Logging auto pilot time?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just as another thought especially at high level and if you are lucky enough to have an AOA Gauge that is by far the best. Use the autopilot trim which will allow you to make small adjustments while monitoring the AOA gauge and using that as your guide.
Going to Jets the higher levels are where your concentration is required most and especially in the Citations which are not great climbers in the mid 30s its a matter of coaxing a climb to what you can relevant to weight or levelling , building speed and using that energy to help in a step climb.
But to turn your attention to wind charts at those highly sensitive levels is asking for trouble as the guy in the incident report above found out.
Pace
Going to Jets the higher levels are where your concentration is required most and especially in the Citations which are not great climbers in the mid 30s its a matter of coaxing a climb to what you can relevant to weight or levelling , building speed and using that energy to help in a step climb.
But to turn your attention to wind charts at those highly sensitive levels is asking for trouble as the guy in the incident report above found out.
Pace
Hi Pace
It's understandable that there are differing preferences regarding specific techniques used by pilots when flying airplanes. These differences of opinion have always existed between qualified pilots! I won't say you are wrong in promoting your particular viewpoint on the use of F/D vertical guidance modes any more than I would for your choice of headset or your preferred visual scanning technique during landing. As long as your preferred techniques work effectively for you when you fly, any discussion of technique is strictly academic. Perhaps anyone reading these opinions will benefit from considering the relative merits and risks associated with the techniques being promoted or criticized.
All I'm trying to say is no matter what auto mode is selected, there are ways they can get you in trouble if they aren't monitored properly. If the pilot(s) aren't in the control loop then they'd better be an "active" observer, ready to intervene at any time. Can FLC mode get you in trouble? How about IAS hold or mach hold? I've seen a couple of wakethehellup moments in several of the available F/D modes. So yeah I trust the automation... To exactly the degree I'm able to verify it's performance.
I guess the objection I have to the "VS kills" argument is the inherent implication that somehow, other modes can't or won't wreck you day too. To me the best policy is to understand ALL modes behavior well and to develop and maintain monitoring habit patterns that will detect any deviation from expected performance with a very high degree of reliability.
In matters of personal technique, to each their own I say. In an overly rigid SOP environment, there may be edicts which depart the SOP arena and infringe pretty deeply into the personal technique arena. I'm aware of their their reasoning. But as I'm sure you know Pace, in the smaller corporate and charter sector, the difference between the two is more recognizable and more of the hazard versus benefit policy decisions are left to the pilots. I have no problem with your individual preference. I would just like to share my observation that other auto modes can lead one into traps as well. Consistent and effective scan and correct mentality is the only known effective way to prevent mode mismalglement from ruining your day.
And just to add something specifically related to the OP:
The logging of pilot flight time is a separate issue to the actual level of experience and skills gained. PIC time is the amount of time you were in command of the flight. Command includes but is not limited to the supervision of other crewmembers and the operation of all aircraft systems. All time spent acting as the PIC is logged as PIC time. US FARs also allow the logging of PIC time while the sole manipulator of the controls. (that includes while operating the autopilot)
Productive discussion is always a welcome sight on this site.
regards,
westhawk
It's understandable that there are differing preferences regarding specific techniques used by pilots when flying airplanes. These differences of opinion have always existed between qualified pilots! I won't say you are wrong in promoting your particular viewpoint on the use of F/D vertical guidance modes any more than I would for your choice of headset or your preferred visual scanning technique during landing. As long as your preferred techniques work effectively for you when you fly, any discussion of technique is strictly academic. Perhaps anyone reading these opinions will benefit from considering the relative merits and risks associated with the techniques being promoted or criticized.
All I'm trying to say is no matter what auto mode is selected, there are ways they can get you in trouble if they aren't monitored properly. If the pilot(s) aren't in the control loop then they'd better be an "active" observer, ready to intervene at any time. Can FLC mode get you in trouble? How about IAS hold or mach hold? I've seen a couple of wakethehellup moments in several of the available F/D modes. So yeah I trust the automation... To exactly the degree I'm able to verify it's performance.
I guess the objection I have to the "VS kills" argument is the inherent implication that somehow, other modes can't or won't wreck you day too. To me the best policy is to understand ALL modes behavior well and to develop and maintain monitoring habit patterns that will detect any deviation from expected performance with a very high degree of reliability.
