Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I use ?

Jim Carter wrote:
Mxsmanic stuff snipped

That's the point: in your estimation. If we've bred a generation of
pilots that can't or won't fly IFR without an autopilot then why not
just fly commercial and have a drink?

Don't worry, he's not part of any generation of pilots. He doesn't
fly, with or without an A/P, and has no intention of ever doing so.

Jim,

A
check ride should test the student's ability to handle emergency
situations.


Using an autopilot might be a good way to handle an emergency.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Jim,

It is a whole lot easier to learn how to use an autopilot than to learn
how to manage the cockpit workload after it breaks in the soup. That's
my only point.


A good one, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

wrote:

: It should be mandated for single-pilot normal IFR operations in today's
: environment. That doesn't mean the pilot should let his hand-flying and
: partial panal skills deteriorate. Speaking of partial panel, that did
: not apply in jet transport operations and it does not apply to a G-1000
: equipped light aircraft.

: So, we are in transition in a very fundamental sense.

"Bzzzt!!!" As anyone who flies Part 91 realizes WRT the FAR's, what's safe is
not necessary legal, and what's legal is not necessarily safe. Regulations do not a
safe pilot make.

Is it a good idea to have an autopilot for single-pilot, night IMC in a
single?

Yes.

Should it be *required* for non-commercial operations?

Not just no, but hell no.

If the airplane comes with the autopilot, it should be required to be in
working order with some reasonable MEL provision to get home without it
if it is broken.


... same reason it's legal to depart below takeoff minimums if part 91. It's
not necessarily a good idea, but shouldn't be regulatorily mandated.

I have never figured that one out, especially when uninformed, innocent
passengers are involved.

... same reason it's legal to depart below takeoff minimums if part 91. It's not necessarily a good idea, but shouldn't be regulatorily mandated.


I have never figured that one out, especially when uninformed, innocent passengers are involved.

All things carry risk. It is up to the pilot in command to decide
whether the risk is worth the benefit.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim M ]
Posted At: Thursday, November 30, 2006 12:44 PM
Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
Conversation: Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I
use
?
Subject: Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I
use ?

Jim Carter wrote:
Mxsmanic stuff snipped

That's the point: in your estimation. If we've bred a generation of
pilots that can't or won't fly IFR without an autopilot then why not
just fly commercial and have a drink?

Don't worry, he's not part of any generation of pilots. He doesn't
fly, with or without an A/P, and has no intention of ever doing so.

I hope he's got the bug to fly, but maybe not the budget right now.
Maybe as time goes on MSX... will be able to learn to fly, and learn to
learn without arguing. Wouldn't that be nice?

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Jim,

A
check ride should test the student's ability to handle emergency
situations.


Using an autopilot might be a good way to handle an emergency.

The examiner even suggested I could use the autopilot to
fly my partial panel approach.

: ... same reason it's legal to depart below takeoff minimums if part 91. It's not necessarily a good idea, but shouldn't be regulatorily mandated.
:
:
: I have never figured that one out, especially when uninformed, innocent passengers are involved.

: All things carry risk. It is up to the pilot in command to decide
: whether the risk is worth the benefit.

Exactly. There are situations where taking off below minimums is a
much more minimal risk than other normal operations (Airport fogged in and clear VFR 2
miles away vs. night flight).

Commercial ops have higher standards and more restrictions because there are
more passengers involved, they generally do not personally *know* the pilot and
whether they're responsible, and quite simply that the profit motive skews the
"risk/benefit" ratio.

I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, but I stand by my
statement that you cannot legislate safety.... what's safe isn't always legal and
what's legal isn't always safe.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree on this one

I think we agree rather than disagree. We might have to agree to
together disagree with somebody else though.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
... same reason it's legal to depart below takeoff minimums if
part 91. It's not necessarily a good idea, but shouldn't be
regulatorily mandated.



I have never figured that one out, especially when uninformed,
innocent passengers are involved.


All things carry risk. It is up to the pilot in command to decide
whether the risk is worth the benefit.

Jose

That is the cool aid that AOPA keeps selling. Unknowing passengers
deserve better.