single pilot ifr trip tonight

(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

(Snowbird) wrote
Apples and oranges to the point I'm trying to make.

Not really. Not unless your point is that "George" remains idle 99.9%
of the time spent in IMC, and is only engaged on an emergency basis.

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:

Like dealing with routine IFR issues on his own?

All time is not created equal. You may spend two hours droning along
in stratus over the midwest, going direct to destination. That's two
hours of actual. Is it as much experience as an hour in and out of
bumpy cumulus with multiple reroutes? Well, that depends. If you
hand-fly it, then no - the hour hand-flying in bumps while copying,
reading back, verifying, and setting up radios for the new clearances
is a lot more experience, even though it's only half as much time and
a quarter of the actual. But not if you have "George" holding heading
and altitude for you.

My main objection to letting "George" do it is this - most of us are
just not getting that much actual experience. We need that experience
to develop our skills - the hood is not the same. It's silly to give
that experience away to a gadget.

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.

I guess I look at it differently. I consider what you're describing
routine. Major reroutes are a way of life when flying busy airspace -
I don't think I've ever made the Houston-New York run (which I've made
many times) without multiple major reroutes. I also don't recall ever
making that run without encountering significant weather. In fact,
the whole point of an instrument rating is going places. Unless
you've already seen it all, some of those places are going to be
unfamiliar.

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'.

In theory, there's no way to argue with that. It must take SOME
effort to fly the plane, and there is SOME limit to pilot capability.
In reality, I find that the cycles necessary to keep the plane upright
are minimal, and also that I'm not at my cycle limit flying IFR.

Further, I would argue that anyone who IS at task saturation flying
IFR is doing something very, very dangerous. After all, if it's
taking all you've got just to deal with the situation as it is
(aircraft control, ATC, navigation, weather) to the point that if you
don't have "George" fly while dealing with a reroute, you risk losing
the big picture, then what happens when you have a minor emergency?
Seriously? What happens when you're climbing out, night/IMC, being
rerouted - and your AI tumbles? What happens when you lift off, get a
positive rate, cycle the gear up, and as you're entering the soup the
lights dim and you smell smoke?

Michael

(Michael) wrote in message . com...
(Snowbird) wrote
Apples and oranges to the point I'm trying to make.

Not really. Not unless your point is that "George" remains idle 99.9%
of the time spent in IMC, and is only engaged on an emergency basis.

Absolutely not. If "George" remains idle 99.9% of the time, then
clearly the pilot has no business engaging George on an emergency
basis because he has not maintained his proficiency in the care
and feeding of "George". In an emergency KISS and stick to what's
familiar say I.

Can't tell at this point if you're not reading what I say,
or if I'm not adequately able to communicate what I mean, but
clearly communication isn't taking place so I'm outta here.

Cheers,
Sydney

(Snowbird) wrote
Not really. Not unless your point is that "George" remains idle 99.9%
of the time spent in IMC, and is only engaged on an emergency basis.

Absolutely not. If "George" remains idle 99.9% of the time, then
clearly the pilot has no business engaging George on an emergency
basis because he has not maintained his proficiency in the care
and feeding of "George". In an emergency KISS and stick to what's
familiar say I.

By that logic, one should never attempt to fly a twin in an asymmetric
thrust condition in an emergency. After all, 99.9% of the time, the
engines operate in a symmetric condition (both producing approximately
equal output).

Michael

Michael,

It's silly to give
that experience away to a gadget.


And it's less silly to die while not doing it???

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote in message ...
Michael,
It's silly to give
that experience away to a gadget.

And it's less silly to die while not doing it???

(tieing threads together or branches of threads together)
Here IMO we go back to the difference between something
which is useful in a tight spot vs. a matter of life and
death

A pilot whose skills are such that not using the autopilot
is a matter of life and death is in trouble, with or without
'George'.

But if 'George' is there, in order for 'George' to be useful
in a tight spot, the pilot has to be proficient with George.
He has to know 'George's quirks, how to set George up boomboomboom
without extra brain cycles, and to what extent he can trust
George (or not). Anything less IMHO leave George out of the
picture.

Frankly, IMHO Michael contradicts another of his posts to
speak of "silly to give that experience away to a gadget".

An autopilot is just like a fancy MFD or a moving map GPS or
any other piece of cockpit equipment which can make life
easier *or* cause dependence, and the point he himself makes
in a different post applies. More equipment means more flying
to maintain proficiency with and without ALL the equipment in
the cockpit.

Personally, I look to people I respect totally from what I
know of them, and if people like my instructor and Stan Gosnell
speak of the benefits of SP autopilot use in being able to
develop and maintain a better grasp of the "big picture"
single-pilot, I'm listening. I've never seen the Richard
Collins tape and I don't know anything about him personally,
not meaning to 'dis' him, he's just not on my personal 'scope
and the sort of plane he flies (Cessna Truck) doesn't speak
to me.

BTW I speak of "tight spot" rather than "emergency" quite
deliberately because IMHO many (most?) abnormal situations
never become emergencies because of the quality of the choices
the pilot(s) make. We've been in 4-5 what I consider "tight
spots" which could easily have become emergencies and 0
emergencies so far, partly through luck partly through our
choices. And the quality of choices directly depends on the
quality of the "big picture" the pilot is able to maintain.

Anyone who thinks they can maintain the same quality of "big
picture" single-pilot while hand flying 100% of the time
as they could if they let 'George' take it judiciously,
I think is kidding themselves (or maybe handling a Flying Truck).
Just like anyone who thinks a cell phone ought to be a higher
priority than a GPS for in-flight emergency use (*g*) but
again that's their issue.

Cheers,
Sydney

Snowbird,

A pilot whose skills are such that not using the autopilot
is a matter of life and death is in trouble, with or without
'George'.


Agree.

As I said befo Here in Germany, single pilot IFR is legal only with
an autopilot with ALT hold on board.

Without knowing for sure, one of the possible factos for the Kennedy
accident is that he was not proficient enough with the autopilot to let
the machine fly anything but straight and level, e.g. the descent that
was initiated and started the accident sequence. The AP in that
aircraft would have been capable of doing a descent.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Without knowing for sure, one of the possible factos for the Kennedy
accident is that he was not proficient enough with the autopilot to let
the machine fly anything but straight and level, e.g. the descent that
was initiated and started the accident sequence. The AP in that
aircraft would have been capable of doing a descent.

That's not what I get from reading the NTSB report. It says:

"The airplane was equipped with a Bendix/King 150 Series Automatic
Flight Control System (AFCS) [...]

The AFCS installed on the accident airplane had an altitude hold mode
that, when selected, allowed the airplane to maintain the altitude that
it had when the altitude hold was selected. The AFCS did not have the
option of allowing the pilot to preselect an altitude so that the
autopilot could fly to and maintain the preselected altitude as it
climbed or descended from another altitude."

Still, I would imagine you could leave it in "heading hold" mode,
disengage altitude hold, reduce power a bit, and the plane would enter a
perfectly controlled descent just based on trim. And I agree that a
polot properly trained in use of the autopilot should have known how to
do that.

Roy,

Oops! I remembered wrongly. Sorry!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[name removed, since this isn't personal] writes:

Without knowing for sure, one of the possible factos for the Kennedy
accident [...]

I think that we need to create a new variation of Godwin's Law, for
aviation groups and lists, named in honour of John F. Kennedy Jr.:

John Jr's Law
-------------

As an aviation-related discussion grows longer, the probability of a
cautionary reference to John F. Kennedy Jr.'s fatal crash off
Martha's Vinyard on July 16, 1999 approaches one.


All the best,


David