Free hand IFR vs. Auto pilot IFR

[Dean]

As I have started my IFR training back up and doing hood work, I can't imagine fly cross country IFR without an auto pilot. So I asked some other IFR pilots how often they fly IFR free handed, and found that most of them have only done it but once or twice sinse their check ride. So I am adding a pole to see if you cloud busters will fess up.

 

[markb5900]

Of the three rentals that I have access too that are IFR. One has a "heading bug/wing leveler" the other two don't, but have GPS's.
When I have my choice I do fly the one with the wing leveler but it doesn't bother me to take the other ones either.
Guess my "vote" is, if I have one I USE it, if I don't it is not a show stopper.

Mark B.

 

[tonycondon]

No options for me Dean. I dont let lack of autopilot stop me from doing an IFR trip, but if the plane has an autopilot, I use it in cruise. The loss of workload is definitely measurable and its nice to be able to chill.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

I use the autopilot a lot; especially on long cross country trips. I hand flew yesterday, including approach work. I guess it's just a good tool to me; use it when it makes sense, but try to also maintain decent hand flying proficiency. In busy terminal environments I usually use the AP. In icing conditions, I hand fly, or at least alternate to keep a feel for how the plane's handling is affected.

Best,

Dave

 

[Bill M.]

All my flying is without the AP since I don't have one. I must admit life sure would be easier with at least a wing leveler, but spending $7-8,000 on a 1976 172 would be like putting gold plumbing fixtures in a trailer. If I can sell it, looking to upgrade to a 182 that WILL have some kind of AP.

 

[NC Pilot]

Need to add I fly free hand in actual when I want to practice it, which is fairly often.
Usually I have the A/P on to ease the workload and the A/P is a must have if I have passengers in the plane. I just consider it to be safer to have George share the flying and let me monitor/navigate/communicate.

 

[gprellwitz]

While I said "I only fly IFR with an Auto pilot", it's probably more accurate to say that all the planes in which I fly IFR have an autopilot, that I use it when it's there (with some stints and approaches done by hand), and that I wouldn't consider a "hard" IFR flight without either a (working) autopilot or another pilot. Could I do it? Sure. It's just that I don't, because it's part of my personal minimums.

 

[EdFred]

I hand fly everywhere.

I don't like giving up control. I think A/P has the possibility to make you complacent. And I don't have one in my plane anyway.

If anyone says an inop A/P is a no go item for them, I have to question their IR skills, and probably won't climb in a plane with them. No offense to anyone who is like that, but you don't see Lance Armstrong riding his bike with training wheels do you? What happens if it craps out 1/2 way through your trip?

 

[markb5900]

I hand fly everywhere.

I don't like giving up control. I think A/P has the possibility to make you complacent. And I don't have one in my plane anyway.

If anyone says an inop A/P is a no go item for them, I have to question their IR skills, and probably won't climb in a plane with them. No offense to anyone who is like that, but you don't see Lance Armstrong riding his bike with training wheels do you?

That is your right Ed.
But PERSONAL minimums are just that PERSONAL. Doesn't make them any less of a skilled pilot, at least in my opinion.

Mark B

 

[EdFred]

That is your right Ed.
But PERSONAL minimums are just that PERSONAL. Doesn't make them any less of a skilled pilot, at least in my opinion.

Mark B

But I still question their skill set. I can see minimums when it comes to ceilings and winds, but an INOP A/P always makes me wonder about them. Like I said what happens if it goes out while enroute. Now you've got someone who is very uncomfortable flying in IMC. If you aren't comfortable hand flying IMC without an A/P maybe some recurrency w/o one is in order. Sort of like the people that won't fly anywhere without a GPS.

 

[markb5900]

Not WANTING to fly (PERSONAL minimums) in hard IMC without an A/P and questioning the skills that are needed to do it are two different things.
My point is, PERSONAL minimums are just that. It SHOULD have no reflection at all, UNLESS you have personally flown with that person on their skills.
I don't like to fly when it is turbulent. I do it at times, but I avoid it if I can. Does that make my pilot skill come into question?
It shouldn't at least IMHO.

