single pilot ifr trip tonight

David Megginson wrote in message ...
(Snowbird) writes:

The first point is that you feel very confident in your ability
to continue to aviate, navigate and communicate, while coping
with an emergency or unusual circumstance AND set up a GPS.

No, I don't feel that way at all, but if I do end up in an emergency,
I plan to do my best to aviate, and to worry about navigating and
communicating only when the opportunities present themselves.

I am still a new pilot (220 hours), so I'm very open to learning, but
I'm not doing a good job coming up with use cases where it's a
potential life-or-death issue whether the GPS is already on. Here are
the most likely emergencies I can think of in IMC:

1. Vacuum failure -- no immediate, direct benefit from the handheld
GPS.

I disagree for several reasons. Many GPS models have the ability to
partition the main display and show an 'HSI' and groundspeed in
addition to the moving map. This information is very valuable as a
cross-check to the flight instruments. In IMC - I'll take any clue
available that indicates something is wrong with the gryo instruments.
I'm confident I can fly partial panel, but detecting the failure mode
is the difficult part...

I have flown approaches under the hood with reference to only the GPS
(this is in a PA28 which is a reasonably stable aircraft). While not
easy it is do-able as long as the plane is trimmed before the approach
and control inputs are kept minimal.

Regarding the distraction of setting up a GPS upon the failure. I
think it is significant. I've had a similar situation - an electrical
failure at night (fortunately in MVFR conditions). This was in class
D airspace. Tower called and let me know they lost the transponder.
When I keyed the mic to transmit, the panel went black. This happened
directly over the field. By the time I got the flashlights setup,
grabbed the handheld radio (backseat), plugged in the headset, turned
on, tuned in, and let tower know what was going on - I was 5-6 miles
North (about 3 minutes in the Cherokee).

The workload during these few minutes was relatively high.
Significant enough that I revamped how I approach IFR flying. I do
not fly hard IFR at night, and I always keep the handheld charged and
ready to go in the side pocket.

A bit of a rant, but my point is: After a gyro or electrical failure
in actual IMC - the last thing you want to be doing is digging around
in the flightbag, plugging in, powering up, and navigating menus on a
portable GPS. If you own one - power it up and set it up the
beginning of the flight so it's ready to go when you need it.

-Nathan

David Megginson wrote:
(Michael) writes:


That's basically the argument, and I've heard it before in various
incarnations. In its most virulent form, it suggests that single
pilot IFR without an autopilot is inherently unsafe, because the
pilot simply doesn't have enough spare capacity to deal with ATC,
keep a weather picture, monitor the systems, and all the other stuff
he needs to be doing.


I'm still new enough to IFR flying that I might just not have had
enough opportunity to be scared properly by IMC, but it could be that
different people just find different kinds of things nerve-racking.
For me, VFR, it's busy uncontrolled airports, with people cutting each
other off all over the place; for other people, it's busy controlled
airspace, worrying about negotiating with ATC.

I've always had trouble understand why some pilots will fly low or out
of their way just to avoid class B/C/D airspace, but they'd probably
be just as puzzled about my preferring to file flight plans and fly
into big controlled airports, even if I pay more for gas or parking.

I guess IMC is another example of the same kind of thing.


Too many people choose the wrong way. They simply assume that the
more demanding aircraft requires an autopilot (rather than more skill)
to fly IFR.


That's a very good lesson. I'll try to remember it in a few years if
I move up to something slicker than my Warrior.


I know some pilots who make it a point to not let their currency
lapse - they want to retain IFR privileges, and I think they know
that they wouldn't pass the checkride if they had to take it again
in the plane they're flying.


We don't have the choice up here in Canada -- we have to retake the
full IFR flight test every two years to stay current. On the other
hand, we don't get tested on partial panel or unusual attitudes, so it
probably balances out (the good side of that is that I was able to
take my IFR flight test in low IMC rather than wearing the stupid
foggles).

