IR training and autopilot

DrPappy

DrPappy

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jan 10, 2015
Messages
152
Location
Tomball, TX
Display Name
Display name:
DrPappy
I have been flying my Cherokee 180 VFR for a year now, but am getting the itch to start IFR training. It has no panel-mounted GPS nor DME, and only the original 1-axis autopilot (Century IIB).

I am thinking that the GPS should be the first priority so that I can then do RNAV, VOR/DME approaches, etc. I know that a 2-axis autopilot would eliminate much of the workload (sometimes anyway), but I just do not have the funds to get both the GPS & new autopilot at the same time.

So the question is, would you recommend that I wait until I can get a 2-axis autopilot before starting IFR training? I know that I need to be able to hand fly it, but when I am doing other tasks at the same time it sure would seem easy to stray beyond acceptable limits. I have no idea of the workload required since I have not started training yet, but it sure seems like it would.

Paul
 
My 2-axis autopilot is great and I trained with one too, but I'd rather have an IFR GPS than an autopilot upgrade especially if the one you have works--a single axis is still very valuable when IMC for reducing workload. And I definitely wouldn't wait on the autopilot upgrade to start training.
 
Actually, I have a two axis autopilot. And I wish I could take it out until I'm finished with training.

Apparently, since I have it I'll be expected to use it. I think the test standards require a non-precision approach with it. Problem is either I don't understand how it works (possible) or it's not (always) working correctly, because I usually end up asking "Now what's it doing?". Hopefully, I won't have to let it fly an approach because I've never been able to get it to work that way.

About the only thing it's halfway good for is holding an altitude / heading while I study an approach or ident a navaid. Which is good, I guess, but I'd rather not have to hassle with One More Thing for the test.
 
Mistake Not... said:
Actually, I have a two axis autopilot. And I wish I could take it out until I'm finished with training.

Apparently, since I have it I'll be expected to use it. I think the test standards require a non-precision approach with it. Problem is either I don't understand how it works (possible) or it's not (always) working correctly, because I usually end up asking "Now what's it doing?". Hopefully, I won't have to let it fly an approach because I've never been able to get it to work that way.

About the only thing it's halfway good for is holding an altitude / heading while I study an approach or ident a navaid. Which is good, I guess, but I'd rather not have to hassle with One More Thing for the test.
Click to expand...

Wow, I never thought about that!
 
Mistake Not... said:
Actually, I have a two axis autopilot. And I wish I could take it out until I'm finished with training.

Apparently, since I have it I'll be expected to use it. I think the test standards require a non-precision approach with it. Problem is either I don't understand how it works (possible) or it's not (always) working correctly, because I usually end up asking "Now what's it doing?". Hopefully, I won't have to let it fly an approach because I've never been able to get it to work that way.

About the only thing it's halfway good for is holding an altitude / heading while I study an approach or ident a navaid. Which is good, I guess, but I'd rather not have to hassle with One More Thing for the test.
Click to expand...
Placard it INOP
 
I think having an autopilot long term is great for single pilot IFR. You might as well learn how to use it during training. BUT don't rely on it as a crutch.
 
Ya know, before really getting into this, I would have agreed with you. But now, I think the rating is probably best gotten as quickly as possible, with training to follow after. Everyone always says "it's a license to learn". Well, fine. I'll learn after I get the rating. At my leisure. Without opening the door for one more stupid thing to screw up on the check ride.

In fact, I'm beginning to wish I'd done it in a 172 instead of a mooney, and one without a GPS.

What's the minimum plane you do a checkride in? Single VOR / ILS, no DME, no ADF, no GPS?
 
You don't need an AP for the rating. I didn't have one and it was fine.

Is it a god-send once you start actually flying IMC? Yeah.
 
luvflyin said:
Placard it INOP
Click to expand...
And disable it and put it in the appropriate logbook.

Don't try to fool the examiner. You're not the first person to come up with that idea.

Two axis autopilots add complexity. "Automation surprise" is a very real thing, and adding in altitude capturing or VNAV means you have to catch it when it doesn't capture, and not get lost.

A WAAS GPS opens up a lot of approaches that aren't available without it. A one-axis autopilot helps reduce the workload quite a bit without anywhere near as many pitfalls as a two-axis autopilot (unless the second axis is strictly alt hold). Whether coupled or not.

It sucks when you're on your checkride and you push the button just a bit too late and the autopilot doesn't capture the glideslope. An experienced instrument pilot will turn it off instantly and still track the GS down, but that's a relatively easy checkride bust.