Mark b

 

[KennyFlys]

Ed has a valid point on those who rely on AP so much, they become a huge risk when it becomes inop. That's part of what Cirrus is attempting to address with an extensive training network.

Likewise, Mark's is also valid. I like it when folks have personal minimums but when they take off with a 200' ceiling and their destination is within 50-100 miles, how can they be sure it will be within minims? If I have a 500' ceiling at my airport, it's highly unlikely I'll get down at Andrews, NC (RHP). But, some will just use the auto pilot and fly that GPS approach down to minimum and possibly more. Hand control of glide slope will get them dangerously low since they are already relying on the GPS and AP for the path. That's an extreme example but the idea is there.

There's an option missing. I always fly enroute on AP but I'll usually hand-fly approaches except for an ILS. Those are on AP about half the time. PTs are on AP until established inbound. I like the fun of shooting speed, descent angle and path coordination.

 

[gprellwitz]

I hand fly everywhere.

Good for you, especially since you don't have an autopilot!

I don't like giving up control.

You've already given up control by flying the airplane. The autopilot is just another link between your decisions and the control surfaces of the airplane, just like the yoke and the pedals. The difference is that it is one you can take out of the equation when you wish.

I think A/P has the possibility to make you complacent. And I don't have one in my plane anyway.

I agree that the autopilot has the possibility to make one complacent, though I think "potential" might be a better word. That could, of course, be said about just about any piece of equipment in the plane, from the autopilot and GPS down to the attitude indicator. Yes, we should be able to fly without the attitude indicator; it's just partial panel. No way am I launching without one, though!

There is a set of mandated pieces without which one may not legally fly IFR. I think that most of us would agree that going into hard IFR with only those pieces operating would not be something we would choose to do. I think that recognizing the additional demands during an anticipated flight and ensuring that one has appropriate equipment available is a mark of a professional pilot. That's part of coming up with a set of personal minimums.

Note that I reiterate the adjective "hard" to describe the IFR. And no, I do not mean IMC. While that is certainly included, I would also want to have certain equipment available if I were flying in the immediate vicinity of particularly difficult airspace, such as the immediate environs of O'Hare or around the DC ADIZ. If, on the other hand, I'm flying through a thin layer at 2000' from Peoria to Ames, the risks and thus the requirements may be different.

If anyone says an inop A/P is a no go item for them, I have to question their IR skills, and probably won't climb in a plane with them.

One of the 135 of 121 pilots can correct me, but my understanding is that single-pilot operations under those regs places the autopilot in the category of required equipment. I'm certain that this requirement wasn't added capriciously. I'm sure you weren't thinking of this when you said this, though.

No offense to anyone who is like that, but you don't see Lance Armstrong riding his bike with training wheels do you?

I think there are few on PoA who would claim to be to aviation what Lance Armstrong is to cycling, so I'm not sure that the comparison is valid. If you are the Lance Armstrong of the aviation world, I suspect that your personal minimums are a little different than those of someone who only got their instrument rating less than a year ago.

What happens if it craps out 1/2 way through your trip?

You fly the airplane, just like you do if the vacuum system goes out, or any other piece of equipment, required or not.

 

[ScottM]

No choices there for me. I fly all of my practice IFR without the AP. In actual I will fly with the AP to reduce workload. But when my AP was on the fritz or when I am flying a rental down in Florida without the AP I will fly free handed.

 

[CJones]

No choices there for me. I fly all of my practice IFR without the AP. In actual I will fly with the AP to reduce workload. But when my AP was on the fritz or when I am flying a rental down in Florida without the AP I will fly free handed.

