A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Stability augmentation promises to give you even less control



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #21  
Old August 4th 10, 06:55 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
a[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 562
Default Stability augmentation promises to give you even less control

On Aug 4, 10:22*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
a writes:
There was something in the literature recently about using a/p in IMC
is safer, but from my point of view I am much more aware of what's
going on hand flying (and have done so over the Rockies) than sitting
back and 'managing' the airplane while it's on auto pilot..


The workload for single-pilot IFR is substantial, particularly in actual IMC.
This is an important argument favoring the suggestion that autopilot be
heavily used for IFR. With two pilots, things are easier, although an
autopilot might still be preferable.

At least the autopilot only does what it is told. At the same time, it does
encourage a certain amount of complacency, which has even bit airline pilots
on more than one occasion.

A sad confession is the a/p does do a better job of keeping the
needles crossed on an ILS than I do, but the correct interpretation of
that is, I need more practice at it than the a/p does.


There's no shame in an automated system doing better than a human being at
something it is designed to do.

A huge 'and
moreover' is, I want hands on near minima, don't want to mess with the
a/p if I have to fly a miss, and don't want to transition from a/p to
manual when I decide conditions are not right for a landing.


Aviators understand this stuff.


It depends on the aircraft and the type of flying.


I hate responding to a troll, but his statement is nonsensical when
he claims a substantially higher workload for SEL under IFR/IMC. What
increase in workload? Control by reference to instruments? Navigating?
Communicating? Changing Frequencies? Flying a predetermined route?
Most of us rated for instrument flight would assert the workload is
NOT substantial and I, among many, prefer IFR than VFR because it is
in fact easier and certainly safer. It's a matter of training,
something a non-aviator would not understand. It would take a
completely abnormal set of circumstances before I would consider a
long night CAVU XC flight under VFR Abnormal would be, for example,
during the controller's slowdown/strike during the Reagan
presidency.

This is an aviator's forum, aviators understand this stuff.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Promises to be a good show this year! PLMerite Aviation Photos 0 May 3rd 08 12:43 PM
Stability variation WingFlaps Piloting 2 April 28th 08 03:45 AM
Towing stability studies Dan G Soaring 27 February 21st 08 08:38 PM
Tow vehicle -- electronic stability control Greg Arnold Soaring 4 June 8th 06 12:31 PM
Atmospheric stability and lapse rate Andrew Sarangan Piloting 39 February 11th 05 05:34 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.