You can learn IFR without any autopilot at all, pass the checkride, and then learn it later with a safety pilot (in VMC until you're proficient with it).
 
You're not crazy to do your training without an a/p. I would take a GPS over an a/p any day of the week. TRK, DTK, XTK and GS are really handy things to know, along with the ability to shoot RNAV approaches when necessary (that's becoming increasingly often with the decommissioning of so many non-RNAV procedures). Also, while I don't do GPS direct end to end flights under IFR, it's still common to get significant RNAV-based shortcuts enroute.

Mostly, though, it's the TRK, DTK, XTK and GS fields in the GPS that provides the most utility. Shooting an approach (of ANY kind) in a xwind? You can bet that xwind component is going to shift as you change altitudes. DTK and TRK to the rescue. Wanna now how far you are, laterally, from the final approach course? XTK for the win.

I've racked up about 700 hours in the Lancair....guarantee total a/p usage is around 60-90 mins over all those hours, with most of them being in the first 3 months while I worked out if I wanted to use it long term or not (I don't).

I might feel different if I didn't have aileron and rudder trim, though.
 
luvflyin said:
Placard it INOP
Click to expand...
Better have it disabled and properly logged by an A & P. Otherwise, the examiner is likely to try to turn it on, and if it works, ask you to use it.
 
jordane93 said:
Start the training. A simple two axis AP is easy to learn.
Click to expand...
That has not been my experience.

For example, sometimes it'll couple to NAV and sometimes it won't. The manual sucks. My best guess is it has something to do with intercept angle... if I'm aligned with the course the NAV reference is following, it seems like it'll never couple. But if I'm 20 degrees off, it turns, locks on and then follows it fine. Mostly.

Trouble is, you gotta keep watching it to make sure it couples, because it'll just wander off if you don't.

I don't know if this is fault, or just something I'm not doing I should be doing. Altitude changes are annoying as well. I find it much easier to turn off the autopilot and fly to the new altitude. I end up using it in ALT/HDG hold most of the time. Sucks, but I'm not paying to fix it if it's broken. I've heard there's a much cheaper autopilot which the EAA is working on... I might upgrade to that if the price is right.
 
Mistake Not... said:
That has not been my experience.

For example, sometimes it'll couple to NAV and sometimes it won't. The manual sucks. My best guess is it has something to do with intercept angle... if I'm aligned with the course the NAV reference is following, it seems like it'll never couple. But if I'm 20 degrees off, it turns, locks on and then follows it fine. Mostly.

Trouble is, you gotta keep watching it to make sure it couples, because it'll just wander off if you don't.

I don't know if this is fault, or just something I'm not doing I should be doing. Altitude changes are annoying as well. I find it much easier to turn off the autopilot and fly to the new altitude. I end up using it in ALT/HDG hold most of the time. Sucks, but I'm not paying to fix it if it's broken. I've heard there's a much cheaper autopilot which the EAA is working on... I might upgrade to that if the price is right.
Click to expand...
It's still easy to learn how to push 3 buttons. Never said the AP will cooperate:)
 
Mistake Not... said:
That has not been my experience.

For example, sometimes it'll couple to NAV and sometimes it won't. The manual sucks. My best guess is it has something to do with intercept angle... if I'm aligned with the course the NAV reference is following, it seems like it'll never couple. But if I'm 20 degrees off, it turns, locks on and then follows it fine. Mostly.

Trouble is, you gotta keep watching it to make sure it couples, because it'll just wander off if you don't.

I don't know if this is fault, or just something I'm not doing I should be doing. Altitude changes are annoying as well. I find it much easier to turn off the autopilot and fly to the new altitude. I end up using it in ALT/HDG hold most of the time. Sucks, but I'm not paying to fix it if it's broken. I've heard there's a much cheaper autopilot which the EAA is working on... I might upgrade to that if the price is right.
Click to expand...

Some APs need the heading bug to be close to the desired course, and some don't care (and you can intercept in roll mode, for instance). And the intercept angle thing is pretty common.
 
Having an A/P of any kind during IR training is a distraction that you don't need.
Get your rating while hand flying, and then if you have the disposable cash, go ahead and invest. In fact, if you plan on flying single pilot IFR in IMC, I'd argue that (regs aside) a good A/P is a must, not a luxury. But during training you want to learn to fly without it, so as not to develop an unhealthy dependence. Learning to use it is as simple as pushing a button or two, a couple of points on the IQ scale, so that shouldn't be an issue.
 
