Use of A/P in BiZ flying

[M.85]

Dear All,

I doubt this topic earns a thread but I was wondering if the use of AutoPilots is as stringent as in the Airlines.
Can one pilot enjoy more the hand flying flying biz jets than in major Airlines?
Are the SOPs strict on it,ie A/P at 400 AGL..

Safe Flying,

M.85

[4HolerPoler]

Corporate aviation is, generally, not nearly as tightly controlled as the airlines in a sense of "what you do when." I'm sure the bigger outfits have a policy but in general you do what makes the most sense - if it's a nice day fly the baby; if it's a bad day or if it's busy let the A/P do the work.

That's the way I see it.

4HP

[M.85]

thanks for the info:ok:

M.85

[M.85]

Doesnt the use of an autopilot require more work?
Having flown without A/P all my life except during my last type rating,isnt "turning the knobs",making sure the A/P does the right thing and stays in the good mode(FMA scan) more asking than simply flying the thing yourself?
I believe long distances and high altitude flying must require the A/P for accuracy (ie proximity between low speed stall and Mack tuck)but in the other hand,flying the bird allows you to stay in the loop wether you want it or not ?

M.85:hmm:

[The Jetlag Kid]

Hey guys, I'm new to this forum, but I enjoy participating in discussions like these.

For what it's worth, here is the basic philosophy of our flight department...

The autopilot, like any other tool at our disposal, can be properly used and it can also be dangerously abused. As professionals, we would like to believe that we can all hand fly all the various types of approaches down to their respective minimums correctly and proficiently without any type of aid - flight director, autopilot, etc. If we can't do that, then we need to either get more training or change professions - period. That being said, we spend great sums of money to provide redundancies for nearly every system on our aircraft - multi engines, dual this, triple that, etc., etc. When we hand fly an ILS approach down to minimums, what redundancy to we have in case of "pilot failure"? If the PNF is doing his job is he going to be able to effectively take the controls in the case of a botched approach? Obviously not, and even if he were able to, is solid IFR at 200' AGL and with a 700 fpm sink rate the time and place to be making those types of changes?

I believe that we can and should hand fly all of the "high and mid" minimums approaches we want, but when the ceiling gets below 500 feet and the visibility gets below a mile couple it up and let the autopilot do its thing. We then become the backup to the autopilot and we have injected an element of redundancy into the operation. In that rare case that the autopilot messes up and gets us sideways to the world, relief is only a click of the button away. In the mean time, you've been able to watch and monitor the approach while covering the controls. If it ever becomes necessary, the transition is both instantaneous and seamless. In reality, how many time per year do we actually fly approached right down to minimums? Not very many. I'd say that we actually run more of a chance to have a pilot screwup than an autopilot failure.

We've all flown with those hairy chested pilots who say that "real" pilots don't use auto pilots. I'm sorry, I don't buy it. Real pilots know when to use them and when not to and we're just not talking during approaches either. There are other times when we probably have no business hand flying our high performance turbine-powered aircraft. For example, below 10,000' MSL on VFR days. Can you really hand fly your aircraft while maintaining an adequate watch for traffic?

The Jetlag Kid

[M.85]

Mike,

I know theres more than that..
I am just saying that some "airlines" lie my ex one doesnt have the cash and or the will to fit autopilots in..and an F/o for the same reason.
Flying down to the minimums and under(Radalt set to 100ft) was a daily routine in the midwest...which made the 200ft or 300ft a laughing,a smile on our faces...
I was trained to fly in a certain way but not to operate like it is the case in most of the airlines nowadays..therefore I had some problems getting used to the A/P,2 crew approach thing.
Just like a guy who started to fly in fully automated jets from the very first day would have problems(kind of risky)flying 19 seats turboprop by himelsef in well known nasty weather conditions.
Its true to say that crews should be able to hand fly on line as much as they can until the minima may become too low...i couldnt fly cat 3 approaches with only 2 eyes..eventhough we were trained more as a fun thing to do,to autoland our a/C...yes just pitch up ever so slightly when the glideslope starts to flicker about...never tried it on line though.i was stupid but not crazy...

I have now to learn and hopefully soon,how to operate and use the A/P as much as one can just to understand its limitations just like one learns to know his own limits..5kt tailwind may make the difference between landing and having to go somewhere else..

