PaulS
Touchdown! Greaser!
It's ok to have personal minimums, in fact it's a critical part of good adm. Don't let anyone make you think otherwise. Make sure you stay proficient.
More solo IFR (and no autopilot)
- Thread starter Baflier
- Start date
hish747
Pre-takeoff checklist
To clarify, it's not about ability. It's about decision making and risk management.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Risk management is not about what equipment is or isn't in the plane, it's about the self perceived abilities or lack of in the pilot. I will ALWAYS question the abilities when someone says they cant make a flight without an AP, and when I get to that point, because we all do, I'll hang it up.
hish747
Pre-takeoff checklist
Go off King.
David Megginson
Pattern Altitude
I think we're mostly in loud agreement in this thread:
- Autopilots are a good thing, because they reduce fatigue, help avoid task saturation (especially for single-pilot IFR), and — in certain, very-specific cases — may help non-pilots to control the plane if the pilot becomes incapacitated.
- It is still critically important to maintain the skills to hand fly in all situations, and the availability of an autopilot does not justify a pilot's starting a flight that would otherwise be beyond their skill or currency.
Last edited:
Kritchlow
Final Approach
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2014
- Messages
- 7,884
- Display Name
Display name:
Kritchlow
Don’t bother arguing. Ed is the self proclaimed best pilot on Earth, and his opinion is Gospel.
Of course he is not correct, but rebuttal is a waste of time.
David Megginson
Pattern Altitude
Mine are (Canadian) alternate minima at my primary destination or a nearby airport, and double that at my alternate. That makes it nice and easy (my destination has to be at least 400+1 with 2 usable ILS approaches, 600+2 with 1 usable ILS approach, 800+2 with non-precision and/or RNAV only, etc. etc.). We're forbidden from taking off with less than 1/2 SM viz anyway, so I don't need a personal minimum to keep me away from so-called zero-zero departures. (Also, no ice within 2,000 ft of my cruise altitude, and if there are embedded CB, no worse than few-scattered in the forecast; at night, no forecast CB, period, since they're usually frontal at night.)
None of those minima changes depending on whether my A/P is serviceable. I set them years before I owned one.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
I'd say that's about right. The dangerous part is when people don't realize it's a crutch, and that starts a lot earlier than they realize.
He doesn't believe in those.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Wizard of Oz character much?
I dont do ice, I dont do TS, I don't try and stretch fuel, and I don't fly when not feeling well or dead ass tired. I suppose that doesn't fall under either category?? The plane doesn't know it is IMC, over water, over mountains (well I suppose technically it would because altitude to get over them) or night time. Well if planes were sentient at least.
How is taking conditions that have zero effect on aircraft performance out of the equation the equivalent of ignoring risks and decision making?
Good point. You don't believe in others' risk assessments and decision-making.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
It actually has nothing to do with that. It comes down to safety based on the skill and mental acuity of a pilot.
I take the position that if one is IFR rated and current then one should be able to fly in the system, to their bladder range, to minimums and be *comfortable* doing so by hand. If one is not comfortable doing so and will absolutely not launch without the training wheels, then yes, I do question how safe one is behind the controls and whether they should be at all under IFR. Because guess what autopilots do crap out. And *when* it does, then what?
Now we have a pilot who is going to stress out because otto decided to take a nap on them. Isn't stress one of the conditions of the "you probably shouldn't fly" acronym?
So if flying without AP is so stressful that they can't fly without it, I question the safety of the flight if something like an INOP AP cranks the stress level up so much on an IR current pilot that they can't go .
Edit: I am going to be putting in an AP within the next year, but if I ever get to the point where it becomes a go no go, then I'm done flying because I am not safe behind the controls.
Last edited:
It’s fairly universally agreed that accidents are typically the result of a chain of events, not just one event. Stopping the chain of events before the accident occurs when the AP is not functional is a good thing, not a bad one, and has nothing to do with ability or comfort level.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Mt stance it could be stopped even earlier by realizing that there's an over reliance on the AP. The problem is, they don't realize it and that's really the master link in the chain. If a non functional auto pilot was the master link in the chain of events I would have crashed hundreds of times over the past 20 years.
