|
|
Keith, With regards to your point #2 about reduced performance, you shouldn’t have any difference between using the AP and hand flying. Your scan should be nearly identical. One of the CFIIs I flew with explained AP usage to me as “Now you get to be the CFII and keep an eye on your student, the AP.” It was a fair analogy. You do free up some of your work flow because you typically make sure it is doing the right thing, so you don’t need to adjust anything. But you do have to be ready to take over if it does something you don’t expect. It’s your ticket on the line if there is a deviation. I tend to monitor the AP more when a change is happening: passing a VOR/waypoint, reaching an altitude, etc. Then I can scan less frequently when it should be steady-state. As far as the updrafts/downdrafts go, I worry about that as well. Generally, when I fly over the mountains going to/from the DC area (probably around where you see it), I’ll hit some turbulence. Last time I flew back, I switched off the AP to see how bad the updrafts/downdrafts were. It turns out, they were basically non-existent. I was surprised. I do notice the trim knob moving (C172) when there is real turbulence. You do have to trust your AP, though. All of the APs that I’ve flown with (that can fly approaches) provide information about what they are currently doing and what they will do next. It is imperative that you understand how to read this information. I don’t want to speculate on why you don’t trust your AP setup, but I’ve spent a lot of VFR time getting used to the ones I fly. But, in a way, I don’t fully trust them because I keep an eye on them. (It’s like my cat, I know it wants to secretly kill me if I don’t pay attention to it) When I did my instrument rating, I did all of my training in a G1000 equipped C172. One of the planes had the GFC700 autopilot and I intended to do my checkride in that aircraft. I spent some time figuring out the AP both in the air as well as in the simulator. From what the flight school told me, it was very rare to take the GFC700 plane on the checkride because most students never really figured out the autopilot. On my checkride, I did some of the best hand-flying I’ve ever done and did one coupled approach. After I landed, the DPE (who flies an Airbus as his day job) looked at me and said “Can I give you a piece of advice?” Knowing the question was rhetorical and eager to learn, I said, “Absolutely!” He said, “You need to use that autopilot way more than you did.” Hmm… But I did agree with him that automation in the cockpit is a huge help. One of my instructors said that his theory is to always start a flight off hand-flying and if you do well, you earn the right to use the autopilot. I tend to think of it that way, too. Oddly enough, I tend to hand fly practice approaches and use the AP more when I’m the only one on board. I agree that I don’t want to lose my hand flying skills because, like I said, you have to be ready to take over from the AP at any time. I’ve had some issues where I didn’t setup the approach right in the flight plan, but I didn’t care because I just ended up hand flying it. (Non-GPS approaches, like a VOR approach, for example) Just because I didn’t enter something correctly, I want to be able to take over and do the right thing by hand. -Rob Lancair 360 MkII, 10% complete From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Keith Smith
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 5:02 PM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: challenging flight with the LNC2 yesterday Colyn, No offense taken. I've given this a great deal of thought (and have already put considerable time and money to fix the autopilot) already. "circumstances create workload that exceeds pilot capability" is spot on. This last flight was an absolute cakewalk compared to one I had last year which really did take me to my workload limit (see this forum post for info, http://forums.pilotedge.net/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=1681, but it's a flight that' I've posted on the LML before, including the MP3 recording). It also became a scenario for the PilotWorkShops IFR Mastery Series. I do plan on upgrading my weather capability (it's a small investment to get a Stratus, which will provide ADS-B weather) and if circumstances permit, I would like to have the autopilot. However, down low, in the soup and the bumps, I am far more comfortable hand flying than with an autopilot for three reasons: 1) I worry about what happens if the autopilot doesn't do a perfect job and I'm off doing something else because George is flying. In other words, it's going to be tough to relinquish control and focus on other tasks without allowing myself to become to engrossed in those other tasks 2) if there is a performance issue, I become aware of it within a couple of seconds when hand flying. With George flying, and a reduced scan, I might not find out about it until the onset of a stall (extreme case, but you get the idea). 