How much automation is reasonable in instrument rating tests

[sheppey]

CAO 40.2 permits use automation in an instrument rating test. As long as at least one instrument approach is made without use of the flight director and autopilot, the ATO will use his discretion as to the amount of automation permitted. Anecdotal evidence reveals automation is used extensively in airline pilot instrument rating tests while light twin general aviation instrument ratings are mainly hand flown.

The question arises of the extensive use of LNAV in instrument rating tests during the conduct of holding pattern operations including sector entries and also use of LNAV for NDB or VOR instrument approaches. Either one of these ground based navigation aid approaches are a mandatory item published in CAO 40.2.

Regardless of individual company SOP that dictate full use of automation during the conduct of an instrument approach, the fact remains the instrument rating test is a skill test of the candidates piloting competancy at CASA mandated manoeuvres.

Although ATO's have the authority to decide the level of automation used by the candidate during an instrument rating test, their opinions may vary. For example one may permit the use of the autopilot LNAV facility throughout the course of an NDB approach. Another may permit the over-lay of a localiser or VOR track providing it coincides with the required instrument approach inbound NDB track.

Either method practically guarantees accurate tracking within the published tolerances of the NDB. On the other hand, it could be said these methods only prove the navigational accuracy of aircraft equipment and can be perceived as contrary to the the original spirit of the instrument rating test which is an assessment of piloting handling skill on a particular navigation aid. The latter is of some significance given irrefutable evidence that pilot instrument scanning skills have steadily diminished in part caused by automation dependency.

Put simply, the NDB approach is a test of the candidates ability to track a published path using an ADF needle within published specified tracking tolerances.

Now put yourself in the place of an ATO who represents CASA and who signs off the candidate as competent at all required maneuvres mandated in the instrument rating test. He could even be carrying the can in a future accident inquiry. How can the ATO be certain the candidate has the personal flying skill required when the automatic navigation systems, in conjunction with the automatic pilot, ensure tracking accuracy far better than that of the average candidate for the test? Put bluntly, is use of LNAV on an NDB approach a subtle form of cheating the system?

[kalavo]

Yawn. Next?


What are you setting out to prove? If the aircraft have tools that are available 99.9% of the time then make use of those tools. Hell if you're in a jet you're flying ILS to ILS anyway. If it's really not your day and you've lost a bunch of IRS and GPS inputs what are you going to do? Take the easy option and fly down the slippery dip, or hey lets increase risk and do an approach we rarely practice with a higher minima just to keep it interesting.

Seriously, use a bit of common dog f..k!

Good checks are like a skirt - long enough to cover everything, but short enough to keep it interesting. If you can tick every item on the test using only a keyboard, good for you. If you can tick every item on the test hand flying with raw data, good for you.

Generally I've found if the checker needs to go way beyond the test form and check whether you are capable of flying a helicopter, inverted, backwards, down the ILS with multiple hydraulic systems U/S to answer the question are the needles are in the command sense, they're generally only out to stroke their own ego with no training value what so ever. These ones are usually woeful in the checking role, terrible in the training role and even worse as a line pilot.

The ones who manage to keep it short and interesting without having to resort to their own interpretation of the test sheet usually have the most amount of experience to pass on (and you wouldn't mind flying with them after the check to try and pick some of that up). Probably because they've got a bit of common dog, and seen it all before.

[Capn Bloggs]

Sound like there definitely needs to be more direction from Head Office. An IRT here should be the same as an IRT there.

If it's really not your day and you've lost a bunch of IRS and GPS inputs what are you going to do? Take the easy option and fly down the slippery dip, or hey lets increase risk and do an approach we rarely practice with a higher minima just to keep it interesting.
So, IRS and GPS out. That's no AP, no FD, probably no ATS, and if at many jet airfields in Oz, no ILS. How's your raw data NDB skill looking now?

What are actually trying to say, Kalavo?

[Aerozepplin]

I assume if it was just an auto-pilot monitoring test then it would be called that? Part of flying IFR is being able to use all the tools (AP, FD, GPS, HUD, brain, experience), so it seems unwise to exclude any of these from a test.

Mechanical engine failures are pretty rare, but PPL/CPL tests should probably still include forced landings even if you have a lovely JPI engine monitor right?

(not to distract from the general thrust that these standards should be... standard... amongst examiners)

[mcgrath50]

If they use autopilots day in, day out, shouldn't they be tested they know how to use them?

[QSK?]

Seriously, use a bit of common dog f..k!
Gee, Kalavo, was that comment really necessary? Surely you can still make your point without it?

[RENURPP]

Hell if you're in a jet you're flying ILS to ILS anyway

Absolute garbage.:ugh:

[PA39]

Hand fly the bastard mate, show the examiner and yourself that you're a very capable and confident IFR pilot. :cool:

[RENURPP]

PA39 Hand fly the bastard mate, show the examiner and yourself that you're a very capable and confident IFR pilot.
And that you don't have any management skills:cool:

[c100driver]

So how do you hand fly an NDB approach in the A320 or B777 without an ADF fitted.

Most new part 121 jets don't have ADF fitted.