Nathan Miller
Pre-takeoff checklist
Sounds like someone is trying to overcompensate for Low-T with heavy doses of toxic masculinity.
Can we just end the appendage measuring contest? We'll just declare you winner. I don't even want to see it. You win. May your victory bring you everlasting happiness. The Wright Brother's Trophy is in the mail.
Can we just end the appendage measuring contest? We'll just declare you winner. I don't even want to see it. You win. May your victory bring you everlasting happiness. The Wright Brother's Trophy is in the mail.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Sounds like someone needs a safe space and a binky. The FACTS are, (and there was a recent article about it, maybe you should tell that to theauthor as well) that automation can and does lead to complacency. Complacency and reliance on technology is the lynch pin on this, not inop equipment.
If anyone is offended because I point this out, maybe that person needs to look a little harder at why they are taking things so personal - or making it that way. Maybe it hits too close to home for some.
Ahhh... there we go. The voice of experience who doesn't even have one.
Of course, if you feel unsafe because you choose to forego an optional flight because of the absence of a piece of helpful but not necessary equipment, you should quit flying. I'll agree wit you there.
I addressed this in my post above where I explained why I require a working autopilot when flying with passengers in IMC. 95% of the time my right seat passenger is my wife. She took pinch hitter lessons and we regularly train for her to take over in an emergency. She can fly the plane in VMC and get vectors to an airport from ATC. The plane might not be usable after she lands it, but she (and, we hope, I) should survive the landing. No need for an autopilot for VMC flight.
Where the autopilot is critical to the emergency response is in IMC. It's purpose is to keep the plane right side up until ATC can descend or vector her to conditions where she could fly by visual references. Consequently, a working autopilot is a requirement whenever I fly with her in IMC.
The other 5% of the time when I'm carrying one or more passengers the right seat occupant is a pilot. Some are instrument rated and some are not, but I treat them all as if they were not instrument rated as no one that I know practices IMC flight from the right seal while using gauges in front of the left seat. So VMC or IMC, part of the passenger briefing is what three buttons to push to put the autopilot in heading mode. At that point, as with my wife, the plan is for them to rely on ATC to get them to VMC conditions from which they can fly the plane to landing.
EdFred, do you fly with passengers in IMC? What would happen to them if you were incapacitated while in IMC in your plane without an autopilot? Is the right seater always instrument rated and proficient in flying in IMC from the right seat of your airplane? Or not?
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
I've actually flown with an autopilot twice (neither in my aircraft once IFR, once VFR) and don't feel that it's a NEED. Probably because of the training I got from my CFII.
Your second sentence is more or less what I've been saying, but people seemed to take offense when I said it.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
I do, and before they get in the aircraft, they know that if I croak, they are going down with me unless they can save the plane, and I tell them it probably won't happen if we are in the clouds. I think I have only ever once flown IMC with an IR pilot next to me. All other pax in IMC have been just that, pax. Most of my IMC flights are solo however.
No one has refused to go flying with me because I don't have an autopilot.
PaulS
Touchdown! Greaser!
But you are not getting the personal minimums part, next you'll be saying that pilots who have personal approach minimums rather than flying approaches to legal minimums are unsafe too.
I think what may be going on is that you are personalizing what people like me are saying, thinking that because we have personal minimums, that we are saying you are an unsafe pilot if you don't follow our minimums. That's not true and not what I think, you do what you want to do, I don't care. But you shouldn't be denigrating others choice to decide not to go on a mission because of personal minimums. I haven't heard anyone say that they won't fly without a functioning AP because they are not proficient hand flying.
Nathan Miller
Pre-takeoff checklist
So do you think the problem is everyone else? Or just you?
