, improve awareness or generally make things easier, I'm using it.

Don't they teach you the perils of being MACHO in commercial training?

I do what a few other people have mentioned, hand-fly for proficiency and practice, but to make sure I keep practice with automation, I let the autopilot fly some approaches.

My autopilot is not coupled to the glideslope so I STILL have to pay attention there, but it will hold a loc needle well.

Heck, the piston single I have the most time in didn't have an autopilot at all, and it was a C-206.

 

[dell30rb]

I just realized that the Century I in the swift will track a localizer. Never read the manual. Just assumed it was too old for anything fancy like that. Always read the manual.

I can't say i've ever flown a fully coupled approach. Our club had several planes with KAP150's but with autopilots being notoriously unreliable in those aircraft and me constantly jumping from plane to plane, I never used the approach feature in real IMC.

 

[Caramon13]

Heck, the piston single I have the most time in didn't have an autopilot at all, and it was a C-206.

Yeah, I never flew in a plane that had one either until I started in on my IFR training. Steam gauge 172 all the way, trim and hand-fly.

They DO spoil you though.

I had an autopilot fail on me at the start of a long cross country, JUST as I got up to cruise altitude..<sigh>. Could I have flown the 600 NM flight without it? Yeah. Did I? No, though the fact that the turn coordinator ALSO failed was a bigger issue .

If you spend the 20K to put in a two axis autopilot and never use it then..uh..why did you spend the 20K?

 

[dans2992]

Sad thing is that in the experimental world, that would be $2k...

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

If you spend the 20K to put in a two axis autopilot and never use it then..uh..why did you spend the 20K?

Along the lines about my feelings on non-standard minimums thread. I did not go through all that trouble and expense to fly vmc.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Heck, the piston single I have the most time in didn't have an autopilot at all, and it was a C-206.

That was certainly true for me until about 15 years ago when I started flying more modern creatures in which the autopilot was expected to work. Rentals are probably more notorious for bad autopilot than privately-own aircraft.

Even for the decent ones, though, a good healthy dose of paranoia is helpful.

I had a PnP mission last year. Expected IMC en route and ceilings low enough for an IAP. Needless to say, the autopilot had been flagged INOP the day before and I hand flew the 5 hours.

Boy were my arms tired! But we saved Lulu the pregnant Chihuahua, who had 4 pups later that week, so it was worth it.

 

[wayne]

Whatever is on the approach plate. I'll shoot it even if automated weather says it's below minimum ceiling as I've found it wrong before, and if it's right it's good practice.

Went missed on one like that two weeks ago. No big deal. Oddly we landed at another airport just over 10 nm away with a 1,000'+ ceiling. Weird. Waited for the ceiling to raise then went over and picked up the Angel Flight patient. Just a delay, not a big deal and got some good practice.

 

[Kritchlow]

Whatever is on the approach plate. I'll shoot it even if automated weather says it's below minimum ceiling as I've found it wrong before, and if it's right it's good practice.

Went missed on one like that two weeks ago. No big deal. Oddly we landed at another airport just over 10 nm away with a 1,000'+ ceiling. Weird. Waited for the ceiling to raise then went over and picked up the Angel Flight patient. Just a delay, not a big deal and got some good practice.

There is no minimum ceiling.

 

[Sundancer]

Our Stec 20 won't do a "coupled" approach, doesn't have GPS steering; but it will track the GPS or VOR/LOC course. I tend to "fly" it with the heading bug in the approach phase. Just so much easier, and frees me up to spend a few extra seconds looking at other stuff.

But, as someone said, redundancy ain't built into most GA systems, and I don't really trust the AP.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

I always use AP in real IMC, it's easy to switch to hand flying if required. It doesn't do the glide slope so really it's both, hand fly take offs until on course, practice approaches always by hand.

 

[TheGolfPilot]

I fly 4 different planes. My minimums and requirements for IMC are different in all of them.
One is a 182RG with an HSI, GTN750 and ILS capable backup nav. No AP. As long as I am legal, winds in the approach segment are 20 knots or less, and nothing is suggesting moderate to severe turbulence, I fly.
172 with GTN 650- Light wind, little to no turbulence. No more than 2 people because I want a decent climb.
182/A. If weather deteriorates unexpected, I am willing to fly to minimums but I prefer I won't catapult in this plane without 800' ceiling current and expected. Wind will make me pay attention, turbulence makes it hard.
Archer /A This plane is a dog climbing. Through thin layers only up and down. Will land on an ILS as low as it will go but I won't takeoff without having 1000' ceilings or so. Wind and turbulence, no go.

Those are just base numbers too. Every flight is a go/no-go decision. These numbers do change based on how I feel about my currency and outside factors, but right now. This is what I would be willing to do today.

 

[luvflyin]

.......low departures can be tougher than low approaches. It's easier operating the plane after all the noises have settled down, the engine has been running for hours and my hand flying skills are fully warmed up. Jumping in a cold airplane for the first flight in 2 weeks for a departure into a 500' ceiling can be more challenging. Give it full power and listen to the RPMs rev, accelerate, move the eyes up and down a few times, pitch up, don't drop the pencil, start going thru the wispies and get the call to go to departure while keeping it on the proper straight ahead climb.... I found a smooth air approach to 200' after a 2 hour leg much easier on the mind.

Just some thoughts. Have fun and enjoy!

Oh yeah! The first time I ever experienced real vertigo was after about a 4 month break from any flying. In the goo a few seconds after lift off. My pulse is going up a few beats just sitting here thinking about it.