Proficiency

[MachFly]

For those of you guys who do not fly in IMC everyday how often do you go up to keep your IFR proficiency?
Just to clarify I'm not talking about being legally current to fly IFR, I'm talking about proficient to safely fly in IMC.

I'm thinking at least every two month, wanted to know your options.


Thanks

 

[spiderweb]

For those of you guys who do not fly in IMC everyday how often do you go up to keep your IFR proficiency?
Just to clarify I'm not talking about being legally current to fly IFR, I'm talking about proficient to safely fly in IMC.

I'm thinking at least every two month, wanted to know your options.


Thanks

Once a month, for three hours.

 

[DouglasBader]

Recognizing that legality isn't the same as proficiency is an important part of the process.

There's no harm or shame in getting with an instructor to get refresher training, or a fresh proficiency check. Get with a safety pilot and go fly approaches. Rent a simulator or procedures trainer and do approaches, holds, etc.

If your'e going to fly visually, include an approach at each location; it's better than no involvement, and while you may be visual, you'll still be going through the motions, and doing the procedures.

Better yet, stay current. It's easier than not.

 

[Henning]

I stay VFR.

 

[jtheune]

In order to give a reasonable answer you need to define what you want to do in IMC. If all you want to do is climb through a layer to get to VFR then that is one thing. If you want to be able to fly a approach to near minimums then that's another. What kind of equipment do you have available? No Autopilot means one thing, a full up Stec 55X with a WASS GPS means another. Understanding the risks you take when flying in any kind of weather is the first step in deciding how much to practice. Personally I'm willing to climb thru a layer starting at 2000 AGL to pop out on top at 6 or 7K with just legal proficiency. I do have a autopilot that will do everything but serve coffee. I won't take off if I'm not fairly certain that I'll have at least a 1000 foot ceiling at my destination unless I've had recent ( last month or two ) practice shooting approaches.

 

[Henning]

In order to give a reasonable answer you need to define what you want to do in IMC. If all you want to do is climb through a layer to get to VFR then that is one thing. If you want to be able to fly a approach to near minimums then that's another. What kind of equipment do you have available? No Autopilot means one thing, a full up Stec 55X with a WASS GPS means another. Understanding the risks you take when flying in any kind of weather is the first step in deciding how much to practice. Personally I'm willing to climb thru a layer starting at 2000 AGL to pop out on top at 6 or 7K with just legal proficiency. I do have a autopilot that will do everything but serve coffee. I won't take off if I'm not fairly certain that I'll have at least a 1000 foot ceiling at my destination unless I've had recent ( last month or two ) practice shooting approaches.

I completely agree with this, most people who fly with an autopilot should have higher minimums than people who do not. Most of them cannot do what their autopilot does and when it fails will be SOL. If you want to buy electronic safety it's SVT.

 

[DouglasBader]

Synthetic vision is the exception, rather than the rule.

The assertion that use of an autopilot diminishes pilot skill is old and worn. The autopilot does not fly the aircraft. The pilot flies the aircraft through the autopilot.

Autopilots don't decrease pilot skills. Only pilots can allow their skills to atrophy through over-reliance or over-use of automation.

My preference is to fly every other approach using automation, and every other approach by hand.

 

[MachFly]

In order to give a reasonable answer you need to define what you want to do in IMC. If all you want to do is climb through a layer to get to VFR then that is one thing. If you want to be able to fly a approach to near minimums then that's another. What kind of equipment do you have available? No Autopilot means one thing, a full up Stec 55X with a WASS GPS means another. Understanding the risks you take when flying in any kind of weather is the first step in deciding how much to practice. Personally I'm willing to climb thru a layer starting at 2000 AGL to pop out on top at 6 or 7K with just legal proficiency. I do have a autopilot that will do everything but serve coffee. I won't take off if I'm not fairly certain that I'll have at least a 1000 foot ceiling at my destination unless I've had recent ( last month or two ) practice shooting approaches.