No one is disputing that automation CAN lead to complacency. Does that mean we throw the baby out with the bath water? And maybe we should automatically accept it that, because we establish personal minimums that are higher than yours, our CFII didn’t train us right or we are sub standard pilots because we don’t measure up to your mental acuity?
coma24
Line Up and Wait
To answer the OP's question, once I got my IR, I purposefully flew on days with a progression of lower and lower ceilings until I reached precision mins. This happened over the course of 3-4 flights. After that I did the same at night (skipping one or two flights and cutting to the chase with the precision minimums). After that I ceased to worry about it and just built more and more experience over time.
Nearly all of my time has been sans AP, initially by choice (when I was flying a 172 with a really solid AP) and then later by circumstance (flying a plane with a functional but not great AP). I can say with conviction that you do reach a point where flying in IMC is barely a step up from a calm VMC day in terms of cognitive workload. I know my airplane very, very well and know what my control inputs are going to produce in terms of pitch and roll rates. I know how the plane bleeds energy in a variety of configurations. I have a process and a scan which appears to have kept me safe and out of trouble. There aren't many times where I'm scrambling to do 5 things at once. Instead, I'll do 5 things slowly, over a long period of time, one at a time (where possible). I understand vectoring patterns and can generally anticipate what is coming next from ATC, including specific headings when it comes to vectors to final. All of these things reduce workload.
Flying through a wide spread stratus deck can be incredibly relaxing and satisfying. Being ready for an approach and challenging yourself to nail the turn to final without any drama and then tracking the lateral and vertical path with minimal control inputs.
One thing that has helped is to treat the entire enroute portion as a giant localizer. I try to maintain 0.02nm XTK (cross track error) or less and +/-20ft, which is 120ft lateral deviation. It's not necessary, of course, however, once you get used to it, then it reduces the difference between your "enroute mode" vs "approach mode." In other words, you're all warmed up and good to go. All that's left is to precisely fly the vertical profile. DTK, TRK and XTK on the GPS is a powerful combination, vastly underated IMO.
The other thing I've learned is that it's possible to have TOO much gear in the fight. If you have mutiple moving maps and GPSs that all need to be updated after a route change or when it's time to load an approach, I would consider removing one or more of them. Case in point, while I do pull up the approach plate in ForeFlight (I need the chart, after all!), I typically don't load the approach into my ForeFlight route, because I'm not looking for any course guidance from ForeFlight. I'm using IFR GPS as my primary navigator, I don't need another CDI on another device.
Some of this is subjective, granted, but it's worked for me, and hopefully it's in the spirit of what you were asking.
Nearly all of my time has been sans AP, initially by choice (when I was flying a 172 with a really solid AP) and then later by circumstance (flying a plane with a functional but not great AP). I can say with conviction that you do reach a point where flying in IMC is barely a step up from a calm VMC day in terms of cognitive workload. I know my airplane very, very well and know what my control inputs are going to produce in terms of pitch and roll rates. I know how the plane bleeds energy in a variety of configurations. I have a process and a scan which appears to have kept me safe and out of trouble. There aren't many times where I'm scrambling to do 5 things at once. Instead, I'll do 5 things slowly, over a long period of time, one at a time (where possible). I understand vectoring patterns and can generally anticipate what is coming next from ATC, including specific headings when it comes to vectors to final. All of these things reduce workload.
Flying through a wide spread stratus deck can be incredibly relaxing and satisfying. Being ready for an approach and challenging yourself to nail the turn to final without any drama and then tracking the lateral and vertical path with minimal control inputs.
One thing that has helped is to treat the entire enroute portion as a giant localizer. I try to maintain 0.02nm XTK (cross track error) or less and +/-20ft, which is 120ft lateral deviation. It's not necessary, of course, however, once you get used to it, then it reduces the difference between your "enroute mode" vs "approach mode." In other words, you're all warmed up and good to go. All that's left is to precisely fly the vertical profile. DTK, TRK and XTK on the GPS is a powerful combination, vastly underated IMO.