Same here. When shooting 'practice' approaches, I hand fly 99.999% of it. When I was flying 3.5 hrs XC in the RV, I DEFINITELY used the a/p. That thing can change from a 300fpm climb to descent just depending on where you put your feet on the floorboard.

So, while I feel competent and capable of flying everything by hand, I DEFINITELY use the a/p when it is available. If nothing else, it gives my brain a chance to relax and get prepared for the next step of the process.

 

[EdFred]

I guess it comes down to how and what you were trained in. My CFII who finished me up did nothing in regards to flying the plane, or getting me approach plates, or getting frequencies, or writing down ATIS/AWOS information. He wanted to make absolutely sure I could hand fly alone, without an autopilot. I don't think any of the planes I trained in had an autopilot anyway. While he didn't actively teach me anything, I learned more from him than I did anyone else. Oh, and I was required to keep one hand on the yoke while getting the flashlight, chart, A/FD, plates, and writing down any clearances. Was a comlete pain in the ass for the first few flights, but by the end it was the best training I could have got. So I took it, and flew hard IMC, 6 days after getting my rating, from under the CLT shelf back home to Hastings with /U equipment, a single radio, and a single VOR. 5.3 hours - and I think 3.5 of it was solid, all without an autoplilot or traveling companion.

So, yeah, I guess I am the Lance Armstrong of IMC.

 

[KennyFlys]

So, yeah, I guess I am the Lance Armstrong of IMC.

Now it's clear who took the picture of the lightning bolt over the transmission lines. But, how did you survive being struck?

 

[gismo]

But I still question their skill set. I can see minimums when it comes to ceilings and winds, but an INOP A/P always makes me wonder about them. Like I said what happens if it goes out while enroute. Now you've got someone who is very uncomfortable flying in IMC. If you aren't comfortable hand flying IMC without an A/P maybe some recurrency w/o one is in order. Sort of like the people that won't fly anywhere without a GPS.

First, a lot depends on the airplane being flown and the types of systems that need attention. I don't recall much trouble hand flying a 182 but the Baron I fly doesn't stay on alitude or heading by itself for more that about 15 seconds and thus it requires a bit more attention. For instance flipping through charts to find an elusive intersection seems to take about 5 times longer in a Baron than in a Skylane because in the Baron you can't look away from the instruments long enough to read much. In addition few Skylanes have onboard radar to manage, and two sets of engine gauges to watch freeing up more time to just fly the airplane.

And what this all boils down to is that hand flying a Baron is a lot more work without an autopilot. I wouldn't cancel an IFR flight in my Baron if the autopilot was inop out of fear that I couldn't fly it, but rather (especially if the flight was likely to be challenging in it's own right) because I might not enjoy working that hard.

I also don't see the point in raising personal approach minimums without a working autopilot because like you said, if you don't feel competent enough to fly any approach by hand, relying on an autopilot to pull off a tough approach to low minimums could leave the pilot a victim of a false sense of security if the autopilot ever fails.

I do generally let the autopilot fly low approaches in real weather but I'm confident that I could fly them by hand or I wouldn't let the autopilot do it either.

BTW I couldn't find a single choice in the poll that comes close to something I would pick.

 

[fishnfly]

No options for me Dean. I dont let lack of autopilot stop me from doing an IFR trip, but if the plane has an autopilot, I use it in cruise. The loss of workload is definitely measurable and its nice to be able to chill.

Same for me. If I have one, I'll use it. Why not? Most of the time I dont have one. It dosent stop me from going IMC though.

 

[gismo]

So, while I feel competent and capable of flying everything by hand, I DEFINITELY use the a/p when it is available. If nothing else, it gives my brain a chance to relax and get prepared for the next step of the process.

Good point. 4 hours of hand flying in turbulent clouds would leave me a bit frazzled and a frazzled pilot is more likely to make mistakes with or without using an autopilot for the approach at the end of the trip.

