King Air C90A controllability issues

[PiperCameron]

Here's a good one: "The pilot disengaged the autopilot and hand flew the aircraft resulting in minor controllability issues."

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2024/report/ao-2024-003

Just what sort of training are people getting these days?!? :ugh:

[Ascend Charlie]

Jeez. Looking across the cockpit at the other one must have been too hard. AI still working, Maybe turn off Tracking ? Use trims?

[Michael S]

I get this a little bit different. Looking across the cockpit could potentially be called "minor controllability issue".
Nothing else can be said, based on the quoted text.

[NZFlyingKiwi]

Yes I think it depends on how you interpret the phrase 'minor controllability issues', it could simply be that the pilot's handling was less accurate than usual which I think would be understandable hand flying in IMC while looking across the cockpit for the HSI on the opposite side. I think it's a big call to question the quality of training based on that one single statement.

[Squawk7700]

I was left seat early days in a Seneca 1 on an ILS into Essendon with the all the gear on my side with young instructor on the right, and I was super impressed at his ability to follow it amazingly well from that angle.

There’s a Seinfeld episode where he said from where the passenger is sitting, he’s doing 60 miles an hour and the tank is full, but from where he’s sitting, the tank is empty and he’s sitting in the driveway.

[43Inches]

Yes I think it depends on how you interpret the phrase 'minor controllability issues', it could simply be that the pilot's handling was less accurate than usual which I think would be understandable hand flying in IMC while looking across the cockpit for the HSI on the opposite side. I think it's a big call to question the quality of training based on that one single statement.

Also quality of training would not be a factor if it's a 10,000 hour pilot that trained 30 years ago. Could also be lack of practice of raw data flying, which is creeping more and more into play given the amount of automation in all levels of Aviation. A turboprop captain told me how their co-pilot could not maintain +-400 feet in IMC when they had a primary attitude failure, he had to take over and fly when he'd rather be conducting the checklist and working out what had failed.

I was left seat early days in a Seneca 1 on an ILS into Essendon with the all the gear on my side with young instructor on the right, and I was super impressed at his ability to follow it amazingly well from that angle.

That is what the instructor is trained to do though, flying from the right hand side, pretty much all scans will be cross cockpit in trainers from the RH side.

[Global Aviator]

I’ve been heard to mumble…

Autopilot off, motion coming on!

😁

[PiperCameron]

Also quality of training would not be a factor if it's a 10,000 hour pilot that trained 30 years ago. Could also be lack of practice of raw data flying, which is creeping more and more into play given the amount of automation in all levels of Aviation. A turboprop captain told me how their co-pilot could not maintain +-400 feet in IMC when they had a primary attitude failure, he had to take over and fly when he'd rather be conducting the checklist and working out what had failed.

That didn't lead to an ATSB Incident Investigation though, did it? So what's the go here?? Is the HSI even on the MEL?

..or are Part 135 pilots so fragile these days that the second the autopilot gives up they report it to the ATSB (as if they have nothing better to do)?!? April 1 is a while away yet.

[Capt Fathom]

the second the autopilot gives up they report it to the ATSB

The autopilot did not give up. It was disconnected due to not having a valid lateral mode.
As the aircraft was in operating in Class E Airspace, the pilot would have notified ATC of the Altitude and Tracking issues.

[PiperCameron]

The autopilot did not give up. It was disconnected due to not having a valid lateral mode.
As the aircraft was in operating in Class E Airspace, the pilot would have notified ATC of the Altitude and Tracking issues.

And that was serious enough to warrant an Incident report?? In Class A or C maybe, but unless someone is wanting to make an issue of the piloting skill of the poor unfortunate at the controls, surely there's something else going on here..

[NZFlyingKiwi]

And that was serious enough to warrant an Incident report?? In Class A or C maybe, but unless someone is wanting to make an issue of the piloting skill of the poor unfortunate at the controls, surely there's something else going on here..

With respect, it seems to be you wanting to make an issue of the piloting skills in question. Perhaps it was a slow day at the pilot's company or the ATSB but surely reporting more is preferable to reporting less.

[Mach E Avelli]

And that was serious enough to warrant an Incident report?? In Class A or C maybe, but unless someone is wanting to make an issue of the piloting skill of the poor unfortunate at the controls, surely there's something else going on here..
It may have been reported by an overly zealous Safety Manager. They do occasionally need to be seen reporting events, as a total lack of minor incidents can look a bit sus come audit time. It gives some people the warm fuzzies to have safety meetings etc, and occasional minor reports can create a smokescreen for more serious stuff, which doesn’t always get to the authorities.
(sorry for the cynicism; not making any accusations here, as I know nothing of the operator or even whether they have a safety department, but I have seen this before…)
Or, it could simply be the way the extensive list of Reportable Matters has been interpreted by a diligent pilot. For example, it could be said that when the HSI failed, because the autopilot was unusable, this amounted to a multiple systems failure. Reporting is then a case of CYA, should your friendly CASA FOI be anal.