2 pilot/small airplane CRM

Michael wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote

I now have an airplane with an autopilot, but I almost never use it. I
flew 6 years of IFR (often in IMC here in the sunny northeast) and I
just feel more comfortable hand flying at all times. I also don't need
to worry about AP failure. I do use it when I need to do an extensive
GPS reprogram, but I can do that without the AP, it just takes longer.


I too have an airplane with an autopilot now. I fly IFR a lot, and
have for the past 4 years I've owned the airplane. I installed the
autopilot two years ago. I first used it in IMC on my ATP checkride,
and I'm still on my white temporary. I, too, can reprogram my GPS
without the autopilot. I can perform ALL normal tasks without the
autopilot, though it does take slightly longer. I certainly believe
that you should be able to complete the flight uneventfully if the
autopilot fails, and I train to that standard.


I believe more strongly in the flip side. I believe the greatest
likelihood of pilot error is when in a high workload situation, often
caused by an emergency or at least an anomoly in flight. At such times
having a higher level of competency is essential.


No argument - but that is what recurrent training is for.

No, recurrent training is no substitute for ongoing practice. Training
is to teach you new skills and correct bad habits that have crept into
your. Recurrent training doesn't hone skills the way frequent practice
does. Training and practice aren't the same thing. Ask me if I want to
go into battle with a freshly trained GI or a 20 year combat veteran,
and I can tell you who I'll pick.


Matt

"Mike Rapoport" wrote
I am a strong believer in "train the way you fly and fly the way you train"
and so are FlightSafety and Simcom. Actually this applies to all endeavors.
If you want to be a better runner, then you are better off running than
swimming.

Maybe. Cross-training is a valid and recognized approach in
professional athletics; I think it's just as valid for aviation. I
found that my skydiving improved when I started flying airplanes, my
airplane flying improved when I started flying gliders, my tri-gear
flying improved when I started flying tailwheel - and so on. Even if
you normally fly single pilot, I think there are gains to be made by
learning to fly as part of a crew, and practicing the skill on
occasion.

I can't and won't disagree with any of your points except to point out that
unless your copilot is trained in the aircraft, it takes longer to teach
them how to do things than to do them yourself.

Not necessarily. How much aircraft-specific training does one need to
find an approach in a book of plates? IME most instrument students
can do it.

If it makes the
examiner happy, I will asign him the duty of reading checklists.

That was one of the duties I assigned. Finding me the approach plate,
or reading some aspect of it to me, was another. It's not much - but
it's better than nothing. I did in fact point out to him that since
we did not fly or train as a crew, the tasks I could assign to him
were limited - but not nil. That seemed to satisfy him.

The interesting part of this was the way the single engine ILS played
out on the checkride. I was vectored all over creation, in and out of
cloud. I was given an intercept that was too tight and WAY too high
(the GS needle was pegged down as I was cleared). However, because I
had offloaded the duty of finding the approach and briefing me on it
to the DE, and because I had the A/P on, I really had minimal
workload. I could see the bad vector/altitude situation developing,
and I adjusted the power/speed accordingly.

When the clearance came, I disengaged the autopilot, dumped the nose,
and dove for the intercept altitude at 1000 fpm. It was the only way
to be stabilized on altitude and on airspeed as I crossed the marker -
where I 'lost' an engine. Had I needed time to decide what to do as I
got the clearance, I would not have made it.

The approach was easy, and keeping it within a dot was a non-event.
Would I have pulled it off without the DE and autopilot? Certainly.
Would I have kept it within a dot at all times? Probably, but
possibly not. Would I have done it smoothly, such that successfully
keeping it within a dot at all times (in spite of an engine failure at
the marker) was never in doubt? Probably not.

The ATP ride was half over before I really understood the point. Even
seemingly minimal resources can be useful and should be used.

Michael

I guess the you do not have your approach plates in an Northstar EFB mounted
on the left yoke :-).

Mike
MU-2


"Michael" wrote in message
om...
"Mike Rapoport" wrote
I am a strong believer in "train the way you fly and fly the way you
train"
and so are FlightSafety and Simcom. Actually this applies to all
endeavors.
If you want to be a better runner, then you are better off running than
swimming.

Maybe. Cross-training is a valid and recognized approach in
professional athletics; I think it's just as valid for aviation. I
found that my skydiving improved when I started flying airplanes, my
airplane flying improved when I started flying gliders, my tri-gear
flying improved when I started flying tailwheel - and so on. Even if
you normally fly single pilot, I think there are gains to be made by
learning to fly as part of a crew, and practicing the skill on
occasion.

I can't and won't disagree with any of your points except to point out
that
unless your copilot is trained in the aircraft, it takes longer to teach
them how to do things than to do them yourself.

Not necessarily. How much aircraft-specific training does one need to
find an approach in a book of plates? IME most instrument students
can do it.