I've made sure that I can fly single pilot IFR without an
autopilot, but I also recognize that this is an extremely
high workload situation and that I don't want to routinely
be in IMC without an autopilot. I practice without the autopilot,
and get tested without the autopilot, but when I'm really
going somewhere in actual, I want the autopilot functional
so that if something happens I can let it fly while I deal
with other urgent issues. And I want more of my brain left to
think ahead and monitor the plane.

That said, I need to be in good enough practice to complete
the trip if the autopilot fails. But on balance I think I'm
better off using the autopilot to decrease my workload
in IMC so that I have more brain cycles to apply to other
aspects of the flight.

--
David Rind

Michael wrote (with a lot of excellent commentary cut out):

In my opinion, when transitioning to a more demanding airplane for IFR
operations, anything less than a full IPC to PTS standards without use
of autopilot or moving map is inadequate - not just because those
things fail, but because needing those things means the skill level
just isn't there yet to be taking that kind of airplane into the soup
without help.

Just to set the stage for this posting, I would like to say that I
agree with your premise up to a point, Michael. I agree that
transition training leaves a lot to be desired. I agree that pilots
tend to lose the edge the farther they get from their test. I have no
argument with any of those points.

However. I am a bit troubled by the phrase that I saved. "anything
less than a full IPC to PTS standards without use of autopilot or
moving map is inadequate..."

While it is sort of satisfying to read that and savagely nod "yeah!",
I am in a quandry. We are starting to see glass cockpits coming down
to the level of private aviation. My airplane is a homebuilt with
basically a two screen glass cockpit. I have an CNX 80 and a Blue
Mountain EFIS. I will have an autopilot when they ship the controller.

Oh, sure, I have a couple of steam gauges, for that total failure, but
if you ask me to do a full IPC to PTS standards without the use of my
moving map(s) would leave me doing it with T&B, AS and altimeter. My
electrics are 3x redundant, and I have two elecronic boxes, so failure
would be pretty darn unlikely...and if it happens in the soup it will
be an honest-to-God help me mamma emergency...altho I have backups
that ought to give me a fighting chance.

But I digress. My system is not dissimilar to some that are rolling
down the pike...to the point that there will be a generation of pilots
(in the not very distant future) who learn with the moving maps, etc.

And to my point. There was a time that the guys who trained in open
cockpits fought, kicked and battled to keep their heads in the
air...'cause a pilot couldn't rely on that nasty old ASI...he needed
the wind in his face. And we are seeing guys who refuse to give up the
ADF's. And I am sure that there are several other things that...if you
couldn't do it that way, you just weren't good enough.

Is your argument similar? Just wanted to ask that question.

Thanks!

JV

However. I am a bit troubled by the phrase that I saved. "anything
less than a full IPC to PTS standards without use of autopilot or
moving map is inadequate..."


I'm also troubled. When I do an IPC with someone who uses the autopilot a
lot, I do part of the flight with and part without. I know that he will use
the autopilot when flying without me, so it doesn't make sense to refuse to
include that as part of the IPC. Same argument applies to advanced avionics.

Barry

(Nathan Young) writes:

1. Vacuum failure -- no immediate, direct benefit from the handheld
GPS.

I disagree for several reasons. Many GPS models have the ability to
partition the main display and show an 'HSI' and groundspeed in
addition to the moving map.

That could be a nice indirect benefit, but the danger is ending up
with yet another distraction. The GPS pseudo-HSI display is much
easier to interpret but lags dangerously, while the TC and ASI are
harder to interpret but have minimal lag. I'd be nervous that in an
emergency my eyes would be drawn too much to the false security of the
GPS pseudo-HSI display instead of where they should be, on the TC and
ASI.

This information is very valuable as a cross-check to the flight
instruments.

Agreed, but I don't think I'm a good enough pilot to use it safely in
a partial-panel situation, where I'm already under a great deal of
stress. I'd probably keep the GPS just on a basic navigation display,
and even then, only if I wasn't able to talk to ATC. My preference
(of course) would be vectors with nice shallow no-gryo turns, so all I
had to worry about was basic flying.

