Proficiency

[spiderweb]

Using automation does not imply poor hand flying skills.

You mean "equate to" instead of "imply." Anyhow, it often does equate to poor hand flying skills in GA.

 

[DouglasBader]

No, I meant imply.

You meant "equate to," which are your words, and not mine.

I can speak for myself, thanks.

Autopilot usage doesn't equate to poor pilot skills. **** poor pilots who fail to maintain proficiency equate to poor pilot skills. Autopilot use implies neither.

 

[wabower]

Using automation does not imply poor hand flying skills.

If you teach sim in turboprops and jets at a 142 training center, you'll know before the end of the first session which pilots have been using the A/P "just to make it smoother for the boss in the back."

Their loss of these "perishable skills" was/is an accepted fact by the IP's, even though most would have been considered as "rusty" rather than "downright dangerous."

 

[spiderweb]

No, I meant imply.

You meant "equate to," which are your words, and not mine.

I can speak for myself, thanks.

Autopilot usage doesn't equate to poor pilot skills. **** poor pilots who fail to maintain proficiency equate to poor pilot skills. Autopilot use implies neither.

Well, a concept can't imply anything. Only words imply. Continue to speak with incorrect grammar, if you like.

And I still think you miss my point, which was that there is a difference between overuse of the AP in GA and the very different implementation of the AP in airline SOPs--a point you, yourself were trying to make to Henning.

 

[peppy]

My point with AP people is that the scan/hand/eye coordination requires constant use to be slick. When you cruise around on AP all the time, you lose that.

Which is why I said a pilot might have different personal minimums depending on equipment. Heck, forget having an AP in the plane. It's easy to get rusty for many reasons and that needs to be taken into account. Rusty due to little hand flying might be a factor but new avionics might be too.

Sorry but I'm still hung up on your comments about weather and I still don't see how you fly at all based on the logic you espouse. Your argument that the weather is so totally unpredictable that even CAVU all around is inadequate totally confuses me.

 

[Henning]

Which is why I said a pilot might have different personal minimums depending on equipment. Heck, forget having an AP in the plane. It's easy to get rusty for many reasons and that needs to be taken into account. Rusty due to little hand flying might be a factor but new avionics might be too.

Sorry but I'm still hung up on your comments about weather and I still don't see how you fly at all based on the logic you espouse. Your argument that the weather is so totally unpredictable that even CAVU all around is inadequate totally confuses me.

Think further and deeper.

 

[peppy]

Think further and deeper.

I have a lot of training in formal logic and I just can't help but come to some crazy conclusions based on your arguments. You have totally lost me.

 

[DouglasBader]

Well, a concept can't imply anything.

It most certainly can.

The concept of risk management, for example, implies (does not equate to) acceptance of risk. Inherent in the task of managing risk is the acceptance that there is risk to manage, and furthermore, accepting that there must be risk, and that one shall manage that risk. This is the implication of risk management.

Bravado does not equate to insincerity, but it's certainly implied.

The conceptual implies, and implications are attached to virtually any concept.

What is implied by the essence of that concept does not necessarily equate to anything; equation to and implication thereof are not synonymous.

And I still think you miss my point, which was that there is a difference between overuse of the AP in GA and the very different implementation of the AP in airline SOPs--a point you, yourself were trying to make to Henning.

You think incorrectly; I get your point. It's wrong.

You also missed the point that you think I tried to make to Henning. I did not.

My comments apply equally to airline operations and light aircraft operations.

Don't blame the automation. Blame the pilot. Automation doesn't cause skills to deteriorate. ****poor pilots who fail to maintain proficiency allow their skills to deteriorate. Not at all the same thing. Put the blame where it truly lies, with the pilot, not with the automation.

Automation doesn't make one soft. One allows one's self to get soft, and uses automation as an excuse.

 

[Henning]

I have a lot of training in formal logic and I just can't help but come to some crazy conclusions based on your arguments. You have totally lost me.

