On 4 Nov 2003 12:16:24 -0800, (Michael) wrote:

(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.

Let's fast forward a couple of years. One of the pilots made it a
point to hand fly in IMC all the time. The other one turned the plane
over to "George" for a few when he needed to process the changes. Who
is more proficient now? Who is better able to divide attention?

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.


Here we differ 180 degrees.
"George", is like GPS in that we use him most of the time, but we
still have to maintain those basic skills. We still have to practice
approaches and cross country by hand flying if we are to remain
proficient. Now, as to the guy who always hand fly...has he, or she
spent enough time using "George" to be proficient flying the different
phases of the trip using George?

An AP is great, but you just don't normally just turn it on off. Like
GPS you needed to be proficient at doing what ever you have to do to
get the thing in operation. Finding you are in a situation where you
need George is not the time to be turning the AP on.

Although far simpler than GPS you'd not want to be programming in a
bunch of way points while being bounced around, trying to intercept a
radial. Turning on the AP, getting the altitude stabilized before
turning on the altitude hold, and selecting the proper instrument to
slave can be almost as taxing.

BTW - for a while, I worked with a low time pilot (less than 300 hrs
TT) whose IFR skills, by his own admission, were gone. His airplane
was a Tiger. He had an autopilot. In the entire time we flew
together, it was on for just about 10 minutes - long enough for me to
ascertain that he knew how to use it and understood its quirks and
limitations.

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

I may have phrased this badly so to make it short in summary:

A complete pilot should be proficient at using all the instruments at
his disposal, but dependent on none.

Be proficient with GPS, but not to the point of dependency.
Be proficient with what every AP is available, but not dependent.
Keep an awareness of you location independently of the primary
instrumentation.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
painted by his Strikefinder. I think it took him a little over 10
hours to get to that point. A little long for an ICC, I admit. In
fact, I signed off his ICC about halfway through the process - once he
demonstrated that he met the applicable standards. We kept flying
because he was looking for more than a signature certifying he met
minimum standards - he was looking for true IFR proficiency.

Michael