3) this is a point I'm adding to the list having finished writing the rest of my piece. I tried to reconcile the fact that I do coupled approaches in the sim, but not in real life. When I really think hard about, I simply don't trust the a/p configuration I have right now. If I did have an a/p that I could trust, then, during an approach in smooth conditions, I could see myself relinquishing control, and that being a good thing. It would affect my scan..I wouldn't use the workload reduction to do other things, I would simply maintain the scan throughout the approach, and little else. Overall, I agree, it would reduce overall workload. Anyway, back to the original message,... The few times I have engaged the A/P on long XC legs, I find myself less engaged than when I'm hand flying. Case in point, just west of Washington DC, I routinely get soft, subtle 300-500fpm updrafts and downdrafts. I know about them right away when flying by hand, and it's valuable information. My strategy has been to maximize my workload capability through simulation with online ATC, and to ensure that regardless of how busy it's getting, to never stop flying the plane. On that 'triple diversion' flight posted above, the reason it took me so long to brief the approach at TEB was largely because I was allocating a healthy amount of time and brain power to flying the plane, managing fuel, etc. I chipped away at the task of pulling up the approach plate for the ILS RWY 19 at TEB, along with getting that confounded ATIS (don't even get me started on what a chore that is when New York Approach is belting along at full throttle because they're running combined sectors at night). Adding a second pilot is a complete non-starter. I read that as a proposed solution quite often and just shake my head. I can't think of anything less practical for these long trips, and as such, making it a goal, or even coming to rely on it as a safety feature is a non-starter for me. The upgraded weather capability, agreed, I should and will do it. The auto-pilot...I plan on doing it when I can, but probably still won't use it in the circumstances that others would elect to us it. I'm more likely to use it in VMC on a long leg to enjoy the view a bit more. Another way to look at the autopilot issue is that not having one that I can bet my life on has lead me to become completely self-reliant on hand flying skills...and I am completely comfortable with that at this point. Take those who have the luxury of having bullet-proof auto pilots. Are they routinely practicing hand flying their approaches in a variety of weather conditions? It's hard to generalize, of course, but of the population of pilots, I have to imagine there are some that have become so reliant upon the auto pilot that, practically speaking, they're really not comfortable doing it by hand because the perceived workload is just too high, and their proficiency at doing it by hand just might not be there (I do tons of coupled approaches in my sim, btw, and the thought process is a completely different animal). Hence, the autopilot becomes a "must have" before launching IFR. That's not an attack on their potential abilities, it's just a theory that I have about where their proficiency might be (again, for SOME pilots, not all, there will always be exceptions). I hand fly all approaches in real world (for now). I hand fly maybe 50% of my approaches in the sim, and use varying levels of automation for the remaining 50% down to various points along the approach (I try to expose myself to as many circumstances as possible). Please know that I'm not hand flying them to test myself or prove any points, I am just comfortable relying on that skill set AND I don't have a real alternative right now, nor is it an urgent priority to change that (but it IS on the list). On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Colyn Case <colyncase@earthlink.net> wrote: Somebody is going to call me not a "real" pilot but in the interest of getting from 99.995% safe to 99.999% safe (see my article this month) I'll say anyway that I personally won't launch IFR without: fully functioning auto-pilot accident stats say that adding a second pilot dramatically improves safety. If you don't have that, auto-pilot is the next best thing. "single pilot IFR is almost an emergency. the first thing that goes wrong after that IS an emergency." On May 12, 2013, at 5:53 PM, Keith Smith wrote: Hi Jim,
The heading hold isn't reliable and the alt hold eventually gets into a PIO after a few minutes, especially if you try to transmit on the radio. I've gotten used to doing 3 1/2hr legs without it at this point. I engage it for brief periods if I need to reorganize the cockpit or eat lunch.
Keith On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 4:38 PM, James Collins <jcollins@snet.net> wrote: What happened To your auto pilot. I know you had one. Nice report. I've also seen some of your trips on YouTube always great.
From Jim Collins iPad Keith,
Very nice report. Did you notice that with the weather conditions you experienced, you normally pick up ice at/very near the cloud tops? I’ve noticed this to be true over a rather surprising range of OATs… Lesson for me has been, don’t dawdle in and out of the tops… Bob From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Keith Smith
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 7:58 PM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] challenging flight with the LNC2 yesterday Flew the LNC2 to Kentucky today for the condition inspection. This was a tricky flight. I briefed the weather in some detail the night before to get a feel for tops (9-12k along the route of flight), convective activity (none), likelihood of icing (possible above 9k), winds (hairy at 30kt headwind initially, then 5-10kt later on).
Verified the weather this morning, then set off from N07-K24. Cleared route was "upon entering controlled airspace, direct Chatham NDB, vectors LANNA V30 ETX V39 MRB ESL V4 HVQ AZQ LOZ, direct."
