Auto Pilot and IFR

Having flown with and without an a/p ifr, the increase in safety when using an a/p makes it a no-brainer. Nevermind the bravado posted by some, having an a/p makes life a lot easier and the flight much safer. It allows you to free up your mind from the mundane but consuming task of heading and altitude and focus on other aspects of the flight, whether enroute or on the approach segment.
 
midcap said:
You don't get fatigued in the clouds?
Click to expand...
Nope. Scan and holding heading/altitude keeps me awake. Autopilot would have me fall asleep within 10 minutes.

I actually like flying. If you just wanna sit there, hire someone else to fly the plane for ya.
 
I would never survive a 5 hour imc cross country in a light single , single pilot, no autopilot. I'd be too tired to land!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
I would never survive a 5 hour imc cross country in a light single , single pilot, no autopilot. I'd be too tired to land!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I've never understood why anybody would want to fly a 5-hour leg.
 
Because you save an hour fuel stop, and 5 hours gets me from MA to FL


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I've always thought a fuel stop was a good chance to meet new people who are interested in airplanes.

But then, I don't fly on the east coast. ;)
 
No way of knowing for sure, but my guess is that anyone (in his/her right mind) that flies long CCs in hard IMC (like 3+ hours without any outside reference) on a regular basis, is doing so on A/P. It's easy to fly manual either short distances (< 2-3 hours IMC) or non-IMC, or just a few longer flights. VFR or VMC is a non-issue, though even then you'd arrive more refreshed after using A/P.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I've never understood why anybody would want to fly a 5-hour leg.
Click to expand...
gsengle said:
Because you save an hour fuel stop, and 5 hours gets me from MA to FL
Click to expand...

This. Longer legs save you having to shoot approaches and departures for intermediate stops. In some common GA aircraft you can easily fly 6-7 hour legs, so there is no reason not to use that capability and get to your destination hours earlier and fresher. I have done many MA to FL, and the long legs make that trip vastly faster and easier than using short legs. Of course, a good A/P makes it all very easy.
 
I've also flown some 6-7 hour legs, and I see no reason to do that voluntarily.

But to each his own, I guess.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I've also flown some 6-7 hour legs, and I see no reason to do that voluntarily.
Click to expand...

If I need to go from A to B, I'd rather get there in (say) 6 hours non-stop, using less fuel, vs. 7 hours after an enroute stop. Often you end up landing fatigued, and doing so in daylight makes it safer, esp. IFR/IMC.
 
My range is my bladder. Usually a max of 2 hours. I can't even imagine sitting in a GA plane on a 6-7 hour leg.
 
Dropping my macho here. . .I think for a professional, or a private pilot who is flying IMC regularly, it's great to have, but not "critical".

But - I'd probably cancel if the AP was broke, if flying the trip meant two hours in solid IMC, in our 172. Single pilot IFR without an AP can be a lot of work, and when clearances change, or you get busy, it's a great crutch. I do tend to hand fly approaches, but not for any rational reason I can define - but once on the approach, most "details" have been settled and the workload falls off.

Thing is, APs will go tango uniform on you - often in turbulence. I kinda ask myself if I'd fly the trip knowing the AP would be out? Stable stratus? Destination above my personal minimums? Enroute escape to VMC possible? Yeah, then probably. But two plus hours in the clag, getting bounced around, etc? I want an AP.
 
jordane93 said:
My range is my bladder. Usually a max of 2 hours. I can't even imagine sitting in a GA plane on a 6-7 hour leg.
Click to expand...

Bladder is an issue if you fly with strangers (e.g. on Angel Flight missions for me). If you are alone, or with family/friends, it's a non-issue.
BTW, now that I am into soaring, I have discovered that "real" soaring flights take many hours, with the top pilots in our club routinely flying mind-boggling 12-14 hour flights. Relative to that, my 6.5 hr nonstops seem puny.
Of course bladder and hydration must be properly managed.
 
EdFred said:
Except it's not.
Click to expand...

It's not, for you.

For us mortals, it's deemed a requirement. I am not going to fly halfway across the country and get fatigued to hell because I have to hand fly the entire thing, especially if long portions happen to be in IMC.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
It's not, for you.

For us mortals, it's deemed a requirement. I am not going to fly halfway across the country and get fatigued to hell because I have to hand fly the entire thing, especially if long portions happen to be in IMC.
Click to expand...

This. I find it hard to believe any safety-minded pilot would routinely fly long multi-hour hard IMC flights without A/P.
 
The auto pilot is just a tool, yeah it's nice in cruise, but when it's critical is when you all of a sudden get a , descend to 4200, left 230, direct FIX, and we have a amendment to your routing, and during all this the the winds are changing with altitude

Being able to have the plane fly, while you get all re organized, find a plate, write stuff down, etc, that's the big part of having a AP.
 