I'll make it short and sweet. You cannot use predicted weather minimums as your safety valve, your 'out' when you are flying because you have no control over what the weather will do, it is the unknown factor you are trying to secure the 'out' for. Therefore you need something else. That something else has to be something that deals with the eventuality of the weather not cooperating. In an IFR/IMC environment you have two basic options, proficiency in operations or simplicity in operation. Proficiency requires a good deal of practice. Most GA pilots don't get enough practice on instruments to remain proficient so they the go with simplicity. Simplicity used to be relegated to Autopilot usage. Since most GA planes with an autopilot only have one, this leaves you with a mechanical vulnerability. Constant reliance on an autopilot also has the effect of allowing for degraded hand flying skills and instrment interpretation skills from lack of practice. If the weather and mechanical vulnerability come at the same time, when combined with the reduced hand instrument flying skills the pilot is left to the mercy of luck. With SVT we've gained another route of simplification as it provides a composite situational awareness picture at a glance in a 3D format that we are used to seeing since birth, it requires no extra thought or steps to interpret. All 'glass' installations are required redundancy so this hands the safety advantage to SVT over AP.

Since I don't mind hand flying, my choice for the same budget was to install the G-500 rather than the AP, and next I will install the SVT to allow me to fly extended runs in IMC. Since I hand fly everything and I go on instruments for a considerable portion of my night flying, I remain proficient enough at it that I don't worry about doing a pop up or shooting an approach with my current level of equipment, although I have not had the need as of yet since I am quite comfortable flying my plane very low to the ground or water. What risk at this point I cannot emiliorate I accept as I have equipped myself with enough advantages in both technology and proficiency that I am comfortable with my ability to get it to a runway safely in nearly any conditions that may come my way except for icing and thunderstorms, and those I avoid. Hopefully Kelly will get their hotpad deice gear on the market and I can take care of the icing part, and thunderstorms I avoid by staying in VMC under or around them so I can see where is safe and not.

 

[DouglasBader]

In an IFR/IMC environment you have two basic options, proficiency in operations or simplicity in operation. Proficiency requires a good deal of practice. Most GA pilots don't get enough practice on instruments to remain proficient so they the go with simplicity. Simplicity used to be relegated to Autopilot usage. Since most GA planes with an autopilot only have one, this leaves you with a mechanical vulnerability. Constant reliance on an autopilot also has the effect of allowing for degraded hand flying skills and instrment interpretation skills from lack of practice.

You make the options you've suggested out to be an either/or scenario. Either be simple, or be proficient.

Autopilot operation does not simplify the flight. It complicates it to some degree, or at a minimum alters one's handling of the aircraft to include monitoring an additional component, and managing it.

Proficiency is always necessary. An autopilot does not take the place of proficiency at instrument flight, at visual flight, at night flight, at hand flying, or at autopilot operation. It's not a system one can or should simply turn on and go, especially in light aircraft. Even in significantly more advanced systems that enable the autopilot (if properly utilized) to be used for almost the entire flight (including landing), it's far from a substitute for piloting. It's an aid, a system; something to be used while flying the airplane, but at no time does the autopilot or aircraft flight control system become a substitute for piloting the aircraft. It's simply a tool to be used while doing so.

Accordingly, introduction of automation into the cockpit increases the amount of training and proficiency one must accept and undertake on an initial and ongoing basis. It's one more thing at which one must be proficient, and maintain proficiency.

One need not and should not make a choice between proficiency and simplification (in the context as you've introduced it, simplification appears to mean automation). Both are always necessary. One might as easily substitute "management" for "simplification," as an autopilot is both a management tool, and a tool that must be managed.

I use autopilots that have substantially more capability than a typical light airplane autopilot; they have CAT III autoland capability, with autothrottles and navigation through a number of redundant GPS/FMS systems. None of that at any time is a substitute for my own proficiency, nor would it ever be acceptable to utilize the automation in lieu of proficiency or skill. An autopilot is not a crutch.

