(Michael) wrote in message . com...
(Snowbird) wrote
I don't think this point really ought to be argued. If you take
two pilots of equal, exquisite skill, both fully capable of plane
control at a near automatic level, which is going to have a better
grasp of the "big picture" when something significant changes
enroute? The guy who had to handfly the whole time, or the guy who
was able to turn the plane over to "George" for a few while he
processed the changes?

I'll bet money on the latter, every time. And that's the point of
this "value the autopilot" mantra.

For any individual flight, you're right. But in the long run, letting
"George" do it means that certain skills just don't develop. All else
being equal, the guy with the autopilot has an edge (however slight) -
but in reality all else won't be equal.

Apples and oranges to the point I'm trying to make.

Instrument skills are a "lose 'em or use 'em" proposition,
there's no question. Someone who relies on George will
lose the ability to do routine things like:

By the time we were done, he was hand flying two hour night-IMC legs
while effectively communicating with ATC and carrying on a discussion
with me about the best way to avoid the worst of the weather being
painted by his Strikefinder.

But if the contention is no competent, IMC proficient pilot
ought to need an autopilot, my point is that when the autopilot
comes in really handy is when things aren't routine. When you're
flying outside familiar territory and are handed a major (or
maybe the 2nd or 3rd major) rerouting from ATC and you not
only need to process the route, you need to reassess the wx
and fuel pictures completely, esp. single pilot.

God himself would do better handing the plane-handling
over to George for a bit and freeing up some extra brain
cycles to 'get the picture'.

IMO anyway.

FWIW,
Sydney