Unpressurised scheduled passenger transport?

[IO540]

Life's a Beech

I have a CPL/IR but am not a commercial pilot ... but this is a pilot forum so no harm in asking!

I agree that 1500+hrs (all done on the type and with high currency) makes you a much better pilot than the same individual with 300hrs done mostly on a Cessna 152, but if you think this compensates for the lack of an autopilot then we just have to disagree.

I would agree that if you do short legs, often scud running at 700ft or whatever, then some cr*ppy knackered old AP (I have seen the insides of these old dogs and those I have seen really did look ready for the scrapyard) with no redundancy is probably more of a liability than an asset during normal operations. A pitch servo failure would have you heading for the water in seconds. But if there is an emergency or some other high workload situation one is always glad to have one.

[Life's a Beech]

I disagree. In the few emergencies I have had in all sorts of situations the only thing I need are my training and experience and the help of ATC. This is largely the basis of some of the training you will not have had if you are not a commercial pilot, the CRM course. I use autopilot for the cruise to avoid fatigue and leave me free to shuffle paper.

In fact in many really urgent emergencies I would switch the autopilot off until the situation stabilised, for various reasons depending on the emergency, for example in case control loads get beyond it and it suddenly trips, leaving me with an uncontrollable aircraft all of a sudden. Can you suggest an emergency in which an autopilot is really that helpful?

An autopilot is not vital to normal operations to an experienced pilot even on a long cruise at altitude. You should know this if you have an IR, as you are trained to fly like that! My point is that on the sectors flown in Islanders and Trislanders I would not even miss it, and will often fly without using it when I fly such short legs. Anyone operating longer legs commercially would have an autopilot.

[Say again s l o w l y]

This is going way off topic, but I can think of many emergencies where I would keep the autopilot in and manage the situation first, rather than trying to fly the machine and deal with the problem identification and then solution at the same time.

Dealing with emergencies is about using all resources at your disposal and there are many that would include using the AP. There are some where your first action would be to kick the AP out immediately. Not capturing a level for instance (though I'd hardly call that an emergency!).

Basic autopilots can't handle much, but the sophisticated ones of the last few years are pretty good and really help you out when the workload gets high.

Not as much as having someone else sitting next to you though!

[Life's a Beech]

Yes I can think of emergencies where I would leave the autopilot on, but that is not the point. I cannot think of any where lack of AP is important to the outcome of the emergency in the hands of an experienced, current pilot who correctly use the resources available (e.g. he trims the aircraft and tells ATC what is happening so they keep him clear of other traffic and help him with navigation and diversion if required, as we are taught in the CRM course). Hence I would say that the experience overcomes the need for the autopilot, which is the discussion.

I think it is on topic, because it relates directly to IO540's contention that single-crew IFR flying is not safe.

As far as I can see from experience in the job the autopilot requirements for single-crew IFR are for normal operations, not for emergencies. A lot of the help the AP gives you, such as relief from fatigue and the ability to take time to navigate, goes out of the window in most emergencies.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Single crew IFR is more dangerous than multi-crew. That is obvious and well proven and unfortunately even highly experienced pilots continue to kill themselves whilst flying this way.

I have done flown single crew and multi crew and I know which I prefer. Multi crew flying has so many safety advantages over single pilot ops.

In airline flying you are often told to think of the autopilot as another member of the crew (A cranky and occasionally obstinate member sometimes it seems!). In fact it frees up the PNF to do other duties when it goes in. ie when the PF is handflying, the PNF is monitoring them, but when the AP is in, the PF is monitoring the AP and the PNF whilst keeping a watching brief can get on with paperwork or dealing with the cabin etc.etc. That's CRM, using all the resources available to ensure the flight goes smoothly.

I think single crew IFR should always be done with a serviceable autopilot and I really wouldn't want to do it myself without one. If a 1500hr pilot is seen in this example as experienced, then I must be an old salt by now and I would be very loath to go off on a crappy night in a light twin without some form of back up other than my experience. Too many AAIB reports prove that to me.