I got a G1000 with SVT, GFC700 autopilot, and a WAAS GPS. Chances are in the near future the only IMC stuff I'll have to do is climb though a layer of clouds, but I try to stay proficient in order to fly an approach to the minimums. You never know what weather you going to have to fly though a few month later.
When practicing I prefer to turn off SVT and fly it by hand (for obvious reasons).

 

[MachFly]

The assertion that use of an autopilot diminishes pilot skill is old and worn. The autopilot does not fly the aircraft. The pilot flies the aircraft through the autopilot.

Autopilots don't decrease pilot skills. Only pilots can allow their skills to atrophy through over-reliance or over-use of automation.

My preference is to fly every other approach using automation, and every other approach by hand.

That depends on the type of autopilot you fly with. If your autopilot can do everything for you and you let it then with time your stick and rudder stills will significantly deteriorate.
I do agree about switching it up every other approach, it would be rather inconvenient to forget how to use your autopilot.

 

[spiderweb]

I completely agree with this, most people who fly with an autopilot should have higher minimums than people who do not. Most of them cannot do what their autopilot does and when it fails will be SOL. If you want to buy electronic safety it's SVT.

Agree. The way Cirrus standardized training is, is that you turn the AP on at 400 feet, and off just before landing. I told my CFI-IA that I needed to actually fly this plane, that I ENJOY flying an airplane! I turn the AP on when I want to grab something from my flightbag, or in cruise when I want to have a sandwich.

I do -practice- some approaches with the AP, because it is good to know how to use all equipment in the plane, especially when it is so advanced.

 

[Henning]

Synthetic vision is the exception, rather than the rule.

Depends on who's writing the rules. It's quite simple to set yourself a rule not to fly IMC without SVT and then stick to it by equipping your plane properly or remaining VFR.

 

[DouglasBader]

That depends on the type of autopilot you fly with. If your autopilot can do everything for you and you let it then with time your stick and rudder stills will significantly deteriorate.

It doesn't depend on the type of autopilot. Deteriorating skills aren't an autopilot problem. They're a pilot problem.

It's quite simple to set yourself a rule not to fly IMC without SVT and then stick to it by equipping your plane properly or remaining VFR.

That cracks me up. It's a wonder so many of us are able to operate safely without it, isn't it?

Recently in a thread on IFR equipment in light aircraft (single engine piston aircraft, specifically), I was amused by how many individuals claimed that they were safe because they carried two VFR handheld GPS.

Same for SVT. Nice to have, but hardly necessary.

How ever do we manage to operate all over the world, night and all weather, often into mountainous airports, without it?

 

[Henning]

That cracks me up. It's a wonder so many of us are able to operate safely without it, isn't it?

Recently in a thread on IFR equipment in light aircraft (single engine piston aircraft, specifically), I was amused by how many individuals claimed that they were safe because they carried two VFR handheld GPS.

Same for SVT. Nice to have, but hardly necessary.

How ever do we manage to operate all over the world, night and all weather, often into mountainous airports, without it?

Not surprising at all when most of the flights are done on autopilot. If everything is so wonderfull with an interpretive gauge panel, why couldn't 3 pro airline pilots interpret a stall and fly a perfectly good airplane into the ocean?

 

[MachFly]

It doesn't depend on the type of autopilot. Deteriorating skills aren't an autopilot problem. They're a pilot problem.

Of course it mainly depends on the pilot, but if your flying with something like an Stec 30 that can only fly straight and turn then your forced to do everything else by hand.

 

[DouglasBader]

If everything is so wonderfull with an interpretive gauge panel, why couldn't 3 pro airline pilots interpret a stall and fly a perfectly good airplane into the ocean?

I don't know. I wasn't there.

The rest of us seem to do okay, though.

 

[Henning]

I don't know. I wasn't there.

The rest of us seem to do okay, though.

As long as everything is good, no worries, AP flies most of everything anyway, and you do it for a living. How good do you think you would be hand flying partial panel to minimums when you fly 30 hrs a year for the last 10 years? The less one flies instruments, the greater the benefit to flying with SVT. A 12 year old with some video game experience can fly an acceptable approach to minimums. Even a pro gains an advantage in an emergency or when the AP fails because the time required to gather and process the scan data into a complete situational awareness picture is reduced to a quick glance. There is never any confusion on where that mountain is either. A couple of years back Quantas almost wrecked their first Jet into the side of a mountain west of Sydney because they were holding at the wrong fix.