If it makes the
examiner happy, I will asign him the duty of reading checklists.

That was one of the duties I assigned. Finding me the approach plate,
or reading some aspect of it to me, was another. It's not much - but
it's better than nothing. I did in fact point out to him that since
we did not fly or train as a crew, the tasks I could assign to him
were limited - but not nil. That seemed to satisfy him.

The interesting part of this was the way the single engine ILS played
out on the checkride. I was vectored all over creation, in and out of
cloud. I was given an intercept that was too tight and WAY too high
(the GS needle was pegged down as I was cleared). However, because I
had offloaded the duty of finding the approach and briefing me on it
to the DE, and because I had the A/P on, I really had minimal
workload. I could see the bad vector/altitude situation developing,
and I adjusted the power/speed accordingly.

When the clearance came, I disengaged the autopilot, dumped the nose,
and dove for the intercept altitude at 1000 fpm. It was the only way
to be stabilized on altitude and on airspeed as I crossed the marker -
where I 'lost' an engine. Had I needed time to decide what to do as I
got the clearance, I would not have made it.

The approach was easy, and keeping it within a dot was a non-event.
Would I have pulled it off without the DE and autopilot? Certainly.
Would I have kept it within a dot at all times? Probably, but
possibly not. Would I have done it smoothly, such that successfully
keeping it within a dot at all times (in spite of an engine failure at
the marker) was never in doubt? Probably not.

The ATP ride was half over before I really understood the point. Even
seemingly minimal resources can be useful and should be used.

Michael

Michael wrote:

"Mike Rapoport" wrote

I am a strong believer in "train the way you fly and fly the way you train"
and so are FlightSafety and Simcom. Actually this applies to all endeavors.
If you want to be a better runner, then you are better off running than
swimming.


Maybe. Cross-training is a valid and recognized approach in
professional athletics; I think it's just as valid for aviation. I
found that my skydiving improved when I started flying airplanes, my
airplane flying improved when I started flying gliders, my tri-gear
flying improved when I started flying tailwheel - and so on. Even if
you normally fly single pilot, I think there are gains to be made by
learning to fly as part of a crew, and practicing the skill on
occasion.

Can you give an example of a skill or two that you would learn from
flying a two-pilot crew that increases skill in single-pilot operation?
I can't think of one.


I can't and won't disagree with any of your points except to point out that
unless your copilot is trained in the aircraft, it takes longer to teach
them how to do things than to do them yourself.


Not necessarily. How much aircraft-specific training does one need to
find an approach in a book of plates? IME most instrument students
can do it.

I certainly have no problem asking a passenger to do something trivial
like that. I always have them hold and hand me charts, etc. However,
this is only because they are sitting on the "desk" that I normally use
to hold my charts and plates when flying alone! :-)


If it makes the
examiner happy, I will asign him the duty of reading checklists.


That was one of the duties I assigned. Finding me the approach plate,
or reading some aspect of it to me, was another. It's not much - but
it's better than nothing. I did in fact point out to him that since
we did not fly or train as a crew, the tasks I could assign to him
were limited - but not nil. That seemed to satisfy him.

The interesting part of this was the way the single engine ILS played
out on the checkride. I was vectored all over creation, in and out of
cloud. I was given an intercept that was too tight and WAY too high
(the GS needle was pegged down as I was cleared). However, because I
had offloaded the duty of finding the approach and briefing me on it
to the DE, and because I had the A/P on, I really had minimal
workload. I could see the bad vector/altitude situation developing,
and I adjusted the power/speed accordingly.

When the clearance came, I disengaged the autopilot, dumped the nose,
and dove for the intercept altitude at 1000 fpm. It was the only way
to be stabilized on altitude and on airspeed as I crossed the marker -
where I 'lost' an engine. Had I needed time to decide what to do as I
got the clearance, I would not have made it.

Personally, I wouldn't fly an approach like that. I'd tell the
controller to vector me back another time and to do it properly this
time around. I'm surprised a DE would consider this good judgement on
an ATP ride.


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote

Can you give an example of a skill or two that you would learn from
flying a two-pilot crew that increases skill in single-pilot
operation?

Being required to develop a plan and brief that plan to other
crewmembers will increase the likelyhood that a single pilot
will also develop a plan and review that plan for himself.
I taught CRM in the airline enviroment for several years and
now apply those principles to my single pilot personal flying.
When I administer a flight review, I often ask the pilot to
tell me his plan for accomplishing a particular maneuver and
when I get a quizzical look, I then know that he has no plan.

Bob Moore
ATP CFI

Matt Whiting wrote
Can you give an example of a skill or two that you would learn from
flying a two-pilot crew that increases skill in single-pilot operation?
I can't think of one.

Delegation, for one. You can delegate to ATC, you know.