Buy the GPS. You already have an autopilot. All that's missing is altitude control. The Century IIB can fly intercepts. It can track a VOR or the GPS CDI. And with a GPSS interface like the DAC GDC31, it will interface with the GPS fully and fly anything laterally the GPS tells it to fly (holds, approaches, etc.). You only need to provide the altitude control.
 
Autopilot only needed if name is Sum Ting Wong.

Okay, bad joke but fly approaches by hand until they are second nature. The skills come in handy when things go south.
 
I didn't use my autopilot at all during my IR training, except to hold course while I setup avionics or briefed an approach. And I rarely use the altitude hold, as good trim usually does the trick. During my checkride, I just popped it on when I wanted to brief an approach, and that was enough for the examiner.

After I got my IR, I flew everything using the autopilot for some time until I got good at it.
 
Rykymus said:
I didn't use my autopilot at all during my IR training, except to hold course while I setup avionics or briefed an approach. And I rarely use the altitude hold, as good trim usually does the trick. During my checkride, I just popped it on when I wanted to brief an approach, and that was enough for the examiner.

After I got my IR, I flew everything using the autopilot for some time until I got good at it.
Click to expand...
Technically the dpe should require an approach to be flown with the autopilot as I understand it.
 
One of the planes I did my IR in had a Stec50. My CFII made it a point to teach me how to incorporate it into my instrument flying. Most aircraft you are going to take into the clouds are going to have an AP, so there is no point in not learning it. That said, if funds are tight, I would get the GPS and stick with the single-axis AP.
 
Clark1961 said:
Technically the dpe should require an approach to be flown with the autopilot as I understand it.
Click to expand...
Probably true, but they seem to have some discretion in that area. I asked mine beforehand if he was going to ask me to do a coupled approach and he said he just wasn't interested in the applicant's A/P skills when testing in a small plane like mine. He was much more concerned with making sure I could hand fly it.

As it turned out, I used the A/P briefly during the ride to figure out how to get my Sandel out of a mode I had accidentally put it into when removing the instrument cover after my partial panel approach. He offered to take the controls but I wanted to show him that I could handle such a situation single pilot if it happened for real.
 
Our airplane is well equipped, and has only a single axis AP; it'll track a VOR or our G530, or the heading bug, of course. For a lower performing GA airplane, the single axis AP is fine - even a wing leveler is sufficient, I think. The panel mount IFR GPS would probably serve you better. You can fly IFR without an IFR (or any) GPS, but it will get old and inconvenient pretty quick.
 
azure said:
Probably true, but they seem to have some discretion in that area. I asked mine beforehand if he was going to ask me to do a coupled approach and he said he just wasn't interested in the applicant's A/P skills when testing in a small plane like mine. He was much more concerned with making sure I could hand fly it.

As it turned out, I used the A/P briefly during the ride to figure out how to get my Sandel out of a mode I had accidentally put it into when removing the instrument cover after my partial panel approach. He offered to take the controls but I wanted to show him that I could handle such a situation single pilot if it happened for real.
Click to expand...

Well the ACS states: "To assist in management of the aircraft during the practical test, the applicant is expected to demonstrate automation management skills by utilizing installed equipment such as autopilot, avionics and systems displays, and/or flight management system (FMS). The evaluator is expected to test the applicant’s knowledge of the systems that are installed and operative during both the oral and flight portions of the practical test." It's even more specific under the matrices that spell out the skills required for each knowledge area.

Now I suppose one could argue that the phrase "is expected to" allows discretion on the part of the DPE but when you combine the para I posted above with the other ACS passages relating to autopilot use, I'm of the belief that if installed you are supposed to demonstrate your ability to use it.
 
When I did my instrument rating (or rather before I flew my practical for it), I too had a Cherokee 180, VFR only. Could do VOR or ILS/LOC approaches only but it did have a STEC 30 (2 axis AP).

I put in a GTN 650 IFR GPS. When I took my practical the DPE had me do an ILS, RNAV and VOR circle to land, one of which was with the autopilot which did NOT have approach coupling. Didn't matter though. I fly well enough without the AP that having it was just an added bonus.

So no, don't wait to add a GPS to start doing your instrument rating, and don't wait to add a 2 axis AP either, but I will say, be an absolute expert of EACH of them when you go fly. The DPE will expect it. If you don't know your new equipment, that's a really bad thing when you go fly for your practical and can cause a bust.
 