As for AF 447, the CVR and FDR spell out exactly what happened, check it out. They did not know they were stalled, they couldn't interpret the panel.

 

[Tom-D]

For those of you guys who do not fly in IMC everyday how often do you go up to keep your IFR proficiency?
Thanks

I don't..

 

[peppy]

I completely agree with this, most people who fly with an autopilot should have higher minimums than people who do not. Most of them cannot do what their autopilot does and when it fails will be SOL. If you want to buy electronic safety it's SVT.

I disagree. Instead what is needed is an awareness of different personal minimums depending on not only currency but status of the aircraft. If an equipment failure occurs in flight then a change is needed to an airport with minimums appropriate to the situation. This should have been planned for prior to takeoff. It is very different to take off with ceilings 200' at the destination with surrounding airports at 800' vs. 250' or lower across a wide area of the country.

 

[flyingron]

I fly with the A/P a lot, even VFR. However, you have to be ready to push that big red button at any time (either when the thing is hunting all over the place in turbulence or you realize it's just not doing the right thing). I can't tell you the number of times I've done that on approaches. You have to be proficient in both had flying and in the operation of the autopilot and what ever nav devices it is coupled too.

My proficiency practice is to go fly (often in dusky conditions) and do three different approaches twice, once hand flying, once fully coupling it to the A/P to whatever extent that is possible.

The real ****er is why I always have a safety pilot, I can't do it IFR because my wife has no instrument rating and the clandestine rule change a few years ago bars her from acting as safety pilot in those situations.

 

[Henning]

I disagree. Instead what is needed is an awareness of different personal minimums depending on not only currency but status of the aircraft. If an equipment failure occurs in flight then a change is needed to an airport with minimums appropriate to the situation. This should have been planned for prior to takeoff. It is very different to take off with ceilings 200' at the destination with surrounding airports at 800' vs. 250' or lower across a wide area of the country.

I have seen entire regions of the US go below minimums. You don't always get the option to get away from it. There is no mystical weather machine nor 100% or even 90% assurance that nature will cooperate with your plans, nor is there a magic way for us GA folks to generate fuel in flight.

 

[peppy]

I have seen entire regions of the US go below minimums. You don't always get the option to get away from it. There is no mystical weather machine nor 100% or even 90% assurance that nature will cooperate with your plans, nor is there a magic way for us GA folks to generate fuel in flight.

Please read what I posted earlier. I stated that preflight planning must take into account not only the weather at the destination but surrounding it. It makes a difference. Your minimums should be different.

 

[Henning]

Please read what I posted earlier. I stated that preflight planning must take into account not only the weather at the destination but surrounding it. It makes a difference. Your minimums should be different.

All the preflight planning and minimums in the world do no good when the weather doesn't act as the predictions put forth, it all goes away in the bat of an eye and you are stuck with a reality you didn't plan for.

 

[peppy]

With all of the focus on hand flying highly automated planes, I see more errors due to inadequate training in how to use the equipment and especially how to handle the automation not doing what you expect. As and example, with the Stec 55X, Sandel HSI and Garmin 430 combos in early Cirrus aircraft, when does autoslew fail to happen, how do you recognize it and how do you quickly correct? With Avidyne R9, what must be done to fly the missed on an ILS? What happens if you forget to activate the missed and when will the system allow activating the missed? On the Garmin 430W have you practiced a diversion to another airport while it nicely flies the hold? I love instructors who are good at getting the equipment to do something you don't expect and can get you into that situation without you noticing.

I fly with the A/P a lot, even VFR. However, you have to be ready to push that big red button at any time (either when the thing is hunting all over the place in turbulence or you realize it's just not doing the right thing). I can't tell you the number of times I've done that on approaches. You have to be proficient in both had flying and in the operation of the autopilot and what ever nav devices it is coupled too.