RotorDude said:
This. I find it hard to believe any safety-minded pilot would routinely fly long multi-hour hard IMC flights without A/P.
Click to expand...
RotorDude said:
If I need to go from A to B, I'd rather get there in (say) 6 hours non-stop, using less fuel, vs. 7 hours after an enroute stop. Often you end up landing fatigued, and doing so in daylight makes it safer, esp. IFR/IMC.
Click to expand...
I find it hard to believe a safety-minded pilot would plan on being so fatigued that landing at night made a difference.
 
midcap said:
Thanks for the replies guys.

It looks like an AP is a must have for a XC plane.

As for the type of IFR I want to do, I'm not really sure yet. Still. Ew at this stuff. I do know where I want to fly to, so that's why I'll need an Instrument rating.
Click to expand...
Yep.

Can one hand fly like EdFred prefers? Absolutely. Is it significantly easier and less tiring to use the AP? Absolutely.

The 172's that I trained in didn't have an AP, so I did it all by hand. It was the only thing I knew. Later moved to an Arrow with a very basic follow the DG heading AP, and the DG precessed. I used it some and even a simple one like that helps. For the past several years I've flown with 2-axis APs that will handle approaches. Those make a huuuge difference. I can fly 6 hours in a day with little to no fatigue. Makes long trips much easier and you feel more up to doing things after the flight. Also makes you more fresh for shooting the approach by hand at the end of a long flight if you want or need to.

I would be unlikely to buy a plane without a good AP, as the cost to add it is high. Or factor the cost of getting an AP into it. If the FAA does like they did with the AI experimental gear for certified planes with APs that would make it much cheaper.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I find it hard to believe a safety-minded pilot would plan on being so fatigued that landing at night made a difference.
Click to expand...

When everything goes right, there is no difference. But when you lose your engine, for example, a bit of daylight makes a whole lot of difference. Your projected fatigue level is one more parameter to factor in at that point.
 
My current airplane does not have a functional autopilot or a panel mount GPS. My Turbo Arrow had a non WAAS 430 and a coupled autopilot, and I've racked up boo coo hours in hard IMC shuttling between the Valley and the Bay. Having the autopilot fly the straight legs was a huge stress reliever. It would track a localizer too, but I normally hand flew the approaches anyway.
 
gsengle said:
Don't understand the objection to coupled approaches. Your thumb is on the disconnect button and with the autopilot on you can monitor the approach just as if not more effectively. Then once nice and stabilized disconnect when getting low or after break out if you like.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
IMO, coupled approaches are great as long as you mix it up and throw in a few hand flown approaches to maintain proficiency. When I go up and do hood work, I'll typically hand fly two or three approaches for every coupled approach.

That said, I am not a huge fan of how the autopilot flies the approach in the Beech 18. The STEC-55 is very aggressive with using pitch to chase the GS and would easily over speed the flaps if I tried to fly a coupled approach with gear and flaps out. When I hand fly, I can make a pitch and power change and hold it and the airplane will settle out on the GS nicely.
 
RotorDude said:
When everything goes right, there is no difference. But when you lose your engine, for example, a bit of daylight makes a whole lot of difference. Your projected fatigue level is one more parameter to factor in at that point.
Click to expand...
Ah...silly me...i didnt see the part about running out of fuel. ;)
 
Fearless Tower said:
IMO, coupled approaches are great as long as you mix it up and throw in a few hand flown approaches to maintain proficiency. When I go up and do hood work, I'll typically hand fly two or three approaches for every coupled approach.

That said, I am not a huge fan of how the autopilot flies the approach in the Beech 18. The STEC-55 is very aggressive with using pitch to chase the GS and would easily over speed the flaps if I tried to fly a coupled approach with gear and flaps out. When I hand fly, I can make a pitch and power change and hold it and the airplane will settle out on the GS nicely.
Click to expand...

Yep you should practice hand flying em too no doubt. I fly single pilot IFR in a Mooney with a King KFC150, which I believe is superior to the STEC. In the Mooney I just have to have slowed up and configured before the IAF, or I'll never slow to flap speed again :-o


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Personally, I normally kick off the autopilot when I go into actual so I can keep up my hand flying skills in actual.

I think that it's a useful tool to have, but by no means necessary. Whether or not the AP is functional plays into my go/no-go decision process precisely zero.
 
midlifeflyer said:
It's all about being a "real" pilot :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Not really. Many of us have suffered autopilot glitches. It's not really less workload during an approach, because there is much less margin for error, particularly on a precision or LPV approach with low minima. You have to catch a pitch glitch instantly during an approach, or you may have some real problems. Hand flying does not suffer the same type of glitches. Particularly for two axis coupled approaches with VNAV and multiple stepdowns, there is a lot of system management to do to keep the VNAV from doing something unexpected. Things like, GFC700s stop giving VNAV guidance during a course reversal or while tracking a VOR or LOC (without GS), but give unofficial VNAV guidance on an LNAV approach. The ALT SEL has to be set lower than the next stepdown until the GP/GS is intercepted or it will not descend. And so on. There are a lot of button presses and mode checks to be done in a short time, and getting one wrong can have a lot of consequence. Even if it's working 100% correctly.