In IMC - I'll take any clue available that indicates something is
wrong with the gryo instruments. I'm confident I can fly partial
panel, but detecting the failure mode is the difficult part...

My only vacuum failure so far was in night VMC, but it was impossible
to miss the big orange annuciator light right above the altimeter --
even my passenger saw it immediately. I never thought of the
importance of having altimeter/oil/vacuum annunciators inside my main
scan when I was shopping for planes, but I'm certainly glad now that I
have it in my Warrior.

Of course, the best insurance is just keeping all the primary
instruments in your scan. Annunciator bulbs can burn out (though I
test them in every preflight).

I have flown approaches under the hood with reference to only the GPS
(this is in a PA28 which is a reasonably stable aircraft). While not
easy it is do-able as long as the plane is trimmed before the approach
and control inputs are kept minimal.

How rough was the air? I wouldn't mind trying it in nice, smooth
stratus or even in light chop, but I wouldn't have wanted to count on
it in some of the cumulus I was flying through this weekend.

Regarding the distraction of setting up a GPS upon the failure. I
think it is significant. I've had a similar situation - an electrical
failure at night (fortunately in MVFR conditions). This was in class
D airspace. Tower called and let me know they lost the transponder.
When I keyed the mic to transmit, the panel went black. This happened
directly over the field. By the time I got the flashlights setup,
grabbed the handheld radio (backseat), plugged in the headset, turned
on, tuned in, and let tower know what was going on - I was 5-6 miles
North (about 3 minutes in the Cherokee).

If or when I'm ever in an emergency, I won't appreciate being
second-guessed afterwards, so I'll try not to do that now, but I do
like to learn from people who have been in real emergency situations.
At the time, what was your motivation for plugging in the handheld,
etc., rather than just landing NORDO? Would you make the same
decision again?

The workload during these few minutes was relatively high.
Significant enough that I revamped how I approach IFR flying. I do
not fly hard IFR at night, and I always keep the handheld charged and
ready to go in the side pocket.

I'm starting to wonder if my handheld was worth the money, since its
transmission range is so small without an external antenna. I'm
thinking of getting a pass-through cell-phone headset adapter instead,
since I'll be able to reach help much quickly (and can keep ATC and
FSS emergency numbers on the speed-dial).


All the best,


David

David Megginson wrote in message ...
(Michael) writes:
That's basically the argument, and I've heard it before in various
incarnations. In its most virulent form, it suggests that single
pilot IFR without an autopilot is inherently unsafe, because the
pilot simply doesn't have enough spare capacity to deal with ATC,
keep a weather picture, monitor the systems, and all the other stuff
he needs to be doing.

I'm still new enough to IFR flying that I might just not have had
enough opportunity to be scared properly by IMC, but it could be that
different people just find different kinds of things nerve-racking.
For me, VFR, it's busy uncontrolled airports, with people cutting each
other off all over the place; for other people, it's busy controlled
airspace, worrying about negotiating with ATC.

There's definately some truth to what both of you say here. For
example, we're now based at an airport which gives some local pilots
the heebie-jeebies. It's uncontrolled, has crossing runways, and
is inhabited by a large population of the most glorious antique
planes and homebuilts you'll see outside a flyin (ie many of the
planes are NORDO and radio work isn't a priority for many of the
pilots). When someone pulls onto the runway or lands crossing
my flight path while I'm on final, I think "Home, Home Again,
I Like to Be Here When I Can" (plenty of room, no dent no deal).
Another pilot might think "Scotty Beam Me Up!" or "OhMYGAWD!".

And it's a safe bet that if you put some of our local pilots into
busy controlled airspace, *they'd* be thinking "Scotty Beam Me
Up!."

But frankly, while I wouldn't go so far as to say flying w/out
an autopilot is inherently unsafe, I will say that I have no desire
to fly our particular make of plane in IMC without an autopilot or
a second person who can hold the yoke for a bit and it has nothing
whatsoever to do with transition training or proficiency.