My proficiency practice is to go fly (often in dusky conditions) and do three different approaches twice, once hand flying, once fully coupling it to the A/P to whatever extent that is possible.

The real ****er is why I always have a safety pilot, I can't do it IFR because my wife has no instrument rating and the clandestine rule change a few years ago bars her from acting as safety pilot in those situations.

 

[peppy]

All the preflight planning and minimums in the world do no good when the weather doesn't act as the predictions put forth, it all goes away in the bat of an eye and you are stuck with a reality you didn't plan for.

Now you are just getting argumentative. Of course weather isn't totally predictable. However, if LZU has 300' ceilings due to lifting fog (common) and most airports around are >1000 with all TAFs predicting CAVU for later in the day then that is very different than several states having 400' or lower with the TAFs looking awful. I guess you could argue that with no systems in the area, clean TAFs and CAVU everywhere that the weather might magically become zero-zero while you are in the air so you should never fly unless CAT2 equipped. It's about risk management.

 

[Bob Noel]

All the preflight planning and minimums in the world do no good when the weather doesn't act as the predictions put forth, it all goes away in the bat of an eye and you are stuck with a reality you didn't plan for.

What is the probability of the weather changing so much and so badly that the pilot will be SOL?

What is the probability of weather being below CAT I minimums when it wasn't forecast?

 

[Henning]

What is the probability of the weather changing so much and so badly that the pilot will be SOL?

What is the probability of weather being below CAT I minimums when it wasn't forecast?

Probabilities are impossible to calculate on this due to the complexity of weather; the fact is it happens on a regular basis. When I was a VFR pilot on my first trip back east I was weathered in in FT Wayne for 2 days. Next morning it was CAVU and when I called for my brief to fly to St Louis I was given a forecast of CAVU remaining for the intended route for the rest of the day so I launched within the hour. Just past Indianapolis (I was following the highways since my NAV radios had both died over the Grand Canyon on day one of the trip) the first little cloud appeared. Within 5 minutes I was diving through the last hole in the deck before it closed. By the time I got to St Louis I was forced to 75' due to the deck right above me. When STL approach handed me over to Parks Downtown tower they asked my position and I told them referenced to the highways. The asked if I was sure, I told them "That's what I'm reading on the highway signs" "08T, clear to land". What do you think the probabilities are of losing 2 NAV radios of different brands within a minute of each other are? What are the probabilities of going from CAVU to a solid deck over the entire Mississippi valley are? We don't prepare for probabilities, we prepare for possibilities.

 

[Bob Noel]

Probabilities are impossible to calculate on this due to the complexity of weather; the fact is it happens on a regular basis. When I was a VFR pilot on my first trip back east I was weathered in in FT Wayne for 2 days. Next morning it was CAVU and when I called for my brief to fly to St Louis I was given a forecast of CAVU remaining for the intended route for the rest of the day so I launched within the hour. Just past Indianapolis (I was following the highways since my NAV radios had both died over the Grand Canyon on day one of the trip) the first little cloud appeared. Within 5 minutes I was diving through the last hole in the deck before it closed. By the time I got to St Louis I was forced to 75' due to the deck right above me. When STL approach handed me over to Parks Downtown tower they asked my position and I told them referenced to the highways. The asked if I was sure, I told them "That's what I'm reading on the highway signs" "08T, clear to land". What do you think the probabilities are of losing 2 NAV radios of different brands within a minute of each other are? What are the probabilities of going from CAVU to a solid deck over the entire Mississippi valley are? We don't prepare for probabilities, we prepare for possibilities.

When doing risk management, we consider the probability of occurrence.

The probability of losing two nav radios on the same 1 hour flight would be less than 1 in 250,000 (the actual number is a function of the specific radio and the installation, I simply assumed a 500 hour MBTCF and no common failure). Does that mean it couldn't happen? Of course not.

When considering weather, we can look at historical records. It's perfectly reasonable to extrapolate future weather probabilities from past records. For example, in the US southwest the probability of being below Cat I minimums but above Cat II minimums is so low that anyone thinking about the expensive of Cat II equippage and training would reject it as not being worth the expense.