In matters of personal technique, to each their own I say. In an overly rigid SOP environment, there may be edicts which depart the SOP arena and infringe pretty deeply into the personal technique arena. I'm aware of their their reasoning. But as I'm sure you know Pace, in the smaller corporate and charter sector, the difference between the two is more recognizable and more of the hazard versus benefit policy decisions are left to the pilots. I have no problem with your individual preference. I would just like to share my observation that other auto modes can lead one into traps as well. Consistent and effective scan and correct mentality is the only known effective way to prevent mode mismalglement from ruining your day.
And just to add something specifically related to the OP:
The logging of pilot flight time is a separate issue to the actual level of experience and skills gained. PIC time is the amount of time you were in command of the flight. Command includes but is not limited to the supervision of other crewmembers and the operation of all aircraft systems. All time spent acting as the PIC is logged as PIC time. US FARs also allow the logging of PIC time while the sole manipulator of the controls. (that includes while operating the autopilot)
Productive discussion is always a welcome sight on this site.
regards,
westhawk
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: EU
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone who spends 99% of the time monitoring an autopilot will almost definitely not have the same hand flying skills/currency as someone who never uses one, but as to whether or not the autopilot hours should be logged - it could get really nitty gritty.
I used to fly airplanes some of which had working autopilots, but the things were SO liable to under perform or malfunction that you had to monitor everything just as closely as you would from flying without it and be ready to intervene at any time. This is very different (technically it shouldn't be but being real here) from the autopilot on a modern jet aircraft (as an example, I am sure many lighter aircraft have good automatics too) in which you could engage it after flap retraction and then go to sleep until time to configure for landing more or less, perhaps waking up to reset the MCP at top of descent.
I used to fly airplanes some of which had working autopilots, but the things were SO liable to under perform or malfunction that you had to monitor everything just as closely as you would from flying without it and be ready to intervene at any time. This is very different (technically it shouldn't be but being real here) from the autopilot on a modern jet aircraft (as an example, I am sure many lighter aircraft have good automatics too) in which you could engage it after flap retraction and then go to sleep until time to configure for landing more or less, perhaps waking up to reset the MCP at top of descent.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: PNW
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It takes a fair bit of know-how to properly manage aircraft systems, autopilot included. I wish I had an autopilot; all of my IMC flight has been hand flown, every last bit of it.
No question that you'd log it as PIC, not in my mind. Also no question that it will do a better job for the folks in the back on bigger iron.
My only autopilot misadventure was a bit alarming. I was flying a twin comanche and the servo aileron cable had somehow gotten wound into one of the pulleys and effectively jammed the controls up somewhat. It limited the right aileron to just a few degrees, maybe 5% of normal. I flew a big pattern to avoid any need for right correction and landed, but an engine failure would have been an extra bit of drama I am sure.
No question that you'd log it as PIC, not in my mind. Also no question that it will do a better job for the folks in the back on bigger iron.
My only autopilot misadventure was a bit alarming. I was flying a twin comanche and the servo aileron cable had somehow gotten wound into one of the pulleys and effectively jammed the controls up somewhat. It limited the right aileron to just a few degrees, maybe 5% of normal. I flew a big pattern to avoid any need for right correction and landed, but an engine failure would have been an extra bit of drama I am sure.
Someone who spends 99% of the time monitoring an autopilot will almost definitely not have the same hand flying skills/currency as someone who never uses one
Anyway there's no one size fits all solution to the problem of automation dependency or manual skills degradation. Each organization has it's own policies and SOPs so individual pilots will just have to do the most they can within those constraints. It IS important that they do all they can.
westhawk
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
West Hawk
Obviously in RVSM airspace you have to fly on auto and to a certain extent you want to make the ride as smooth as possible so will use the autopilot.
Using the autopilot but monitoring it at all times still frees up brain capacity for other work especially in something like a jet which travels quickly.
Nevertheless on simpler departures we make it a habit of hand flying maybe up to FL280 and then engaging autopilot from there. It depends on the situation weather etc but its good practice to keep those hand flying skills honed.
flying mainly older generation Citations few have had totally reliable autopilots so you will tend to know its odd behaviour and be more aware than maybe a pilot flying a recent jet which is 100% relied on.
the same goes for small pistons you can get a Cirrus with an all singing and dancing array of pilot aids. There have been many who have used that aircraft capability to compensate for their own lack of skills and that is where the danger lies.
older varieties have everything from pure wing levellers to very unreliable behaviour and those require much more pilot intervention and monitoring
Pace
Obviously in RVSM airspace you have to fly on auto and to a certain extent you want to make the ride as smooth as possible so will use the autopilot.
Using the autopilot but monitoring it at all times still frees up brain capacity for other work especially in something like a jet which travels quickly.