I certainly have no problem asking a passenger to do something trivial
like that. I always have them hold and hand me charts, etc. However,
this is only because they are sitting on the "desk" that I normally use
to hold my charts and plates when flying alone! :-)

And if you have a passenger who is blind? Illiterate? Scared to
death?

Personally, I wouldn't fly an approach like that. I'd tell the
controller to vector me back another time and to do it properly this
time around. I'm surprised a DE would consider this good judgement on
an ATP ride.

Perhaps it's because the axaminer was also a corporate pilot, and knew
that refusing a tight but flyable vector was a great way to be sent to
the back of the line, delaying the flight. Why have the skill to do
it if you're not going to use it? An ATP should exercise good
judgment, sure, but he should also be able to demonstrate a high level
of skill.

Michael

Bob Moore wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote


Can you give an example of a skill or two that you would learn from
flying a two-pilot crew that increases skill in single-pilot
operation?


Being required to develop a plan and brief that plan to other
crewmembers will increase the likelyhood that a single pilot
will also develop a plan and review that plan for himself.
I taught CRM in the airline enviroment for several years and
now apply those principles to my single pilot personal flying.
When I administer a flight review, I often ask the pilot to
tell me his plan for accomplishing a particular maneuver and
when I get a quizzical look, I then know that he has no plan.

Bob Moore
ATP CFI

I brief myself by talking out loud, but I didn't need to fly with
another pilot to learn that. I'll give you partial credit though! :-)

Matt

Michael wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote

Can you give an example of a skill or two that you would learn from
flying a two-pilot crew that increases skill in single-pilot operation?
I can't think of one.


Delegation, for one. You can delegate to ATC, you know.

Didn't need to fly with a copilot to learn that.


I certainly have no problem asking a passenger to do something trivial
like that. I always have them hold and hand me charts, etc. However,
this is only because they are sitting on the "desk" that I normally use
to hold my charts and plates when flying alone! :-)


And if you have a passenger who is blind? Illiterate? Scared to
death?

I put them in the back seat! :-)


Personally, I wouldn't fly an approach like that. I'd tell the
controller to vector me back another time and to do it properly this
time around. I'm surprised a DE would consider this good judgement on
an ATP ride.


Perhaps it's because the axaminer was also a corporate pilot, and knew
that refusing a tight but flyable vector was a great way to be sent to
the back of the line, delaying the flight. Why have the skill to do
it if you're not going to use it? An ATP should exercise good
judgment, sure, but he should also be able to demonstrate a high level
of skill.

Well, they say that superior judgement obviates the need to use superior
skill. That is my policy.


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote
Delegation, for one. You can delegate to ATC, you know.
Didn't need to fly with a copilot to learn that.

I suspect that someone who does fly with a copilot will be better at
it. I used to think as you do - but my preparation flights for the
ATP ride (with an actual practicing ATP, an airline training captain
and former jet DE and fleet captain) showed me where my delegation
skills were weak.

And if you have a passenger who is blind? Illiterate? Scared to
death?

I put them in the back seat! :-)

Probably not a bad move, but my point is that you can't always count
on having a desk OR having a useful copilot.

Well, they say that superior judgement obviates the need to use superior
skill.

Who says that? Certainly nobody I know. Superior judgment DOES NOT
obviate the need to use superior skill; it merely makes superior skill
necessary less often. That's why the airlines have not abandoned
maneuvers training (the superior skill portion) - they have ADDED the
LOFT to asess judgment.

Sometimes, BOTH superior judgment AND superior skill are necessary for
the safe and expeditious conclusion of a flight. That's why the ATP
ride should test both. At the instrument level, safe is enough.

Michael

Michael wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote

Delegation, for one. You can delegate to ATC, you know.

Didn't need to fly with a copilot to learn that.


I suspect that someone who does fly with a copilot will be better at
it. I used to think as you do - but my preparation flights for the
ATP ride (with an actual practicing ATP, an airline training captain
and former jet DE and fleet captain) showed me where my delegation
skills were weak.

Well, I probably have a little advantage in this area as I've managed
fairly large engineering groups (60+ people) and have a fair bit of
experience at delegation of tasks and managing multiple competing
priorities.


And if you have a passenger who is blind? Illiterate? Scared to
death?

I put them in the back seat! :-)


Probably not a bad move, but my point is that you can't always count
on having a desk OR having a useful copilot.

Well, I can try!


Well, they say that superior judgement obviates the need to use superior
skill.


Who says that? Certainly nobody I know. Superior judgment DOES NOT
obviate the need to use superior skill; it merely makes superior skill
necessary less often. That's why the airlines have not abandoned
maneuvers training (the superior skill portion) - they have ADDED the
LOFT to asess judgment.

It is a fairly famous quote, but I can't remember now who said it. I'll
try to search it out for you.


Matt