The other thing I've learned is that it's possible to have TOO much gear in the fight. If you have mutiple moving maps and GPSs that all need to be updated after a route change or when it's time to load an approach, I would consider removing one or more of them. Case in point, while I do pull up the approach plate in ForeFlight (I need the chart, after all!), I typically don't load the approach into my ForeFlight route, because I'm not looking for any course guidance from ForeFlight. I'm using IFR GPS as my primary navigator, I don't need another CDI on another device.
Some of this is subjective, granted, but it's worked for me, and hopefully it's in the spirit of what you were asking.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
To be blunt and succinct, yes. But it has nothing to do with my ability or mental acuity. The two positions are completely independent. The FAA sets the bar with what the standard is: minimums - and that's what I go with as the standard. We all hand flew on our check ride to plates mins, yes? Well that's the standard. If I, or you, or Joe Bob, or Mary Jane can't, or won't, we are by definition substandard. And chances are, if we are substandard, we don't put ourselves in situations where we need to be up to standards - and I think we should if we are current IFR pilots. Because of that then there is a high probability we are unsafe when it comes to flying to FAA standards. If I change it from "autopilot" and "minimums" to "5 knot crosswind in a non-LSA" or "runway length at least 10 times the published landing distance" I am pretty certain that would all agree with me - a pilot that can't or won't fly in a 5kt crosswind is going to be pretty unsafe when that un-forecast wind kicks up to 10 or 15 or a last minute emergency runway closure put them on a runway that's *only* 4 times published number. But because I said "autopilot", there was much uproar, and I'm the horrible person for saying that yeah, if we can't/won't fly to standards, we are sub-standard.
Hell, I'm a pretty good golfer, and a pretty good bowler - maybe the best on the board at one, maybe both. Maybe I am not, not a big deal if I'm not. But by definition I am still a sub-standard golfer and bowler. Standard is par, 225 to 230 is 0 handicap in bowling. I don't shoot par on every hole and I don't bowl a 225 every game. so yeah, I am substandard. I don't take it personal if someone says I am sub-standard at either of those things Granted, being sub-standard on the golf course or bowling alley, doesn't lead to being unsafe. I guess I just have an expectation that if you are IFR current you are up to and comfortable flying to FAA mins/standards by hand and won't scrub a flight because you have to hand fly.. I guess I'm a bad person for wanting/expecting the best - or at least the standard - out of people.
coma24
Line Up and Wait
Regarding over-reliance on APs, I can offer some observations having run a fair number of in-person IFR proficiency group classes (simulator based) a few years ago with Pilotworkshops. There were people who hand flew all of the exercises (not many). There were people who utilized the AP but were equally happy to fall back on handflying when the AP failed (which it did by design in some of the scenarios). There were those who used the AP as designed, but were clearly not comfortable flying in IMC by hand, quickly leading to over controlling, PIO's, etc. Lastly, there were those who flew using the AP and barely understood its operation, and their hand flying was equally poor.
All I can surmise from this is what while AP usage CAN be used to cover poor airmanship, a decision to routinely use the AP doesn't correlate with poor airmanship.
As to whether an inop AP leading to a no-go means that pilot has an over reliance on the AP, I'm not sure you can draw that conclusion either. I can land my Lancair at night at my home airport, but I generally try to avoid it. In fact I have rescheduled flights to avoid it. Similarly, I don't find it hard to believe that someone who capable of hand-flying might elect to avoid an IMC flight until the AP is fixed because they feel more comfortable doing so. It doesn't necessarily mean that they don't have the skill or proficiency to hand fly, they might simply feel more comfortable having the AP as an available tool. There's so many factors.
Only if the AP is a crutch to make up for an inability to hand-fly the airplane would I say that there is some work to be done.
All I can surmise from this is what while AP usage CAN be used to cover poor airmanship, a decision to routinely use the AP doesn't correlate with poor airmanship.