 

[Everskyward]

One of the 135 of 121 pilots can correct me, but my understanding is that single-pilot operations under those regs places the autopilot in the category of required equipment. I'm certain that this requirement wasn't added capriciously.

Dunno about 121, but in 135 you have to have one when you are single-pilot with passengers as long as your OpsSpecs authorize you to use an autopilot in lieu of an SIC. Otherwise you have to have two pilots. However, it doesn't say you have to be using it all the time. You can fly boxes without an autopilot.

Personally, I use it quite a bit although I will sometimes hand fly all the way up to altitude. You are required to use it in level flight in RVSM airspace (FL290 to FL410). Whether I use it or not on the approach depends on the airplane and my mood. Some of the airplanes have better autopilots than others. I should note that these days I alway fly in a crew so there is someone else along to share the workload.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

But I still question their skill set. I can see minimums when it comes to ceilings and winds, but an INOP A/P always makes me wonder about them. Like I said what happens if it goes out while enroute. Now you've got someone who is very uncomfortable flying in IMC. If you aren't comfortable hand flying IMC without an A/P maybe some recurrency w/o one is in order. Sort of like the people that won't fly anywhere without a GPS.

I don't *need* an autopilot. But, I usually don't *need* to fly at all. It's a nice tool to have. I wouldn't necessarily scrap a flight because of no autopilot, but it would certainly be a consideration in the overall equation. No a/p but gonna be on top or in between layers, or flight will be maybe 1.5 hours or less? OK. Long flight, hard IMC the entire way, wx low everywhere, AND the autopilot's busted? That's when I'll start asking myself how bad I really need to make this flight.

I use the A/P mostly for cruise, so I can relax a bit. I like to hand-fly the approach, it forces me to keep the brain locked in.

The a/p is also there just in case you have an "oh **** moment." It gives you a chance to catch up if need be.

It's much better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

I think it does come down to a fatigue issue for me. I've made mistakes under the hood that could have killed me in actual. The more fatigued I get, the more likely those mistakes are to happen. Like I tell my trainees: You don't get into accidents cruising down the freeway mid-day on dry pavement. You get into accidents when you've been working your tail off all day, you're ****ed at the guy who cut you off, you're backing into a dark corner, etc. etc... I believe the same thing applies to flying. The more fatigued you get, the more likely you are to screw up.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I agree with Lance, the poll options are pretty worthless. You either "only fly free-handed" or you almost never do. None of those options fit me either.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

More than an hour IMC between approaches and landing and I'll take an AP any day it's available especially if flying solo, otherwise, freehand.

 

[jesse]

But, some will just use the auto pilot and fly that GPS approach down to minimum and possibly more. Hand control of glide slope will get them dangerously low since they are already relying on the GPS and AP for the path. That's an extreme example but the idea is there.

What is wrong with flying an approach down to the minimum? There is a reason they established that minimum. I would agree that going below it is stupid but going to it is not IMO. If the airplane has a good functioning autopilot that the pilot is familiar with and they are faced with an approach to minimums they will probably use it. I would. Just because you decide to use the autopilot does not mean that you aren't capable of doing it otherwise. It reduces workload which will reduce stress.

 

[Bill]

So I am adding a pole to see if you cloud busters will fess up.

I didn't like any of the options, so I'll post here. I almost always use the autopilot (two planes have fully coupled two axis ap) enroute cross country regardless of weather contitions.

But, I practice hand flying and approaches under the hood at least twice a month, and prefer every week.

So, its a combination.

I do think a coupled AP is a great workload reducer in XC flight, it leaves you fresh for the approach to the destination. Using the AP for the actual approach is great as well, but be well versed in the operation of the AP, and scan that panel just as you would if you were hand flying. Be ready to take it from George at any time.

 

[TMetzinger]

I treat the autopilot like a copilot, and swap legs with it. And I fly all my proficiency approaches by hand (I do six with a safety pilot every 6 months even if I'm current). When it counts, however, flying an approach in IMC with pax on board, I use the autoflight systems to the maximum extent possible - I feel it's safer to do so.