There are areas of the country where the weather simply doesn't go from CAVU to zero-zero instantly and without warning.

 

[Henning]

When doing risk management, we consider the probability of occurrence.

The probability of losing two nav radios on the same 1 hour flight would be less than 1 in 250,000 (the actual number is a function of the specific radio and the installation, I simply assumed a 500 hour MBTCF and no common failure). Does that mean it couldn't happen? Of course not.

When considering weather, we can look at historical records. It's perfectly reasonable to extrapolate future weather probabilities from past records. For example, in the US southwest the probability of being below Cat I minimums but above Cat II minimums is so low that anyone thinking about the expensive of Cat II equippage and training would reject it as not being worth the expense.

There are areas of the country where the weather simply doesn't go from CAVU to zero-zero instantly and without warning.

Right, but that's the thing about airplanes, you can be 2 climate zones away at the end of your flight. Do you only prepare for your local region or also those you intend to fly to?

 

[DouglasBader]

When doing risk management, we consider the probability of occurrence.

The probability of losing two nav radios on the same 1 hour flight would be less than 1 in 250,000 (the actual number is a function of the specific radio and the installation, I simply assumed a 500 hour MBTCF and no common failure). Does that mean it couldn't happen? Of course not.

Risk management is acceptance of risk.

I've experienced loss of two nav radios at the same time, and have experienced two EFB's going unserviceable at the same time. Also dual FMS failures.

Probability of occurrence should always be approached with the attitude that if it can, it probably will.

 

[flyingron]

With all of the focus on hand flying highly automated planes, I see more errors due to inadequate training in how to use the equipment and especially how to handle the automation not doing what you expect.

Exactly. I've punched HDG a few times when the bug is at 4 oclock (STEC 55X/GNS480/King KCS-55A) or NAV when I'm off the purple line and the thing banks over and you say what is this doing. Somtimes, pushing the redbutton there can be equally daunting...remember you are now in an UNUSUAL ATTITUDE...the plane is not in the attitude you are expecting.
I've frequently thought I was set up to capture the GS and the thing motors through it. Sometimes pushing the RED button isn't the answer, but it's often the easiest to think of.

 

[dell30rb]

I got my IR in a 152 with 70's IFR equipment and I swear I could have flown needles centered down an ILS with one hand tied behind my back and one eye closed, with a rattlesnake in my boots. While counting down backwards from 100

But its been a little while since those days and I have not flown in actual for quite some time. I reluctantly got the foggles out last week and found a safety pilot to do a few approaches after work. Went well but I don't feel as confident in the PA28 with the GTN650 so i'll be doing another hour under the hood next week.

 

[peppy]

So I guess the only answer for you is to never fly. There is a finite probability that with no clouds in the sky and none projected, the weather will go to zero-zero for a thousand miles around your aircraft and do so before you can land. Come on. Part of checking weather is to evaluate what potential variability fits your risk profile. A good pilot doesn't just look at the static weather picture but at the synoptic picture to look at the potential for change. On a long flight this is tracked to see how well developing weather is matching forecast.

All of this started because I said a pilot could have an AP working set of personal minimums and a separate hand flying set of personal minimums. Let's assume those minimums are the same and the pilot is extremely proficient. Heck, let's make him a pilot god. OK, it's you. Now let's assume the destination is projected to be 300' with 2 mile visibility. It's in a valley but there is an ILS and outside the valley the worst airport is projected to be 2000' ceilings and >5 mile visibility. You will arrive with a 2 hour fuel reserve. According to your argument you don't go because there is a chance the entire area will be at zero-zero when you get there and you plane is only Cat1.

Now let's talk reality. If a hurricane is approaching you indeed might not go. Even an approaching front might make you suspicious of the TAFs. But, normally a pilot will look at the forecast and say it looks great, the synoptic picture backs up the TAFs and take off. Along the way he will monitor the weather for changes that don't match the forecast. Do you really disagree with this?