During training, on a regular basis, while flying an approach the instructor in the simulator will fail the autopilot. One may be conducting a three-engine approach with the autopilot engaged, for example, and will experience additional problems or emergencies that will eliminate the autopilot, or the instructor will simply fail the autopilot during the procedure, if he desires. One should be (and must) always prepared to immediately disconnect and continue hand flying the aircraft while addressing the problem. There need not be a problem; taking over by hand is always an option that should never be discounted. Pilots who abdicate being in command of the aircraft in favor of letting the autopilot do their job aren't experiencing a lack of skill or degradation in their abilities as a result of autopilot use. They've failed to fulfill their basic function for being PIC: they've given up command. The failure then, and the root cause of any decrease in skill or proficiency isn't the autopilot, it's a lazy pilot.

 

[Henning]

You make the options you've suggested out to be an either/or scenario. Either be simple, or be proficient.

the root cause of any decrease in skill or proficiency isn't the autopilot, it's a lazy pilot.

Right, and this is where GA pilots are different from pro pilots. GA pilots for the most part can't afford both and since since simplicity costs only money and proficiency costs time and money with time often more precious than money, the choice is rather simple. A pro pilot flies frequently in someone else's equipment typically, they are paid to remain proficient in the course of their work day as well as required recurrent training.

The second statement I agree with completely. However lazy is a factor in human nature that cannot be ignored. So the question becomes lazy and dead or lazy and alive.

The worlds of pro and GA pilots run on different orbits and you can't apply all the rules for one to the other.

 

[DouglasBader]

Whereas I fly both, I can address both.

If one can't afford to stay proficient, then do what I did, and tens of thousands of others. Get paid to do it. If one can't stay proficient, stay on the ground.

My comments apply equally to professional cockpits or private ones.

Mountainsides, weather, and hard terra firma don't care if you're being paid. They'll kill you just the same.

There is never an excuse for lack of proficiency at flying the aircraft. If one isn't proficient, one has no business in the air, or one should be with someone who is proficient, undertaking training to get proficient.

An autopilot is NEVER a substitute for proficiency.

 

[peppy]

Henning - I love SVT and am on the list to receive it if and when Avidyne delivers. They are two years late and counting. I became a fan the first time I turned the wrong way on a practice missed approach. That said I know of nothing that is a singular be all and end all of aviation safety.

You are too absolute in the way you say weather is unpredictable. SVT won't help if you wind up in winds gusting to 60 knots when landing. Nor do I want to count on being able to use SVT to land under zero-zero conditions. I prefer to avoid both. I believe there is a huge difference between flying into an airport with a 500' ceiling but CAVU at airports all around (lots of outs) and a benign synoptic picture vs. 500' ceilings everywhere for a distance further than my reserve fuel can take me.

Everyone can't afford the best of everything and that includes SVT. A lot of people fly just fine with less in their plane. My whole point is that people should base personal minimums on their and their plane's capabilities with outs based on potential failures including weather forecast failures. With respect to weather we disagree in that I think weather forecasting has improved and one can place reasonable limits on the potential for the forecast to be wrong. As an example, I don't worry about an area that's CAVU with no fronts moving through developing a hurricane in the next 30 minutes.

 

[Henning]

You can prefer and try to avoid anything you want, doesn't mean it will happen. I don't speak in absolutes, just best available technology for greatest edge. SVT will indeed help with a 60 knot wind because the vector indicator is calculated by your ground speed so regardless the conditions if you put the predictor on the threshold you will get there.

I avoid ice yet I ended up on a no gyro approach that got me stepped down into severe icing I was not cleared to decend out of for 3 minutes due to terrain. Only time in an airplane I had figured I was not going to survive. Luckily I had manual waste gate turbo chargers that gave me extra ability to haul several inches of ice to the ground, a 7500' runway that allowed me to drive it on full throttle at 170 and a strong assed plane (BE-95) that accepted the abuse with aplomb.

Whatever you plan for is fine, but that should limit what one prepares for. I'm pretty sure you gat an Aspen Pro w/ SVT installed for under $15k.

 

[peppy]

Whatever you plan for is fine, but that should limit what one prepares for. I'm pretty sure you gat an Aspen Pro w/ SVT installed for under $15k.