I switched from a C172 to our plane fairly early in my IFR training,
and late in the game from a peaceful, gentle "what's two hundred
feet between friends?" procedural expert CFI to a CFI who is an exquisitly
skilled stick, expert in make aand model, takes no prisoners and
considers 20 feet a serious lapse in scan.

There's no question my rating took me way longer than it could
have, and no question I can fly my plane IMC without an autopilot
for long stretches, negotiate w/ ATC, get wx, pull out a chart,
program a GPS etc.

But without an autopilot or someone to hold the yoke, I'm STILL
going to be in a world of hurt if I get a major rerouting which
requires me to copy a new clearance or study a chart significantly
while thinking the pictur through.

It's just not stable enough.

Everyone I know in this make who doesn't have an autopilot, wants
one. Badly. And that includes my CFI, who can certainly fly
without one like he's on rails.

Too many people choose the wrong way. They simply assume that the
more demanding aircraft requires an autopilot (rather than more skill)
to fly IFR.

There is definately some truth to this. I know after hours and
literally years (well, that's another story) of remedial CFI beating
I can fly my plane in a way I didn't think it could be flown.
(Hopefully it doesn't have to take years to get there. I had a couple
of pregnancies and a baby involved.)

It may take more time, for some people, than they have to give to
flying or training -- which opens another can of worms. There's
something to be said for pilots who fly recreationally and can't
put a lot of time into flying sticking to simple, stable planes.
Cessnas and Pipers are popular for good reason.

But I don't think it's the whole story, either. It's just plain
tough to correctly absorb something like the big picture of a complete
rerouting if you can't spend significant time perusing a chart.
I don't care how gloriously skilled and proficient you are, it's
darn tough to do in 1 second intervals.

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.

FWIW,
Sydney

"Snowbird" wrote:
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.

Yep.

Michael has a real knack for making me feel like a wuss every time he
posts one of his autopilot rants, but I still use mine practically the
whole time I'm flying IFR. There is sometimes a slim margin in
single-pilot IFR flying between having the situation under control and
falling behind. Using the autopilot can widen that margin, IMO. Can I
fly in the terminal area without it? Of course. Do I think that's smart?
No.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

David Megginson wrote in message ...
(Snowbird) writes:
The first point is that you feel very confident in your ability
to continue to aviate, navigate and communicate, while coping
with an emergency or unusual circumstance AND set up a GPS.

No, I don't feel that way at all, but if I do end up in an emergency,
I plan to do my best to aviate, and to worry about navigating and
communicating only when the opportunities present themselves.

OK, David, *listen to yourself*

That's a very correct philosophy.

Now draw the obvious correllary.

You have something in your flight bag which could be useful to
you in the emergency, and you're going to be busy aviating,
and trying to navigate and communicate when the opportunities
present themselves.

With that totally correct set of priorities, that means you're
also going to be setting up your GPS "when the opportunities
present themselves", vs. *having it set up and ready to use*.

Which makes more sense?

I am still a new pilot (220 hours), so I'm very open to learning, but
I'm not doing a good job coming up with use cases where it's a
potential life-or-death issue whether the GPS is already on.

Well, I suppose this would be another fundamental difference
between us.

If I have a potentially useful piece of equipment, I don't need
to persuade myself that "life or death" situations are involved,
to want to be able to use it directly and immediately without
adding workload to an already divided attention which (rightly)
has several higher priorities.

Frankly my goal is to keep my flights boring, make unusual circumstances
as routine as possible, avoiding making them into emergencies or life
or death situations.

1. Vacuum failure -- no immediate, direct benefit from the handheld
GPS.

I totally disagree.

2. Electrical failure -- if I know of VMC anywhere within range (or
above or below), I'll head in that general direction using the
compass or altimeter;

Well here's another I don't get (how does the altimeter help you
head towards VMC? and if it's just your electrical system, why
aren't you using your DG?) but the immediate, direct benefit of a set-up,
ready to go GPS seems pretty obvious. You aren't simply heading
in a general direction, you can be heading towards a specific
goal with specific bearing and distance information to use in your
planning. Now not 10 minutes from now.