Probabilities are impossible to calculate on this due to the complexity of weather; the fact is it happens on a regular basis. When I was a VFR pilot on my first trip back east I was weathered in in FT Wayne for 2 days. Next morning it was CAVU and when I called for my brief to fly to St Louis I was given a forecast of CAVU remaining for the intended route for the rest of the day so I launched within the hour. Just past Indianapolis (I was following the highways since my NAV radios had both died over the Grand Canyon on day one of the trip) the first little cloud appeared. Within 5 minutes I was diving through the last hole in the deck before it closed. By the time I got to St Louis I was forced to 75' due to the deck right above me. When STL approach handed me over to Parks Downtown tower they asked my position and I told them referenced to the highways. The asked if I was sure, I told them "That's what I'm reading on the highway signs" "08T, clear to land". What do you think the probabilities are of losing 2 NAV radios of different brands within a minute of each other are? What are the probabilities of going from CAVU to a solid deck over the entire Mississippi valley are? We don't prepare for probabilities, we prepare for possibilities.

 

[Henning]

So I guess the only answer for you is to never fly.

Not at all, the answer for me is to equip myself with the best equipment I can, that's why I have a high performance twin with a G-500 soon to be SVT equipped so I can comfortably fly in IMC with my limited time for proficiency work. Aviation safety costs money whether you spend it on technology or proficiency training. I'm not looking to build time and I don't fly to get my jollies so considering the cost of flying, it's more efficient and economical to spend the money on top end equipment than to do a bunch of flying with no purpose but to remain proficient at flying instruments, especially when I don't enjoy flying in IMC and have no problem meeting my schedules and mission requirements VFR.

 

[dell30rb]

This does not add up to me henning.

You have a twin because in the unlikely event that one engine fails, you have another. You (apparently) practice and stay proficient in OEI flight so you can reap the benefits of this redundancy. Otherwise, what is the point of a twin.

But you won't fly in IMC without SVT because you don't want to practice enough to remain proficient with a standard panel. What if your SVT fails?

 

[dell30rb]

By the way I don't disagree with buying the nicest plane you can afford and stuffing it with the best electronics including SVT. As long as you can afford to actually fly it enough to maintain proficiency.

But statistically the brains of the pilot make the most difference, and if you have to pick between a more expensive twin and flying minimally because you cant afford 100hrs a year, or a less expensive single but flying and practicing whenever you want, I think the single wins in terms of safety.

 

[Henning]

This does not add up to me henning.

You have a twin because in the unlikely event that one engine fails, you have another. You (apparently) practice and stay proficient in OEI flight so you can reap the benefits of this redundancy. Otherwise, what is the point of a twin.

But you won't fly in IMC without SVT because you don't want to practice enough to remain proficient with a standard panel. What if your SVT fails?

That is correct, every third approach I do is OEI (simulated zero thrust). In cruise I'll let my aux tanks run dry and every now and then I run through the caging drill when it happens. This I can do easily solo which almost all my flights are because I go to destinations for a purpose and remain there for some time. IFR practice is not so simple, it requires a second pilot so I settle for IPCs with the buddy who spoiled me on glass and SVT. the answer to failure is backup SVT, redundancy is the key to critical systems.

BTW, I haven't flown IFR except my IPCs since I took a trip from Atlanta to CA a few years back in a well equipped 310 but no SVT, the answer there was 'Redundant IR Pilot'. I have no issues with simple equipment and 2 pilots even though I did get caught single pilot flying the ILS into LGB to mins, but by then I had several hours of proficiency.

 

[peppy]

Please rad my post again. This answers nothing. Do you think SVT is good in zero-zero conditions? Do you think it has 100% reliability? I am trying to get back to your statement that flying to an airport with a forecast ceiling below a pilot's non-AP minimum but above his AP mins is crazy (well, that seems to be what you implied) even if there is no weather moving through and all airports within the surrounding 1,000 miles are CAVU and forecast to stay that way because his AP might break and weather is unpredictable. Recall your statements about not trusting the forecast. Since that means weather in the entire region could be zero-zero with winds gusting to 70 knots you must think SVT is your savior. Yes I'm being sarcastic but it seems you have one opinion when discussing AP's and what other people do and then shift when discussing SVT and yourself. I believe that somewhere along the way a pilot needs to take the forecast into account and make a judgement on his ability to make the weather call.