Nevertheless on simpler departures we make it a habit of hand flying maybe up to FL280 and then engaging autopilot from there. It depends on the situation weather etc but its good practice to keep those hand flying skills honed.
flying mainly older generation Citations few have had totally reliable autopilots so you will tend to know its odd behaviour and be more aware than maybe a pilot flying a recent jet which is 100% relied on.
the same goes for small pistons you can get a Cirrus with an all singing and dancing array of pilot aids. There have been many who have used that aircraft capability to compensate for their own lack of skills and that is where the danger lies.
older varieties have everything from pure wing levellers to very unreliable behaviour and those require much more pilot intervention and monitoring
Pace
Pace
So flying with the most appropriate level of automation to meet the current circumstances is usually the best course of action then. Agreed?
The circumstances to consider may be numerous indeed. Among them though are a few things we might want to consider:
1) How much spare workload capacity do we need to "free up" right now versus how much do we need the "work" to maintain manual proficiency?
2) How able are we to perform at a high level right now versus just wanting to reduce the likelihood of ending up feeling a little too "challenged"?
3) What kind of performance can we expect from the automation? Is it more work and/or are there more potential "traps" using a particular level or mode of automation versus other modes including 100% manual?
4) Regulatory, MEL, company policy or fellow crewmember or pax comfort considerations.
Obviously these priorities are ordered according to some combination of policy and judgment, depending upon the type of flight organization. They won't be identical in every operation or circumstance. In a private operation, it's pretty much the airmanship of the pilot(s) which must be relied upon to answer any questions regarding competing priorities. In a highly structured airline environment, much may be determined according to company policy. Similar to automation itself, decision-making authority has multiple levels and modes according to where you work. But the responsibility remains with the PIC when things go wrong. It's good to be King eh?
Similar to your experiences Pace, I have spent a fair amount of time flying some older planes with quirky automation. To tell the complete and unvarnished truth I really enjoyed it that way because you can really see the subtle differences between skillful flying and just going through the motions. It just feels good to do something skillfully. Especially if it doesn't come easily. But alas, professional flying sometimes requires a certain amount of submission to policy. And sometimes the higher level of automation is the best/safest course of action. Still, if someone would pay me a decent living wage to do it, I'd be perfectly happy hand flying a Super Cub on floats below 500'AGL for the rest of my days! That's still some of the most enjoyable and gratifying flying I've ever done. But then, there's some pretty interesting flying to be done in bizjets too. Automation or not, multi-crew or not, it's all flying. And flying is GOOD! I hope you all enjoy yours everyone, no matter what kind of plane and regardless of how you log it.
westhawk
So flying with the most appropriate level of automation to meet the current circumstances is usually the best course of action then. Agreed?
The circumstances to consider may be numerous indeed. Among them though are a few things we might want to consider:
1) How much spare workload capacity do we need to "free up" right now versus how much do we need the "work" to maintain manual proficiency?
2) How able are we to perform at a high level right now versus just wanting to reduce the likelihood of ending up feeling a little too "challenged"?
3) What kind of performance can we expect from the automation? Is it more work and/or are there more potential "traps" using a particular level or mode of automation versus other modes including 100% manual?
4) Regulatory, MEL, company policy or fellow crewmember or pax comfort considerations.
Obviously these priorities are ordered according to some combination of policy and judgment, depending upon the type of flight organization. They won't be identical in every operation or circumstance. In a private operation, it's pretty much the airmanship of the pilot(s) which must be relied upon to answer any questions regarding competing priorities. In a highly structured airline environment, much may be determined according to company policy. Similar to automation itself, decision-making authority has multiple levels and modes according to where you work. But the responsibility remains with the PIC when things go wrong. It's good to be King eh?
Similar to your experiences Pace, I have spent a fair amount of time flying some older planes with quirky automation. To tell the complete and unvarnished truth I really enjoyed it that way because you can really see the subtle differences between skillful flying and just going through the motions. It just feels good to do something skillfully. Especially if it doesn't come easily. But alas, professional flying sometimes requires a certain amount of submission to policy. And sometimes the higher level of automation is the best/safest course of action. Still, if someone would pay me a decent living wage to do it, I'd be perfectly happy hand flying a Super Cub on floats below 500'AGL for the rest of my days! That's still some of the most enjoyable and gratifying flying I've ever done. But then, there's some pretty interesting flying to be done in bizjets too. Automation or not, multi-crew or not, it's all flying. And flying is GOOD! I hope you all enjoy yours everyone, no matter what kind of plane and regardless of how you log it.
westhawk