And the couple of "wrong" GS intercepts and uncommanded trim windoffs I've had (in both directions now) have made the automation considerably higher workload than hand flying. Ever try to hold a GS when the autopilot has wound trim all the way down in a 182? Yes, you can (and should) turn it off right away, but it is still FAR out of trim.
 
MAKG1 said:
Not really. Many of us have suffered autopilot glitches. It's not really less workload during an approach, because there is much less margin for error, particularly on a precision or LPV approach with low minima. You have to catch a pitch glitch instantly during an approach, or you may have some real problems. Hand flying does not suffer the same type of glitches. Particularly for two axis coupled approaches with VNAV and multiple stepdowns, there is a lot of system management to do to keep the VNAV from doing something unexpected. Things like, GFC700s stop giving VNAV guidance during a course reversal or while tracking a VOR or LOC (without GS), but give unofficial VNAV guidance on an LNAV approach. The ALT SEL has to be set lower than the next stepdown until the GP/GS is intercepted or it will not descend. And so on. There are a lot of button presses and mode checks to be done in a short time, and getting one wrong can have a lot of consequence. Even if it's working 100% correctly.

And the couple of "wrong" GS intercepts and uncommanded trim windoffs I've had (in both directions now) have made the automation considerably higher workload than hand flying. Ever try to hold a GS when the autopilot has wound trim all the way down in a 182? Yes, you can (and should) turn it off right away, but it is still FAR out of trim.
Click to expand...
Yes, I absolutely agree. If you do it wrong - provide incorrect information to the system, don't understand your equipment, abdicate PIC responsibility to a box of circuit boards and wires, do not monitor what it is doing in relation to what it should be doing, etc, you should not be using it.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Yes, I absolutely agree. If you do it wrong - provide incorrect information to the system, don't understand your equipment, abdicate PIC responsibility to a box of circuit boards and wires, do not monitor what it is doing in relation to what it should be doing, etc, you should not be using it.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. If you don't abdicate your responsibility, you don't save any workload during an approach. So, there is no longer any point to a coupled approach. I tend to treat them oppositely -- fly most approaches by hand, but occasionally fly one coupled to keep proficient.

There are ways they fail without any error on the pilot's part, in addition to having lots of F-up buttons. Try the ILS at Livermore coupled if you don't believe me.
 
I am impressed by you guys who can flying in the clouds with out seeing anything but white for hours upon hours.
 
midcap said:
I am impressed by you guys who can flying in the clouds with out seeing anything but white for hours upon hours.
Click to expand...
It's not a problem, just catch a little shut-eye and ya don't really notice it.
 
midcap said:
I am impressed by you guys who can flying in the clouds with out seeing anything but white for hours upon hours.
Click to expand...

Singing to yourself helps pass the time.:D
 
midcap said:
I am impressed by you guys who can flying in the clouds with out seeing anything but white for hours upon hours.
Click to expand...
In over 900 hrs of flying since getting my instrument rating, I don't think I have ever logged more than 1.5 hours of actual in a single flight. That isn't because I have been afraid of the clouds. It's just difficult to find that much IMC.
 
Fearless Tower said:
In over 900 hrs of flying since getting my instrument rating, I don't think I have ever logged more than 1.5 hours of actual in a single flight. That isn't because I have been afraid of the clouds. It's just difficult to find that much IMC.
Click to expand...

They are fairly common in the NE (except lately). I have many flights with 4+ hrs of IMC logged, but the majority were not in continuous IMC, i.e. I had at least a quick glance at the world between layers or buildups along the way.
The first time I flew over 3 hrs solid IMC was from Chicago to Toronto, years ago, and it was quite an experience. Since then, I have had even longer ones (again, non-stop soup), but still remember the eerie feeling of the first one.
 
Last edited:
The best way to get in some significant hand flown "actual" IFR is to go on a moonless, hazy night over sparsely populate areas. Flew from ABQ to LBL one night and was on the gages for pretty much the whole time. With not a cloud in the sky.
 
Fearless Tower said:
In over 900 hrs of flying since getting my instrument rating, I don't think I have ever logged more than 1.5 hours of actual in a single flight. That isn't because I have been afraid of the clouds. It's just difficult to find that much IMC.
Click to expand...

It seems like there is no shortage of clouds down here during the summer, fall and winter.
 
midcap said:
It seems like there is no shortage of clouds down here during the summer, fall and winter.
Click to expand...
Even having a lot of clouds doesn't necessarily mean you are going to be in solid IMC the whole time you are cruising though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top