Safe Flying,

M.85

[The Jetlag Kid]

I don't care who you are, the autopilot will out fly you any day of the week. A long time ago, I remember reading about Eastern Airlines. They were one of the last holdouts among the American airline companies to install autopilots on their airliners. After all, why pay good money for an autopilot when you had two pilots on board that had nothing else to do? They did a study and determined that they could save at least 6% on their fuel bills if the autopilot flew the airplane as opposed to their best "stick & rudder" guys.

It's almost a mute point nowadays any way. Now that we're dealing with RVSM we MUST have a functioning autopilot and use it if we want to get up in RVSM airspace.

One of my aeronautical pet peeves are those folks who say "Real pilots don't use autopilots!" As a wise man once said, "Monkey Muffins!" If you're not comfortable with the autopilot (and the FMS) get out the manuals, read and study them, and CAFEFULLY experiment with their usage on VFR legs. If you are using any equipment that I'm familiar with (particularily Universal UNS1-C FMSes) send me an e-mail and I'll forward some training materials that I put to gether when I was the company EFAS and FMS Training Captain. I have also helped FlightSafety put together a Training Syllabus for the Collins Proline IV / Universal UNS1-C combo on the Gulfstream G100 / G200.

The Jetlag Kid

[M.85]

JETLAG,

I must say that you are absolutely right.An A/P flies better than any human(except when LNAV via the flight director sends you the opposit direction..i know i know thats why raw data is used..)
Of course they allow the airline to save on fuel and i dont and never will deny it.
My point was merely to initiate a debate on the prons and cons of A/P versus Handflying.
I just thought reading a whole manual about FMC...very boring..(not enough pictures!),but I agree that every flight crew should know his A/C the best he can,including its automatic modes-if fitted-.
I am having a hard time reading the manual as im not currently flying,I would call it a lack of motivation..

Safe Flying,

M.85

[The Jetlag Kid]

M.85...
There are many things in the cockpit which are improperly or mis-used. Perhaps one of the biggest offenders is the common everyday FMS. Properly used, they provide greatly enhanced situational awareness and have the potential to greatly simply the various instrument maneuvers and approach procedures. Improperly used, there is probably no greater “distracter” in the cockpit. As pilots, we've been given a wide range of tools - flight directors, the various types of radio navigational aids, FMSes, autopilots, weather radar, etc. - to make our in-flight life easier and our flights safer. It is not enough just to have them on the airplane, you have to be proficient in their use - otherwise you'd probably be better off not even turning them on. This is where the "rub" comes in. Historically in aviation, there have been certain things that were passed down from the salty old "gray haired" Captain to the "pimply faced" Co-pilot. Training on things like weather radar, autopilot, etc. was seldom if ever covered in any type of formal training - you just sat in your seat and watched the "master" at work – hopefully, it rubbed off on you sooner or later. That system perhaps worked in the past, but in today's world of glass cockpits and automated cockpits it's woefully and dangerously inadequate. The problem is that there is only one real way to learn how to use our FMS's - and that is to use them. I've been to the factory schools and I've got the computer training software and it certainly helps, but the bottom line is this: You've got to use the boxes in a dynamic flight environment to become "fluent" with them. The time to figure out how to use the boxes isn't after you've been cleared for the approach.

I’ve also discovered that individual FMS's are very aircraft specific. In my last company, at one point, they had five aircraft - a King Air 350, a couple of Astra SP's, an Astra SPX, and a Gulfstream G200. Each was equipped with dual Universal UNS-IC's. On the surface, it would seem simple enough – you just have to learn how to operate the UNS-IC and the problem is solved. Certain things like point-to-point long-range navigation operation are the same in each of our aircraft. However, there is a big difference in the capabilities and operational "set up" for the advanced functions such as flying the various types of approaches. Here is the problem - the FMS's are software driven and each software version has its own particular capabilities (and quirks). Additionally, the way the FMS's interface with each particular aircraft flight control system determines what capabilities the entire "system" has. Although each aircraft had dual UNS1-Cs coupled to Collins autopilots, you ended up with a King Air that can do "this" but not "that", an SPX and a Galaxy that can do "that" but not "this", and a couple of Astra SPs that can do both "this" and "that". It gets pretty confusing and I ended up creating an FMS Approach Setup Checklist specifically for the Astra SPX / Gulfstream G100 / G200 to help you remember what the FMSes are capable of doing and how to set them up properly.

