Single Pilot IFR

Flying SPIFR from northern Indiana back to Atlanta last Friday afternoon in my Mooney I hit a wall of weather north of Chattanooga that I determined I could not safely penetrate. (My flight track is "different" for sure /flightaware.com/live/flight/N57039 )
Could I have hand flown while I retreated from the TS, determined my intentions, passed those intentions onto ATC, got and briefed the approach chart for my chosen deviation airport, etc, etc while in and out of IMC? Yes I definitely could have. However, there was no way it would have been safer. I certainly was not dozing off doing those things while on AP.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I would be less safe in a King Air than the 310. I also have zero knowledge of King Air systems, speeds, operating characteristics, etc. Does that mean the 310 is a safer plane? Not in my opinion.
Click to expand...
a C90 or B200 is a cakewalk compared to your 310. King airs (like bonanzas) are easy to operate, it's part of the reason the design has been so long-lived. Turbocharged piston twins are very high workload in comparison.
 
peerlesscowboy said:
I've seen more than a few of these guys who ".....have the budget," that seem to think they can compensate for their lack of experience, skill and confidence with equipment. One fellow I rode with (well to do rancher) in his VERY well equipped (for the time, 20 years ago)twin Comanche including an autopilot that'd level off at a pre-selected altitude plus track a VOR radial or a localizer including the glidesope.....COOL. I asked him "what does it do when you cross the cone of confusion over the VOR station? His reply......"I don't know?"
".......professional in how they act and make decisions." :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I agree completely. Buying too much plane is an issue. But refusing to use tools you have at your disposal (as some here have stated) if just as big an issue.
 
EdFred said:
For me it is strictly about hand flying the plane keeping me safer. If I have an AP button, I can pretty much guarantee I am dozing off. Now how safe is that?

Of course this will probably all be a moot point soon.
Click to expand...

BMI over 40?
 
As one who flew professionally for 25 years, I learned to appreciate and use all tools at my disposal that the aircraft had. When I worked for Beechcraft East in the early '80s, I was flying Bonanzas, Barons, and King Airs that had better and more advanced avionics than most of the airliners of the day. They would have given any corporate jet of the day a good run for the money. I would hand fly TO to cruise and descent to approach and landing. Then came the commuter era flying J31 and J32s with no autopilot. One can really develop "stick and rudder" and IFR skills hand flying 6-8 legs a day. There were many a day when the only time we saw the ground was below 200 feet on both ends of every flight that particular day. Dash 8' had a fullbore autopilot and FMS. Except in extreme turbulence, it was autopilot almost all the time. Then came the 737. Autopilot on at 1k ft., and off at 10k in the terminal area for ****s and giggles unless it was a real shi##y day, or night. I learned in short order how to use all the tools available in every aircraft I ever flew. Why not? It doesn't necessarily make you a better or more skilled pilot if you eschew them. It makes you a smarter pilot if you learn to and do use them.
You ain't gonna go dig a trench or ditch with a pick and shovel iffin you gots a backhoe or a Ditch Witch... are ya? Ain't nuttin' but a bunch of tools to help get the job done safely. Learn how to and use em.

my 2¢
Noah W
 
Noah Werka said:
As one who flew professionally for 25 years, I learned to appreciate and use all tools at my disposal that the aircraft had. When I worked for Beechcraft East in the early '80s, I was flying Bonanzas, Barons, and King Airs that had better and more advanced avionics than most of the airliners of the day. They would have given any corporate jet of the day a good run for the money. I would hand fly TO to cruise and descent to approach and landing. Then came the commuter era flying J31 and J32s with no autopilot. One can really develop "stick and rudder" and IFR skills hand flying 6-8 legs a day. There were many a day when the only time we saw the ground was below 200 feet on both ends of every flight that particular day. Dash 8' had a fullbore autopilot and FMS. Except in extreme turbulence, it was autopilot almost all the time. Then came the 737. Autopilot on at 1k ft., and off at 10k in the terminal area for ****s and giggles unless it was a real shi##y day, or night. I learned in short order how to use all the tools available in every aircraft I ever flew. Why not? It doesn't necessarily make you a better or more skilled pilot if you eschew them. It makes you a smarter pilot if you learn to and do use them.
You ain't gonna go dig a trench or ditch with a pick and shovel iffin you gots a backhoe or a Ditch Witch... are ya? Ain't nuttin' but a bunch of tools to help get the job done safely. Learn how to and use em.