Picked up the clearance via phone, told the controller I could depart VFR, he was happy to hear it, so off I went. This complicated things slightly as I now needed to talk to Caldwell tower (KCDW) immediately after departure since my route of flight would take me through their airspace. The challenge would be to talk to them and get a freq change to NY Approach before butting up against the next Delta, which was Morristown (KMMU). Caldwell cut me loose as I was passing abeam the tower, so I checked in with NY Approach who quickly identified me, got me onto a 180 heading and climbed me to 7000. Once they had me above the Newark arrival stream, they turned me west towards SBJ (not on the original plan, but easily added to the flight plan and backed up with the VOR receiver a few seconds after that).
I spent the next 2 hours or so not being able to see a darned thing, which is pretty tiring when you're hand flying. The workload was absolutely relentless between wind shifts, updrafts and downdrafts, monitoring outside air temps, turning the ram air on and off when going in and out of precip, and monitoring inlet air temperature (carb temp), employing carb heat, etc. I cannot stress the importance of having a carb temp gauge in non-fuel injected aircraft that flies IFR.
The first 2/3 of the flight generally took place at around 8000ft, almost entirely in stratus clouds with light to moderate precip and a smooth ride. It's hard to explain or recall the sights and sounds of the trip, but here are the 3 most memorable parts:
1) Keeping close track of temps at 8k, 9k and then 10k, eventually hitting ice at 10k, dropping back down to 9k and watching the ice go "buh bye"....twice.
2) Getting tired of being in IMC and in and out of performance-robbing clouds, I had a pretty good feeling that if I could get on top, life would be a lot better. I was able to get the climb from 8-10k but the controller said it would be a few moments before he could get me higher. The OAT was dropping, and I knew I had a very, very narrow window to get this climb done, or I was going to have to drop back down and try again later, or not at all). Just as the first crystals of ice start forming on the canopy, I receive the climb to 11k. By then, the speed has wound up a bit, and I have the ability to trade it for a quick zoom to 11k where I can sense by the change in lighting that I should pretty much be on top. Sure enough, at about 10,800, with 115kias (ie, just about out of gas in the zoom), I pop out on top, the OAT immediately shoots up to +6C and the ice quickly disappears. I have nothing but blue skies above, and every cloud I can see out to the horizon is below me. Success. I let the speed wind up, carb heat off, ram air on and off we go in 'go fast' mode at last, free of the shackles of IMC. It was a calculated risk, and it paid off. My workload went down to near 0 for the next hour as I enjoyed the view. As it happens, the tops eventually dropped down to around 7k, but I stayed at 11k as the fuel burn was lower in any case and the winds were pretty light by that point.
3) best descent phase I think I've ever had...continuous descent from 11k down to 3600ft for the IAF, except for one level off at 6k to bleed off some speed prior to entering the tops again, in case the ride wasn't as smooth. Shot RNAV RWY 17 approach at around 180kias because I knew it would be VMC below 3k and I was planning on doing a low approach to greet my friend at the field anyway. Broke out, got 500ft below the clouds while remaining on the approach, canceled IFR. Spotted what I thought was the field, but the angle didn't quite right. It was close, but not quite. I was on the final approach course, but the airport looked slightly off center and the runway was about 20 degrees off. I double checked the plate to see how the final approach course related to the runway orientation and noted it was straight in. I looked more closely outside and noticed the airport dead ahead, about 1.5nm away. I left the power where it was, pitched down a little more and savored the 215kias low approach that followed. Slow pullup at the end (actually, at that speed, it was more a case of releasing some of the pressure on the stick, allowing the plane to do what it wanted to do which was climb). 700ft into the climb (a few seconds later), start the crosswind turn, power to 12" and set myself the challenge of not touching that again since the winds were practically dead, making for a very predictable pattern. Gear...flaps, base, more flaps, what an amazing view. Turned a 1/4 mile final (tight pattern today), one more GUMP check and a nice touchdown to end a truly interesting flight.
What struck me after landing was that this was a really challenging flight, not because of stick & rudder, but because of the thought process and decision making a long the way. I could've absolutely stayed at 4-6k the whole way, been miserable, flown slowly and gotten there in one piece, but took a calculated risk to get on top and then reaped the rewards with a much reduced workload.
It also occurred to me that flying by reference to instruments for 2 hours straight was tiring, but not especially difficult. I can definitely credit the simulator with having helped with that task. I fly a couple of times a week (enroute and approaches) and never feel rusty when getting in the airplane, even if I haven't flown in IMC for 4-5 months.
If you're thinking about getting an instrument rating but haven't done it...you're missing out on whole new world of sights, sounds, utility, challenges and fun. Do it! Keith Smith
|
|