 

[Dan Smith]

I can hand-fly the enroute portion well; so can the autopilot. I can fly the approach well; so can the autopilot. However, when I'm flying, the autopilot is doing nothing. When the autopilot is flying, I'm reviewing the charts, reviewing the upcoming approaches, looking for traffic if I'm occasionally VMC, managing the flight, etc. If I had a copilot I would not relegate him/her to a non-participating role, and I don't do so with the autopilot. It's a very useful tool that I believe adds to my safety and my passengers, and unlike pilots, autopilots almost never lose control in cruise flight.

So my poll response is: I use the autopilot as much as needed to increase the safety of any flight. I hand fly as much as needed to keep me proficient, and a lot of times just for the fun and challenge of it. Autopilot flight can get boring, you know.

I very much agree, however, that if the only way you can safely fly in IMC is if the autopilot is flying, then something needs changing.

Dan

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Dunno about 121, but in 135 you have to have one when you are single-pilot with passengers as long as your OpsSpecs authorize you to use an autopilot in lieu of an SIC.

No such thing as single pilot 121, AFAIK.

 

[Nav8tor]

I can hand-fly the enroute portion well; so can the autopilot. I can fly the approach well; so can the autopilot. However, when I'm flying, the autopilot is doing nothing. When the autopilot is flying, I'm reviewing the charts, reviewing the upcoming approaches, looking for traffic if I'm occasionally VMC, managing the flight, etc. If I had a copilot I would not relegate him/her to a non-participating role, and I don't do so with the autopilot. It's a very useful tool that I believe adds to my safety and my passengers, and unlike pilots, autopilots almost never lose control in cruise flight.

So my poll response is: I use the autopilot as much as needed to increase the safety of any flight. I hand fly as much as needed to keep me proficient, and a lot of times just for the fun and challenge of it. Autopilot flight can get boring, you know.

I very much agree, however, that if the only way you can safely fly in IMC is if the autopilot is flying, then something needs changing.

Dan

Very well put Dan. That's how I see it too.

 

[spiderweb]

No options for me Dean. I dont let lack of autopilot stop me from doing an IFR trip, but if the plane has an autopilot, I use it in cruise. The loss of workload is definitely measurable and its nice to be able to chill.

ditto for me.

hand fly T/O, DP, climb, STAR, and approach. Usually use AP for cruise, sometimes during the STAR.

 

[N7702Y]

I use the autopilot on most flights above 3,000 feet or so. Using the A/P just makes it easier to navigate, manage systems and keep eyeballs out for traffic.

I mix up my approaches, but if it is an approach to minimums and I am single pilot I usually fly the airplane through the A/P.

If the autopilot is flying, I am backing it up, staying on the gauges with hands and feet in the CFI "loaded to take over" position, and there is some redundancy. If I am hand flying, then who is backing me up?

Besides that, the fact of the matter is that a modern autopilot is more precise than a human. On a coupled approach my Century 2000 will hold the needles absolutely centered in the donut right down to minimums every single time. How many humans can do that? I can hold within one dot, but not dead centered every single time. In cruise, my A/P holds altitude within 10 feet and heading as accurately as my HSI can depict.

I do IPC's every six months, mixing them up between a sim and the airplane, and I am comfortable in my ability to hand fly IFR down to published minimums. I just choose to use the help and precision that the autopilot gives me.

Jay

 

[gprellwitz]

No such thing as single pilot 121, AFAIK.

Well, if anybody would know, it's you!

 

[ScottM]

No such thing as single pilot 121, AFAIK.