my 2¢
Noah W
Click to expand...


Did you work at Beech East at FRG?
 
Slipkid65 said:
Did you work at Beech East at FRG?
Click to expand...

TEB from late 83-early 84 until it closed. Worked closely with the FRG bunch and the BED crowd. Some of the best flying I did. Continued to fly for a bunch of the Beechcraft owners for about 4 years after they shut the doors.

Noah W
 
JHW said:
a C90 or B200 is a cakewalk compared to your 310. King airs (like bonanzas) are easy to operate, it's part of the reason the design has been so long-lived. Turbocharged piston twins are very high workload in comparison.
Click to expand...

That was my point. But I would be less safe in a King Air until I got some training given my 0 hours in type and minimal turbine time.
 
Noah Werka said:
TEB from late 83-early 84 until it closed. Worked closely with the FRG bunch and the BED crowd. Some of the best flying I did. Continued to fly for a bunch of the Beechcraft owners for about 4 years after they shut the doors.

Noah W
Click to expand...

I worked for East Coast Airways and Long Island Airlines, a few hangars north of the Beech East hangars in FRG from 82 til 87 or so......
 
Last edited:
Jaybird180 said:
Is it really THAT risky?

If so, why does the FAA require a Commercial candidate to do a long XC, where presumably "there may be dragons (clouds) out there.":hairraise:

Link here
Click to expand...

I did my commercial cross country. I'm not instrument rated. But I have a trip in my logbook that will meet the requirements. No dragons noted. Severe clear.
 
Hmmm.....I wonder why no comments on the video...that was really supposed to be the outline of discussion....
 
Jaybird180 said:
Hmmm.....I wonder why no comments on the video...that was really supposed to be the outline of discussion....
Click to expand...
Define "THAT risky"? I don't think Collins was suggesting SPIFR is too risky but rather that there's increased risk that must be managed. Life is risky :wink2:
 
Ted DuPuis said:
What's interesting here is the divide between those who have been professional pilots and those who haven't. In most fields, I find professionals appreciate tools, and non-professionals find many tools superfluous.

I'm not a big AP user and have never canceled a flight because of an inop AP...
Click to expand...
And then you have never flown an MU-2. They are required to have a working autopilot as do all of the SP jets and for a very good reason. Almost any pilot can hand-fly almost any airplane when the conditions are benign - IFR or VFR - but the opportunities for getting things royally screwed up while flying SP/noAP increase geometrically. It doesn't really matter what might cause things to get interesting - weather, ATC or systems issues - it really wouldn't take a whole lot to overwhelm most of the "SP hand flyers" out there. (Sim instructors are particularly good at illustrating this to said "SP hand flyers".) So why do the Pros, like Jeff and Noah W, among us appreciate tools like an AP? It's because we've all been there and done that and understand how much safety and redundancy an AP interjects into the equation. We're not super pilots, we are mere mortals.
 
Last edited:
I saw nothing in the video that would indicate that Richard believes that SPIFR is too risky, just that he thinks there needs to be more risk management with it.

He did indicate that two pilots flying IFR are statistically safer than one. I'd agree with that, but I think he's referring to a whole different type of operation; aircraft that require two pilots. Sure, when you have two professional pilots flying a G-V, their accident rate is going to be less that a GA pilot flying his SE plane around SPIFR. That's like comparing apples to oranges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top