As to whether an inop AP leading to a no-go means that pilot has an over reliance on the AP, I'm not sure you can draw that conclusion either. I can land my Lancair at night at my home airport, but I generally try to avoid it. In fact I have rescheduled flights to avoid it. Similarly, I don't find it hard to believe that someone who capable of hand-flying might elect to avoid an IMC flight until the AP is fixed because they feel more comfortable doing so. It doesn't necessarily mean that they don't have the skill or proficiency to hand fly, they might simply feel more comfortable having the AP as an available tool. There's so many factors.
Only if the AP is a crutch to make up for an inability to hand-fly the airplane would I say that there is some work to be done.
David Megginson
Pattern Altitude
I've ignored a couple of members (only as an extreme last resort), and I assume it's one of them you're responding to, but I'm seeing only your polite responses, not the original messages.
I assume it's along the lines of "real aviators don't need X".
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
I've ignored a couple of members (only as an extreme last resort), and I assume it's one of them you're responding to, but I'm seeing only your polite responses, not the original messages.
And you'd be wrong. Which isn't surprising.
Although a significantly smaller sample, my experience is substantially the same as yours. What I get most impressed by, though, are the pilots who come to me saying they think they have become overdependent on their autopilots and want to fix that. The self-knowledge is in-and-of-itself and important safety feature.
Still comparing notes, I've noticed two things in the uncomfortable as well as the simply rusty at hand-flying group. Overcontrolling, definitely, but that seems to happen to just about everyone with a little rust. What I see more is a degradation in what I call "anticipation and preparation." Armed with a reliable autopilot, even when doing a good job of monitoring, there developed a bit of a tendency stop thinking way ahead of the airplane. Getting back into "what's next?" mindset fixed a lot of the other errors.
Maybe just a lack of communication, but I see what I said and what you have been saying being quite different.
I said
You appear to be saying
If someone chooses to forego an optional flight because of the absence of a piece of helpful but not necessary equipment, that someone is or at least should feel unsafe.
Not just backwards in terms of the phasing, but very different in substance.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
I guess the best way to put it would be:
If someone has a huge sense of uncomfortability to fly without a piece of helpful but not necessary equipment, I question their ability to safely conduct the remainder off flight if/when it goes in op.
I mean, this spurred off of the AP being INOP and it it being a go/no go. It had to crap out at some point. It could have went TU in IMC rather than whenever it did.
==> meaning leads to
Being uncomfortable ==> stress ==> not always the correct decision ==> unsafe flying
And ALWAYS flying with it in IMC just exacerbates the stress level when it does fail. You and coma have both pointed out the differences in people that hand fly consistently and those that don't. So how does the AP make them a better pilot when it seems to indicate that it does the opposite in many/(most?) cases?
I can agree with that. Completely. But I think it's a big and incorrect step to assume the reason for the no-go choice is a "huge sense of uncomfortability. "
I don't agree with that observation. Both @coma24 and I were referring to multiple groups of pilots, some of which exhibited loss of skill, some of which did not. Personally, I think autopilots can be a learning tool precisely because they fly so well.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
That seems to be the reason that I've seen. Maybe I'd reading it wrong.
David Megginson
Pattern Altitude
I think it's fair to say that a good aviator uses all the optional tools at their disposal, but doesn't become dependent on any one of them. They can still fly without an autopilot, ADS-B traffic and weather, the magenta line on a GPS, etc, but when they have those tools available, they turn them to good advantage, and might be able to fly a little longer before becoming fatigued, or be a little more confident about what's happening with the weather ahead rather than landing to check on the computer at an FBO.
At my last IPC, the pilot examiner told me that Transport Canada has instructed them to have us use all the tools in the cockpit during our mandatory biennial IPCs, rather than having us (say) turn off the A/P to prove we can hand-fly two approaches and a hold. There's still one exercise for emergencies, and the examiner can "fail" anything for that, but that failure lasts only long enough for us to prove that we can still fly safely, then everything gets unfailed again. I expect the thinking is that it's more important for us to demonstrate that we can use the tools at our disposal safely and correctly during the 99.9% of the time they're available to us.