3. Smoke on board, goes away when electrical shut down -- see #2.
4. Smoke on board, does not go away when electrical shut down -- the
handheld GPS is useless

Well, you know, we've been there (fortunately in what turned out
to be Case #3), and I can vouch for several things:
1. it was psychologically much easier to reach for the master and
switch it off knowing that we could navigate seamlessly

don't overlook the psychological aspect -- there are several
accidents on record with a negative outcome, where the pilot
chose to keep the master on so he could navigate,
and the outcome might have been different had he the means
to navigate accurately master-off

2. we immediately started planning for Case #4, and the specific
situational awareness provided by the GPS was of great assistance
in deciding which direction we would point and coming up with a
plan, quickly while under pressure.

5. Engine failure -- see #4.

Yes -- and my response to it.

That said, my handheld GPS often is on already

Alright, than what are we arguing about? I thought you were
taking the position that it was just as useful to you in your
flightbag.

I disagree -- but frankly, you seem determined to say it's
no particular advantage to 'set up' vs. 'in bag' in the face of
what seems to me obvious evidence to the contrary, and it's not
a debate I'll continue.

If in practice, you don't in fact leave the GPS in your flight
bag but fly with it set up and turned on, why are you arguing
for a practice you don't yourself follow?

Aye Yi Yi!
Sydney

"David Megginson" wrote:
I'd be nervous that in an emergency my eyes would be drawn too
much to the false security of the GPS pseudo-HSI display instead
of where they should be, on the TC and ASI.

May I suggest that you try it under the hood? I've found that it makes
flying my airplane no-gyro very easy. That may not be true of higher
performance airplanes, I haven't tried it in one.

This information is very valuable as a cross-check to the flight
instruments.

Agreed, but I don't think I'm a good enough pilot to use it safely in
a partial-panel situation, where I'm already under a great deal of
stress.

Try it. I think you'll find it reduces the stress.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

(Snowbird) writes:

With that totally correct set of priorities, that means you're
also going to be setting up your GPS "when the opportunities
present themselves", vs. *having it set up and ready to use*.

Just out of curiosity, do you fly with your cell phone plugged into
your headset and ready to use, with ATC and FSS numbers on the speed
dial? I'd expect that that would be significantly more valuable in an
IMC emergency, but I have to admit that I do not (yet) do that either.
If you do, then please accept my honest admiration.

Well here's another I don't get (how does the altimeter help you
head towards VMC?

Airspace is 3D -- sometimes the nearest safe and accessible VMC is
above or below you.

That said, my handheld GPS often is on already

Alright, than what are we arguing about? I thought you were
taking the position that it was just as useful to you in your
flightbag.

If you look back at Google, I said that I thought the statement was
too strident. I don't argue that there are benefits, but I think it's
an exaggeration to say that lack of a fully set-up handheld GPS in a
vacuum or electrical failure would normally be a life-or-death issue,
or that a GPS still in the flight bag is virtually useless. If we go
around telling pilots that *everything* is life-or-death, we get into
a boy-who-cried-wolf syndrome, and people start to ignore the things
that really do matter. There are a lot more important things to have
prepared in IMC, including (in approximate order of importance to me):

- more than one flashlight right at hand, with fresh batteries
- a very accurate knowledge where I am all the time
- a knowledge of current weather, including the closest VMC
- the highest nearby obstructions and bodies of water *memorized*
(i.e. the CN tower in Toronto, the highest hills in the Adirondacks,
the approximate distance and direction to Lake Ontario, etc.)
- charts and plates already open and folded appropriately
- a timer
- a cell phone and headset adapter (I don't have that yet, but I'm
going to order one) with ATC and FSS on speed dial

The set-up handheld GPS is undoubtedly a benefit, but it comes a bit
further down the list, probably after a couple more things I haven't
thought of yet -- I don't think I'd say that it was life-or-death,
since it's not something you should be worrying about during the first
few critical minutes of an emergency, whether it's on your lap or in
the flight bag. Often mine's already on, but sometimes it's not, and
I don't think that my risk profile changes much either way.


All the best,


David