The days of ADF are almost over, it has been a great aid but like the four course range, 200 meg DME, Doppler and Omega it is time to move on.

The New Zealand part 121 rules allow airlines to certify pilot competency on the type they actually fly. The demonstration is linked to what they actually do day in day out 365 days of the year. They do not require demonstrations of equipment whose hey day was during the cold war.

The quid pro quo for the competency demonstration is that your instrument rating is not valid for operations outside the airline. If you want to fly IFR outside the mother ship you need to complete a part 61 IR renewal in the thirty or forty year old GA machine.

[RENURPP]

Approaches aren't limited to NDB or ILS!

[KRviator]

In a similar vein, say you're flying a newish aircraft, glass panels on both sides and fitted with dual ADAHRS and an ittybitty backup EFIS for good measure with no traditional backup instruments.

How on earth are you supposed to demonstrate your partial panel skills? Examiner: "Your AH just failed, what do you do now?" "Use one of the other two":rolleyes: is probably not going to be an acceptable answer....

[Howard Hughes]

The whole nine yards, as our friends in the US would say!:ok:

[sheppey]

Yawn. Next?


What are you setting out to prove?

A stunningly erudite reply. :mad: - and certainly discouraging to anyone seriously considering posting on OZ Pprune

[RENURPP]

How on earth are you supposed to demonstrate your partial panel skills? Examiner: "Your AH just failed, what do you do now?" "Use one of the other two" is probably not going to be an acceptable answerit's not simply screens that fail and you use another one, thats way over simplistic.

There are a few failures that may require you to use the standby instruments which come from a different source, so that's what they would want to see.

[jas24zzk]

Renurpp makes a good point on the standby instruments, esp in glass cockpits that are 'so reliable'

How many pilots cross check the standby's with the glass? I've sat in on a few renewals, and its good fun to watch the guy under the pump be questioned about an alt discrepency before we even leave the ground. So much faith...so quickly erased.

They might be backups, but they are still a primary system in my view, if you don't set em up before you depart, what hope do you have when you need them. sure they might not be as accurate as the electronics, but +/- 150 feet is better than no clue.


As for the original Q, auto as much as you need. Demonstrate your hand flying skills as appropriate. If you are not 'comfortable' to hand fly any of the elements then, you prolly don't deserve the ticket.
Renewals should differ to Initial Tests anyway. Initials, you hand fly all the hard bits, do some automated stuff, demonstrate you have the knowledge/skills. Renewals, chase down the stuff you haven't done in a while, go fly it/muff it and get some value out of the exercise beyond box ticking. No different to a BFR really.

[VH-FTS]

More advice from jas24zzk - the most 'experienced' inexperienced pilot on pprune. You're not Planky with a new handle by any chance?

What are you doing sitting in on a renewal? Or did you make that scenario up while bashing car bodies?

[KRUSTY 34]

On our renewals full use of the automation is a requirement. The hand flown approach criteria is by way of reversionary mode without the flight director.

CHRIST!!! Talk about going from one extreme to the other. But, that's what they want. :uhoh:

[A37575]

But, that's what they want it.

Who are "THEY". The CAO 40.2 test has not changed over the years; the prime purpose being to test the skill of the pilot at instrument flying in IMC. It applies equally to jet transport pilots and light twin pilots. The CAO make no differentiation between them. In other words a test of the pilots pure flying skill - not his skill at playing computer games on an autopilot - despite what automation dependent pilots may think. .

[morno]

If my company believes that testing my skills using automation under the IFR with the odd failure (normally one hand flown approach) thrown in is the way it is to be done, then who am I to argue?

If you have automation, wouldn't an instrument rating be the time to maximise the use of it so the testing officer can see you aren't doing things that'll kill you because you lack the understanding of the automation?

morno

[KRUSTY 34]

You know they, DCA, Dept of Aviation, CAA, CASA!

Geeez A37575, chill a bit! Been doin'n this for a while now. Think I can still pole an aircraft with a reasonable set of hands. :rolleyes:

[RENURPP]

A well managed flight deck with appropriate use of automation, including auto pilot is not as easy as some people may think.

Whilst there is a requirement to demonstrate some basic IF skills, it's up to the testing officer to decide when to fail the autopilot. That may be at the beiginning of an approach, or may be some time prior. A pilot who is on top of his game would "normally" wait until the testing officer fails the Auto pilot. Some peope chose to hand fly the aircraft earlier, normally to their own detriment.

Read some of the threads on automation and You may start to understand when and how it should be used to Benifit air safety. Handflying a modern aircraft is not the norm during IF conditions or during an adnormal. If we are talking about flying a duchess or some other light aircraft well, maybe thats a different scenario, but quite frankly I don't see how.

I suspect these posts are split between GA people and airline type people with a completely different view on what automation is all about.

As for standby instruments, I cannot see any difference between standby instruments on an anologue aircraft or an EFIS aircraft. The aircraftI fly has NO, ZERO round instruments, they are all EFIS. The standby instruments still require and use a different power source, but apart from that, hey are standby instruments and used in a very similar manner. What's the difference?