Not at all, the answer for me is to equip myself with the best equipment I can, that's why I have a high performance twin with a G-500 soon to be SVT equipped so I can comfortably fly in IMC with my limited time for proficiency work. Aviation safety costs money whether you spend it on technology or proficiency training. I'm not looking to build time and I don't fly to get my jollies so considering the cost of flying, it's more efficient and economical to spend the money on top end equipment than to do a bunch of flying with no purpose but to remain proficient at flying instruments, especially when I don't enjoy flying in IMC and have no problem meeting my schedules and mission requirements VFR.

 

[Henning]

Please rad my post again. This answers nothing. Do you think SVT is good in zero-zero conditions? Do you think it has 100% reliability? I am trying to get back to your statement that flying to an airport with a forecast ceiling below a pilot's non-AP minimum but above his AP mins is crazy (well, that seems to be what you implied) even if there is no weather moving through and all airports within the surrounding 1,000 miles are CAVU and forecast to stay that way because his AP might break and weather is unpredictable. Recall your statements about not trusting the forecast. Since that means weather in the entire region could be zero-zero with winds gusting to 70 knots you must think SVT is your savior. Yes I'm being sarcastic but it seems you have one opinion when discussing AP's and what other people do and then shift when discussing SVT and yourself. I believe that somewhere along the way a pilot needs to take the forecast into account and make a judgement on his ability to make the weather call.

Do I think SVT is good in 0/0, no, not good, FLIR would be good, but I'll get in alive if it comes down to it. No equipment is infallible, I just get the best I can and live with the risk from there, if I die, I die, it's bound to happen one day, I'm good enough with that, but I still like giving myself the best advantages I can to live under the constraints I deal with.

My point with AP people is that the scan/hand/eye coordination requires constant use to be slick. When you cruise around on AP all the time, you lose that.

 

[spiderweb]

Not at all, the answer for me is to equip myself with the best equipment I can, that's why I have a high performance twin with a G-500 soon to be SVT equipped so I can comfortably fly in IMC with my limited time for proficiency work. Aviation safety costs money whether you spend it on technology or proficiency training. I'm not looking to build time and I don't fly to get my jollies so considering the cost of flying, it's more efficient and economical to spend the money on top end equipment than to do a bunch of flying with no purpose but to remain proficient at flying instruments, especially when I don't enjoy flying in IMC and have no problem meeting my schedules and mission requirements VFR.

I can see and understand both sides of the argument, and I feel that both are right. Take my words with a grain of potassium (need to watch my BP)--600-hr private pilot for 11 years.

But I got my IR in a strictly round-gauge bird, with no AP. I flew about 20 hours actual during that time, too. Great challenge and GREAT fun!

But now comes what we can call the "Henning Rule": Get your hands on the most capable bird you can (and there are a lot with G1000s with all the goodies), keep yourself current (for me, 3 hours a month with a CFI-A NO MATTER WHAT other flying I've done), then make your risk assessments quite conservatively.

Equipment, Proficiency, Judgement.

 

[DouglasBader]

My point with AP people is that the scan/hand/eye coordination requires constant use to be slick. When you cruise around on AP all the time, you lose that.

No, you don't.

If a pilot fails to be a pilot by abdicating to automation, that's a pilot failure, and is not a consequence of automation. It's a consequence of a pilot failing to do his or her job.

When we come in off the line, one of the requirements that we must demonstrate at recurrency in the sim is a hand flown raw data NDB to minimums. We use automation a lot; we don't let automation fly the aircraft. We fly the aircraft through automation, and it can and does enhance one's flying ability. We always operate on the assumption that the automation will not be available the following second, and train to disconnect it immediately and fly, where necessary, and also where desired.

Using automation does not imply poor hand flying skills.