I have an autopilot plus an MFD and IFR GPS. Much as I like my autopilot, I'd give it up before I gave up the moving map.
 
tsts4 said:
Now I suppose one could argue that the phrase "is expected to" allows discretion on the part of the DPE but when you combine the para I posted above with the other ACS passages relating to autopilot use, I'm of the belief that if installed you are supposed to demonstrate your ability to use it.
Click to expand...

I dont see a requirement to fly a coupled approach. You can demonstrate how to set up the AP to follow the GPS or an airway radial and the requirement would be met.
 
weilke said:
I dont see a requirement to fly a coupled approach. You can demonstrate how to set up the AP to follow the GPS or an airway radial and the requirement would be met.
Click to expand...

I didn't write anything to the contrary. My point was if it's installed the ACS doesn't give the DPE the option of not using it at some point during the ride.
 
tsts4 said:
Well the ACS states: "To assist in management of the aircraft during the practical test, the applicant is expected to demonstrate automation management skills by utilizing installed equipment such as autopilot, avionics and systems displays, and/or flight management system (FMS). The evaluator is expected to test the applicant’s knowledge of the systems that are installed and operative during both the oral and flight portions of the practical test." It's even more specific under the matrices that spell out the skills required for each knowledge area.

Now I suppose one could argue that the phrase "is expected to" allows discretion on the part of the DPE but when you combine the para I posted above with the other ACS passages relating to autopilot use, I'm of the belief that if installed you are supposed to demonstrate your ability to use it.
Click to expand...
Yes, fair point. I had my checkride in Jan 2013, so you'd have to go back to the old PTS to see what rules my DPE was bound by. Possibly he would formally require something involving the A/P if we were doing it today. As it was, it sounds like my use of the A/P to keep the aircraft under control while doing something else would have satisfied the letter of the ACS anyway,
 
My entire checkride was flown using autopilot. DPE stated I obviously already knew how to fly, he wanted to make sure that I knew how to use all the toys and gadgets my plane had knowing if they were there I would use them, he wanted to make sure I was proficient. The only time the autopilot went off was the final approach as he had to see one of them hand flown.

I practiced flying the arc so many times twisting and turning and all I had to do in the ride was sit there and wait to hit the approach button. Holds were a breeze too
 
My instructor told me to use the AP as it made sense during my checkride. I used it to for the hold on the ODP. I hand flew the first couple of approaches and then during the partial panel approach (an RNAV) he asks if the AP still works when the vacuum is dead. I told him it did (also that my HSI would keep working as well). He suggested I use it. About the time we get to the FAF he suggests as windy as it is I could do better hand flying it.

The ACS lists a bunch of autopilot tasks "if equipped."
 
For what it's worth, if the equipment currently in the plane is functional and adequate there is no reason to get either a GPS or an autopilot to start and finish an instrument rating.
 
I agree with the above. If you want effective training, you should already know how to fly your plane and it's equipment. It's counterproductive to be learning new stuff while trying to deal with the massive amounts of new stuff that the Instrument Rating entails. If you want to get an AP or GPS or both, get it well before you start so you have its operation down cold before you start the IR in earnest.
 
mondtster said:
For what it's worth, if the equipment currently in the plane is functional and adequate there is no reason to get either a GPS or an autopilot to start and finish an instrument rating.
Click to expand...
Something that impacts the OP is the lack of instrument approach procedures that can be flown without a DME or GPS. In Dallas, at least, those procedures are few and far between. Not sure about the situation in Houston.
 
I'd go with the GPS. The IIB is decent, holds a good course / localizer and the bug makes vectors easy. The lateral axis assistance alone reduces workload a lot. In most cases, good trimming and a decent scan will make holding an altitude easier, especially since you don't have to worry about the basic course. The IIB is also a lot more aggressive about intercepting tracking radials / courses than STEC 20-30-40-50 units, but the downside is that they are vacuum gyro dependent. I change the vacuum pump every 400-500 hours and I recently installed a Garmin G5. I fly actual IFR a lot doing instrument training in my Warrior and I find very little need to consider installing altitude hold. Unless you have a Vac or Gyro failure, the IIB. That's a lot said, but basically you have a good autopilot now, so work on increasing capability on the NAV side with a WAAS GPS and you'll be set for an easy upgrade to ADS-B out in 2020 with just a transponder upgrade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top