Some pilots are more than happy using the box for nothing more than point-to-point enroute navigation and there's nothing wrong with that. Personally, I subscribe to the theory that you aren't the master of the aircraft until you're the master of the aircraft's avionics and for that matter, every other system on the airplane.

I agree with you, the FMS's Pilot's Manual, are a joke, they all seem to be written at the Electrical Engineering PhD level.) Basically, you just have to use the "box". Practice setting up and flying the various approaches on VFR, legs, but DON'T forget you're in an airplane and you've got to fly the airplane not the box. You will make mistakes and the boxes will "bite" you, but you'll eventually get them figured out and their proper operation will become second nature to you. It's really no different than what a pilot goes through when flying his/her EFIS equipped airplane. Remember how cluttered and confusing that TV tube could get?

We frequently used contract pilots in our operation. A while back, I had the opportunity to fly with one who subscribed to the theory that "real" pilots don’t use autopilots. It was his leg and we were departing one of the Los Angeles area airports. It was one of those “minimum VFR" days and every Tom, Dick, and Harry was out in his little Cessna or Piper. This guy did a masterful job of hand flying the Departure Procedure and working with ATC. The problem was that he had his head buried in the cockpit flying the airplane and not looking outside. We have all flown with those hairy chested pilots who say that "real" pilots don't use autopilots. These are the guys who compulsively and habitually hand-fly the airplane at all times except during cruise, including all approaches. I'm sorry, I don't buy it. Real pilots know when to use autopilots and when it’s best not to. We're just not talking during approaches either. There are other times when we probably have no business hand flying our high performance turbine-powered aircraft. For example, in the Phoenix/Scottsdale area or L.A. basin, below 10,000' MSL on VFR days. Can you really hand fly your high performance turbojet aircraft while maintaining an adequate watch for traffic or are you one of those guys who puts 100% faith in his TCAS or ATC? Remember, the basis for traffic separation is still “see and be seen”.

OK, enough of that. I'll get off my soap box.

By the way, what airplane are you flying?

The Jetlag Kid

[Latte tester]

if the aircraft is equipped with the good stuff then use it, if you want to hand fly then do so, but if your seemingly smooth flying upsets the boss, then be prepared to find another job. He, or she paid lots of money for the technology and you should be confident in it's operation to avoid wrong turns etc.
"...what's it doing now?"...commonly heard on CVR's prior to impact is proof that maybe hand flying on approach is the way to go. I fly a new technology jet with everything in it and I use it.
Passenger comfort and safety should dictate when you, the human, take control.

...latte time...

[madherb]

Great thread! Lots of interesting opinions. Here's mine FWIW: Hand-fly (in good Wx, and simple SIDs, VFR approaches etc) approx. 1/3 of the time; fly the A/P through the buttons another 1/3, and the remaining 1/3 (as well as in REAL bad stuff, e.g. tricky SID/STAR situations, low ceilings, "black hole" approaches) - let the full automation help!

I think Lufthansa has the same philosophy.

I still get a great thrill from hauling heavy metal around the circuit, and doing the hand-flying bit when it is sensible to do so...........hope I never get tired of it.

Cheers :ok:

[M.85]

Dear Jetlag,

Thank you again for your very interesting posts.
I realise and know for a fact that looking outside is a MUST that no pilot can ever overlook.Damn,why do we do this job if its not to enjoy the view???You must know by now that im not crazy about FMS/FMCS...eventhough EFIS look great and allows you to fly(Thanks to this majestuous white line which gives you your ground track)Ndb approaches like ILS!!!
I remember giving enroute training to a fellow from Italy,one who bought a type.He flew nicely but a day out of Springfield,busy scanning inside and flying within one degree(PURE VFR day)he was about to fly us in a single towering cumulus..that just happened to be in our path..could avoid it by a mere 10 degrees heading change..i waited until the last moment..i like the plane to be cleaned by rain sometimes but i didnt feel to get bounced around that night...
He learned from is mistake,and started to scan the wonderful oustide world little by little...
Even if no A/P..a trimmed A/C will fly very well and let you enjoy a nice coffee and a view of people stuck in their cars going to work down on earth..

To answer your question,I WAS flying SA227 and Be1900 when the first one was due for inspection or had too many wrong things going for it.

Im ready to accept the modernity of aviation but i need to be given the chance first..

Safe Flying,

M.85