No amount of avionics will make a small single engine GA plane safe to land in a 60 knot crosswind.

You say you don't talk in absolutes but you certainly implied that going to an airport with 500' ceilings and CAVU all around and a clear weather reason (valley lifting fog) why that airport was the only one with low ceilings was no better than 500' ceilings for a several hundred mile area. Go back and read your post that got my dander up.

There is svt and then there is SVT. A friend has a Bonanza with a three stack Aspen with svt and says he wishes he would have saved his money. With even a small crosswind the flight path indicator is off the screen. He says the screen is just too small. If the display could be placed across the three tubes he says he would like it a lot better. The Aspen is svt while the 12" and 14" Garmin systems are SVT. As for myself I fly behind Avidyne R9 and it has way too many advantages over the Aspen system for me to contemplate changing. That includes the awesome DFC100 autopilot. Wow, now everyone can tell me how crazy I am because I love my AP.

 

[Henning]

No amount of avionics will make a small single engine GA plane safe to land in a 60 knot crosswind.

You say you don't talk in absolutes but you certainly implied that going to an airport with 500' ceilings and CAVU all around and a clear weather reason (valley lifting fog) why that airport was the only one with low ceilings was no better than 500' ceilings for a several hundred mile area. Go back and read your post that got my dander up.

There is svt and then there is SVT. A friend has a Bonanza with a three stack Aspen with svt and says he wishes he would have saved his money. With even a small crosswind the flight path indicator is off the screen. He says the screen is just too small. If the display could be placed across the three tubes he says he would like it a lot better. The Aspen is svt while the 12" and 14" Garmin systems are SVT. As for myself I fly behind Avidyne R9 and it has way too many advantages over the Aspen system for me to contemplate changing. That includes the awesome DFC100 autopilot. Wow, now everyone can tell me how crazy I am because I love my AP.

Why would you land a small single engine plane in a 60 kt cross wind when that wind gives you the ability to line up perpendicular to the runway and land into the wind with near zero ground speed? I have landed all over TX with those kind of winds in a PA 12 and even at a Flying J once.

BTW, I concur on the Aspen which is why I spent the money on the G-500. I think the Aspen will make a nifty backup unit to put towards the center of the right panel though.

 

[bbchien]

Proficiency costs a lot. Being nonproficient costs much more dearly.

 

[peppy]

Why would you land a small single engine plane in a 60 kt cross wind when that wind gives you the ability to line up perpendicular to the runway and land into the wind with near zero ground speed? I have landed all over TX with those kind of winds in a PA 12 and even at a Flying J once.

BTW, I concur on the Aspen which is why I spent the money on the G-500. I think the Aspen will make a nifty backup unit to put towards the center of the right panel though.

I'm a wuss. I'd go somewhere where it wasn't a crosswind so I could land into the wind but aligned with the runway and if I had the fuel I would go however far I needed to in order to get below 20 knots.

 

[Bob Noel]

Proficiency costs a lot. Being nonproficient costs much more dearly.

only if needed.

Don't launch into conditions that require proficiency you (the generic you) don't have.

 

[DrMack]

One of the main reasons we bought a Diamond DA40 is that I don't feel that I have the time to remain proficient in anything less forgiving. It is a compromise between performance of the airplane and my proficiency. I fly almost exclusively IFR but my personal forecasted approach limits are well above published minima though I am always mentally prepared for a missed approach on every one.

So the whole question of proficiency is really a very personal one. There is no formula that will apply to all. Of course there are professional proficiency standards for commercial operators but those standards are conservatively far above what is necessary for the typical private operation to achieve an acceptable risk level. Decide what level of proficiency you wish to achieve and then determine from your own experience what level of effort you are willing to sustain to keep that proficiency. The variance of pilot ability is is too wide to provide a formulaic answer to the question. Sorry to be so subjective in the response but it really is a subjective issue for the typical private pilot. You'll know what your own parameters are when you get out there and practice, practice, practice.

 

[MachFly]

Proficiency costs a lot. Being nonproficient costs much more dearly.

So true.