Was there ever? I remember when part 121 (or whatever the precursor was) VFR was allowed. My dad's best friend was involved in the accident that changed that though.

http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=64940&key=0

My dad's friend, Jim Cosort (sp?), was the left seater in the North Central Convair that went down. They never did find him. Whenever I fly over that lake I think of him. Jim and my dad grew up together and were in flight school during WW2 together after both serving in Europe in the armored division. Dad washed out and went into the infantry in the pacific after that. Jim got through and kept flying after the war. His son also went into aviation, last I heard, he too was involved in a fatal mishap.

Well those are my happy thoughts today. I have been in kinda of a funk for reasons stated elsewhere. Sorry to bring the thread down.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Was there ever?

Don't think so. Don't know for sure.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Was there ever? I remember when part 121 (or whatever the precursor was) VFR was allowed.

Having just read your link, I think that was a two pilot operation. 1972 was not that long ago. They MAY have allowed VFR then, (kind of doubt it, not sure though) but I would stake my CFI on the fact that a Convair was never a single pilot airplane.

 

[ScottM]

Having just read your link, I think that was a two pilot operation. 1972 was not that long ago. They MAY have allowed VFR then, (kind of doubt it, not sure though) but I would stake my CFI on the fact that a Convair was never a single pilot airplane.

No the Covnair was two pilot. I was showing that accident as an example that part 121 at one time allowed VFR. The North Central Airliner was on a VFR flight plan into Appleton when it collided with the GA plane. At that time VFR was allowed. Nowadays no part 121 except on IFR flight plans, can't even cancel IFR to fly in on the visual approach anymore. This accident was the turning point for no longer allowing part 121 VFR.

 

[jdwatson]

The FAA must think the A/P is important. The current PTS for the Instrument Rating says , "The applicant is expected to utilize an autopilot and/or flight management system (FMS), if properly installed, during the instrument practical test to assist in the management of the aircraft. The examiner is expected to test the applicant’s knowledge of the systems that are installed and operative during the oral and flight portions of the practical test. The applicant will be required to demonstrate the use of the autopilot and/or FMS during one of the nonprecision approaches."

I took my checkride the day before this came officially active. My instructor made sure that I knew the A/P and could fly precision and non-precision approaches with it.

I marked "The only time I fly free handed is when I get current" because I only fly in IMC when I'm competent, legal currency is not the gating factor for me. I consider myself "current" when I have the skills to my instructor's tolerances not just the PTS standards. To fly with pax in IMC, I would have to make my instructor smile on check-out.

Back to the A/P... FlightSafety teaches to fly approaches coupled. So, I practice both. Every other approach is coupled, the others are free-hand. I like to use the A/P in cruise on longer flights. I can look around longer, keep the cockpit chores up to date, answer questions from the pax and etc. I keep my scan going to verify that "Otto" is doing what *I* want him to do. In the TERMINAL & APPROACH phases, my hands are on the yoke and my scan is going just like I'm hand flying it. If "Otto" takes a nap or does anything unexpected, he goes off-line and I'm already in the position to take over.

 

[wsuffa]

Nowadays no part 121 except on IFR flight plans, can't even cancel IFR to fly in on the visual approach anymore.

Be very careful with that statement.

Visual approaches ARE permitted under 121, and they're flown all the time. The IFR chart books even have charted visual procedures. See, for example, the River Visual Rwy 19 into DCA or the Mount Vernon Visual Rwy 01 into DCA.

In addition, in certain areas (such as El Paso), 121 can request a visual climb.

Canceling IFR is entirely different than doing a visual approach.

(Now, is there a hyphen in the phrase "anal retentive"?)

 

[Baron 55]

I'll use a/p enroute, if I like the autopilot and trust it. You have to monitor the gauges no less than hand flying, of course. I hand fly my appch's, always, but that's because I feel best that way, I want instant control. As to Barons, my old A55 doesn't have an autopilot, but it will fly rock steady in pitch and bank, if trimmed up right, and I can look at a chart, etc., hands-off the yoke for as long as I want. So it isn't a Baron characteristic necessarily to be unable to trim them up. Might need some tweaking.