Instrument Rating Test Fundamental Aims
Thread Starter
Instrument Rating Test Fundamental Aims
If flying an instrument rating test in an aircraft with no autopilot, the applicant has no choice but to hand fly the whole trip on instruments.
On the other hand when undergoing an instrument rating test on an aircraft like a Cirrus or similar type equipped with highly sophisticated state of the art autopilot glass displays and GPS tracking, should the whole flight should be still hand flown as a demonstration of manual instrument flying proficiency? Or is it OK to programme and use the automatic pilot for instrument approaches and en-route navigation tracking. Are there any CASA guide lines on this subject? The command instrument rating test form has not changed in decades but the sophistication of glass cockpit displays in light aircraft certainly have. And a good thing it is, too.
On the other hand when undergoing an instrument rating test on an aircraft like a Cirrus or similar type equipped with highly sophisticated state of the art autopilot glass displays and GPS tracking, should the whole flight should be still hand flown as a demonstration of manual instrument flying proficiency? Or is it OK to programme and use the automatic pilot for instrument approaches and en-route navigation tracking. Are there any CASA guide lines on this subject? The command instrument rating test form has not changed in decades but the sophistication of glass cockpit displays in light aircraft certainly have. And a good thing it is, too.
Last edited by Centaurus; 5th May 2006 at 12:16.
It is my understanding that at least one approach must be hand flown. So you do one by hand just to show you can (and there is the upper airwork, unusual attitudes and steep turns etc all flown by hand.) For the rest of the flight you use the autopilot as much as practical which demonstrates an ability to use the aircraft's systems to lighten your workload.
If it's a multi CIR then any single engine approaches will most likely be hand flown due to the limitations of the autopilot.
If it's a multi CIR then any single engine approaches will most likely be hand flown due to the limitations of the autopilot.
Originally Posted by CAO 40, Appendix I, 2.1C
An autopilot or a coupled approach may be used in the
demonstration of proficiency in instrument approach procedures. However,
the applicant shall also be required to demonstrate proficiency in
instrument approach procedures without the use of the flight director and
without the autopilot engaged in aircraft where this is permitted.
demonstration of proficiency in instrument approach procedures. However,
the applicant shall also be required to demonstrate proficiency in
instrument approach procedures without the use of the flight director and
without the autopilot engaged in aircraft where this is permitted.
Last edited by AerocatS2A; 6th May 2006 at 00:35.
Grandpa Aerotart
IMO use it as a workload tool....when workload is high engage A/P but handfly the rest of the time. i would guess that 60% of an I/R fight test should be handflown. If a candidate uses it too much, as a crutch, fail it for the remainder of the flight. In something like a Cirrus 22 definately no coupled approaches...or if it's desired to demonstrate proficiency at those do one of each coupled and one handflown.
I would guess that in my first 5000 hrs I enjoyed a functioning AP for less than 100 hrs...there are huge benefits to that. When my A/P failed last year halfway between Mittagong and Redcliffe on a pitch black night it was a mere inconveniance rather than life threatening...although the first 10 mins was extremely uncomfortable until old habits long unused resurfaced.
I would guess that in my first 5000 hrs I enjoyed a functioning AP for less than 100 hrs...there are huge benefits to that. When my A/P failed last year halfway between Mittagong and Redcliffe on a pitch black night it was a mere inconveniance rather than life threatening...although the first 10 mins was extremely uncomfortable until old habits long unused resurfaced.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: At home
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I did my initial MECIR flight test, I got to the TOC, did TOC checks and engaged the autopilot for the cruise segment. It was on for no longer than 1 minute when the testing officer told me it had failed (simulated) & had to hand fly the rest of the test. I quite enjoyed it really but then again I find anything to do with flying fun. 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oldie but a goodie -- all equipment is available to you until it fails (or the ATO tells you it has failed).
The ATO, if they are worthy of the name, will brief you on what he/she wants to see in the test. That briefing is important. So listen to it!!!
And don't try to second guess the ATO. Use the equipment you have available to you, within its limitations, until directed otherwise.
The ATO, if they are worthy of the name, will brief you on what he/she wants to see in the test. That briefing is important. So listen to it!!!
And don't try to second guess the ATO. Use the equipment you have available to you, within its limitations, until directed otherwise.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Usually Australia
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Form 645 12/2005 Item 55 - At least one approach without flight director or autopilot.
Combination of FD/FMS/NAV Sensors/Autopilot may create complexities in themselves requiring planning and management coupled with power management and situational awareness. We can get into more trouble with the 'automatics' on RNAV or ILS than the handskills of the NDB approach.
I think that to concentrate solely on hand-flying leaves a question mark over the candidates knowledge of the 'computer based' systems and his/her procedural skill in restoring the 'status quo' when the garbage-in results in garbage-out!
Combination of FD/FMS/NAV Sensors/Autopilot may create complexities in themselves requiring planning and management coupled with power management and situational awareness. We can get into more trouble with the 'automatics' on RNAV or ILS than the handskills of the NDB approach.
I think that to concentrate solely on hand-flying leaves a question mark over the candidates knowledge of the 'computer based' systems and his/her procedural skill in restoring the 'status quo' when the garbage-in results in garbage-out!
Thread Starter
It seems there is one standard of instrument rating test for a light aircraft that is not equipped with an autopilot (the applicant works hard all the way while navigating on basic navaids) and a much less work load for a Cirrus type applicant who locks in the autopilot asap navigating by GPS with ETA's all done automatically and just a couple of manual steep turns.
As a single engine command instrument rating entitles the pilot to fly basic instrument equipped aircraft as well as sophisticated types, perhaps there is a argument for changing the instrument rating test requirements where there is a significant difference in sophistication.
As a single engine command instrument rating entitles the pilot to fly basic instrument equipped aircraft as well as sophisticated types, perhaps there is a argument for changing the instrument rating test requirements where there is a significant difference in sophistication.
Most ATOs worth their weight will 'fail' an autopilot if they believe the pilot is overusing it. I only used mine on flightests for things like briefing the approach etc and I never had it failed, this was suggested to me because if you attempt to 'overuse it' that the ATO will 'fail' it early in the flight and you won't have the use of it at all.
I find it hard to believe these days that a ATO would let you only do one hand flown approach especially for initial issue of a CIR. As Centaurus mentions it's an accident waiting to happen doing a flightest in a all equipped cirrus then finding yourself in a min equipped 25 year old 172 the following day.
I find it hard to believe these days that a ATO would let you only do one hand flown approach especially for initial issue of a CIR. As Centaurus mentions it's an accident waiting to happen doing a flightest in a all equipped cirrus then finding yourself in a min equipped 25 year old 172 the following day.
Originally Posted by puff
I find it hard to believe these days that a ATO would let you only do one hand flown approach especially for initial issue of a CIR. As Centaurus mentions it's an accident waiting to happen doing a flightest in a all equipped cirrus then finding yourself in a min equipped 25 year old 172 the following day.
I have seen someone fail an instrument renewal purely because they had not come to grips with how to use the autopilot. IMO, you need to be able to use ALL of the aircraft's systems in your renewal.