Most CRM courses are just about how to work with your fellow crew members, rather than telling you how to operate the machine. Stuff all use to the average air taxi pilot really.

[Life's a Beech]

Of course multi-crew flying, correctly organised and trained, is safer, and I like it when I do fly with another pilot. However that really is off topic, as the discussion here is about single-crew IFR as a safe form of transport in itself, not as a comparrison with multi-crew. That multi-crew is even safer does not mean that single-crew IFR is inherently unsafe!

I would agree also that I want an autopilot, of course I cannot fly public-transport without it, but again that is off-topic because I don't just fly familiar, short routes. If I was doing then the autopilot becomes a lot less relevant. The CAA recognises this.

[IO540]

Can you suggest an emergency in which an autopilot is really that helpful?

Any high workload situation where the autopilot is functional and safe to use, e.g

- heavy ATC workload
- sudden procedure change e.g. a new STAR/approach given at last minute due to wind/rwy change
- flying a complicated vert/hor route
- attending a sick or distressed passenger
- attending any other cockpit issue e.g. tangled oxygen pipes, or (you will like this one) changing over the oxygen bottle
- having a wee
- having a wee, and the bottle cap has fallen on the floor
- flying a 7hr leg?
- not being a macho man with a hairy chest
- etc etc etc

To state the converse is saying that a higher workload is more safe, which is utterly wrong. Which is not to say I have never come across that attitude among many pilots, but I am trying to keep this technical. Shedding excess workload is a vital safety measure.

I would not use the AP:

- if it has failed (obviously)
- in heavy turbulence (it will likely disconnect anyway)
- with a vac failure (mine uses the #1 horizon which is vac driven)
- in heavy icing (control surfaces could freeze up & not be obvious)
- any control surface problem

However, re #2 above, the objective is to keep wings level and maintain pitch attitude (only), and mine does have that mode.

I don't for a moment have a problem with not having one on a short scud run but to say they are a liability generally ????

[Life's a Beech]

Most of those are not relevant to emergencies. They are either a normal part of everyday flying where I would often use an autopilot, but mostly not relevant at all to BN-2 operations.

Heavy ATC workload is normal in southe-east England, but it is remarkable how it suddenly clears with the words "Mayday, Mayday, Mayday", if you are considering an emergency situation.

Sudden changes of routing are part of my daily work, although less so for the short-hop scheduled boys. They also seem to give multi-crew as much trouble as any pilot I would sign a line check on if the radio is anything to go by. If necessary direction can be requested from ATC, and they are sympathetic when reminded we are single-crew. Good CRM.

Flying complicated vertical and horizontal routes is again routine in England. Nothing special, just keep the plog up-to-date and if given an unexpected waypoint ask for vectors (as I have heard multi-crew pilots with full FMS do!). Hard work, but hardly an emergency.

Sick and distressed passengers cannot easily be helped on a short route more than being landed ASAP. Emergency call if necessary, but autopilot no help.

Oxygen pipes in an Islander? Have you seen one? Does it look like it is worth flying above FL100, remembering that unlike me it doesn't even have turbo-charged engines?

Having a wee and 7-hour legs fall to the same objection: not only can no BN2 fly long enough to require this (even our longest-range aircraft cannot fly for 7 hours with reserves for public transport) it is never used for long legs, as no-one would get on one again after experiencing more than 45 minutes in one. Oh, and last time I had to have a wee in the air I had to fly the aircraft, due to turbulence.

I am not saying that a high workload is more safe. I am saying that in some circumstances the pilot should be flying the aircraft, so he knows what is happening to it. I never said APs were a liability, I said I will usually use one, I simply said that the reason I do is not to do with emergencies, and in many emergencies (I would include anything that affects handling, including an engine failure) I would want to be flying the aircraft until I have stabilised the situation. In the case of a BN2 I would be pretty much on the ground by then: they don't go far from the nearest suitable.